First it was renewed interest in The Da Vinci Code because of a court case and the upcoming release of the movie, and now the bluster and confusion generated by the mainstream media over The Gospel of Judas have combined to leave me in a bit of a funk. All of this happening during the time we celebrate Easter detracts from the message we are to take from the events that happened about 2000 years ago. Add to this my shock that a country which wants to think of itself as sophisticated and literate has been taken in by a mediocre book and an ancient Gnostic document. The knowledge of history and religious thought (though apparently not religious experience) has reached such a low level that anything the media discusses really frightens me. I hope that the next few postings will in some small way provide a source for correction in how people think about these things as well as relay my own view of Easter and its significance.
The fun starts tomorrow.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Saturday, April 01, 2006
No Place Is Safe In NPR Land
I generally do not listen to what passes for news on National Public Radio. My moments of listening on FM 89.5 are often resticted to Car Talk, A Way with Words, and sometimes A Prarie Home Companion (yeah, I know Garrison Kiellor is more than just a bit liberal politically but he still produces a fine show). But the so-called news on NPR I tend to avoid. That's why this morning I thought listening to Only a Game would be safe (I mean, what does NPR actually know about sports? Not much if you have listened to the show). At first I thought I was in for a fun time when they went to an interview with Thomas Hackett, author of "Slaphappy: Pride, Prejudice, and Professional Wrestling". Now for those of you who didn't know it, I used to be a big fan of professional wresting (or as my friend Gregg taught me to say, professional "wrasslin'" to distinguish it from Greco-Roman wresting... we even attempted a game based on the WWF which we called "Wrasslin'"). Boy, was I in for a shock. Now I know that they were going to bash the "red state" people who watch it, I'm used to that, but the way they went about trying to display their supposed superior intellect was appalling! The interviewer asked Mr. Hackett the following: "In a world where investment professionals don't bother to investigate Enron's fantastic claims and where a former body builder gets elected governor of California essentially on the strength of the celebrity he gained by taking steriods, it really isn't fair to characterize pro-wresting as phoney. Have I got that argument right?" Now had someone said something like that to me I would have done a pile-driver on them right then and there with their face winding up smashed into a copy of Aristotle. But Mr. Hackett, being an author who is invited to speak on an NPR show, said "Well, I mean, it's phoney in the way pretty much everything else is phoney." Huh? First off, what kind of argument is that presented by the interviewer? It certainly doesn't fit with any known valid structure. In fact, his premises are not only false (investment professionals DID investigate the claims of Enron, some saying it was all a house of cards, and while some were just greedy, some were out-and-out stupid and didn't understand what was going on), they make no sense (what the heck is he saying about Arnold, whose celebrity didn't come from taking steroids, and how does it tie into Enron). And just how do his two statements tie into whether or not professional "wrasslin'" is "real" or "phoney"? And what does Mr. Hackett mean saying everything is phoney? Is he advocating some type of solipsism? *sigh* The entire interview is like that. At one point the language they use about "The Rock" indicated they do not consider him a "real celebrity", and at another place in the show that people who believe professional wrestling is "real" are just like those who believe in religion, unwilling to give up cherished beliefs in the face of "solid facts" (it's amazing how NPR shows go out of their way to try to show those of us who have genuine beliefs in God, the Bible, and a life after death as wacky non-intellectual boobs). Now if they had wanted to indicate they don't think he is a "real athlete", they might be able to come up with an arugment based on how they define their words, but who could say with a straight face that "The Rock" isn't a celebrity?! Can't they even do a simple, straightforward interview without getting sidetracked into lefty land? I guess I have to be even MORE vigilant... and Mr. Rock, you ARE a celebrity.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Letting Someone Else Speak
Tonight I take a break from writing my own thoughts and will allow a voice from the past to speak to you. It's amazing how knowing a little history allows you to see reoccurring patterns within society and civilization as a whole and one of my greatest joys is to find quotes from great men and women of the past to address our current siutation. So, for your edification and for my own pleasure, I am happy to turn this small platform over to a great American, President Theodore Roosevelt.
"We are face to face with our destiny and we must meet it with a high and resolute courage."
"Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."
"It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it is the way in which we use it."
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life."
"Our country offers the most wonderful example of democratic government on a giant scale that the world has ever seen; and the peoples of the world are watching to see whether we succeed or fail... We believe in all our heartsin democracy; in the capacity of the people to govern themselves; and we are bound to succeed, for our success means not only our own triumph, but the triumph of the cause of the rights of the people throughout the world, and the uplifting of the banner of hope for all the nations of "
"We cannot do great deeds unless we are willing to do the small things that make up the sum of greatness."
"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs... It is both foolish and wicked to teach the average man who is not well off that some wrong or injustice has been done him, and that he should hope for redress elsewhere than in his own industry, honesty, and intelligence."
"Success, the real success, does not depend upon the position you hold but upon how you carry yourself in that position. "
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.
For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic. "
"We are face to face with our destiny and we must meet it with a high and resolute courage."
"Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."
"It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it is the way in which we use it."
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life."
"Our country offers the most wonderful example of democratic government on a giant scale that the world has ever seen; and the peoples of the world are watching to see whether we succeed or fail... We believe in all our heartsin democracy; in the capacity of the people to govern themselves; and we are bound to succeed, for our success means not only our own triumph, but the triumph of the cause of the rights of the people throughout the world, and the uplifting of the banner of hope for all the nations of "
"We cannot do great deeds unless we are willing to do the small things that make up the sum of greatness."
"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs... It is both foolish and wicked to teach the average man who is not well off that some wrong or injustice has been done him, and that he should hope for redress elsewhere than in his own industry, honesty, and intelligence."
"Success, the real success, does not depend upon the position you hold but upon how you carry yourself in that position. "
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.
For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic. "
Thursday, March 30, 2006
A Confluence of Streams
It's been amazing the last few days. People in an uproar over the proposed U. S. House of Representatives immigration reform bill (H. R. 4437), students taking to the streets in protest. For me it has been such a horrorshow in the true sense of the word. I almost don't know where to begin!
First, I am very, very, very disappointed in our press on how it covers what is going on. It's amazing how supporters of H. R. 4437 are called "anti-immigrant" (see for example this story in the leftist (in a bad way) OC Weekly). A political rally was called "anti-immigrant" when it was anything but. For those of us who listened to what was being said, the sentiment was that yes, America is a nation owing much to immigrants, but not ILLEGAL ALIENS (*whew*, almost wrote "immigrants"). Yet they get a pass. In today's Union Tribune there is a cartoon in the editorial section showing an American flag with a magnifying glass help up to one of the stripes. There you see small stick figures spelling out "immigrants". Again, I don't hear anyone on my side of the fence (and what a strange side I have, which you would know if you have been keeping up with all my posts) say "We hate immigrants. Kick them all out!" Shame, shame, shame on you self-righteous media folks. Neutral? Just reporting the facts? Bah! I read three newspapers each day and about a dozen magazines each week (not counting what I scan on the Web) and you all sounds like you are simply taking each others' copy, shifting around a few words, slapping on a slightly different title and congratulating yourselves on how you are "informing" the masses. Please, we're not all that stupid. I have yet to read anywhere a thoughtful explanation of your arguments, only how "mean" those of us who think our country is worth protecting are and that if we someone DID remove the illegal aliens nothing in this country would get done. Boloney (or is it bologna?). Here I place as much blame on President Bush as I do the L. A. Times. The constant repetitions of "They are doing jobs that American's won't do" is a crock. Who did that work BEFORE the problem became such a large one? Those expelling that line should at least finish it with an honest appraisal such as "They are doing jobs that Americans won't do for below living wage." At least THAT statement would refect reality and not just be political spin. But then they say "Why, it would drive up prices. Lettuce would cost $5 a head" (I heard this from an illegal alien advocate on the radio). Actually, labor costs are only a tiny fraction of the total cost of food production. As for overall cost to the federal government (and a comparison of how much taxes illegal aliens pay verses how much they take out of the system) can be found here. Just to give you a sampling, here in California the state spends over $8000 per child in school. Now ask yourself this question: With a marginal state tax of 9.3% on every dollar you make over $32,000, how much do you have to pay in state taxes to support one child with the taxes you pay? And that is ignoring all of the other things the state has to try to do with the money it takes in. And as for what it does to wages, well, the impact on the market for wage earners will remain depressed. It's sad that many blue-collar jobs today are no longer sufficient to place those workers in the middle class. The affect on the low end is similar to what is happening to the upper end of salaried workers due to the effects of off-shoring.
Okay, enough on illegal immigrants. I mentioned a confluence and here it is. My other pain lately has been over education. It's amazing what has been happening with the student walkouts supposedly in opposition to H. R. 4437. I've been listening to interviews of the students who have participated in the demonstrations on several different stations and here are some observations and questions I have for you folks:
First, many students interviewed said they teachers told them to join the protest against the House resolution. Second, when asked what they were protesting, in over 30 interviews not one student could accurately say what it was in the resolution they were protesting. One particularly painful exchange was as followings:
Q: Why are you here instead of in school?
A: Because I don't want my family to get deported.
Q: When did your parents come to the United States?
A: I think it was 1975 or 1976.
Q: So you were born here?
A: Yeah.
Q: Were your brothers and sisters born here?
A: Yeah.
Q: [I thought this was quite slick] So when did your parents become U. S. citizens?
A: 1985
Geeze. Other commonly hear statements were "We have a right to be here" and "We pay taxes, we should get to stay and vote".
Okay, this is for you who claim to be teachers... if you ARE telling kids to protest, for heaven's sake at least tell them some FACTS so they don't come across as idiots when asked. Not one interviewed could tell the questioners what the H. R. meant nor how laws get made in this country. These are high school students and college students, haven't they learned anything (or, given the state of education these days, I might rightfully ask if they have been taught anything)? Of course, this makes the assumption they really are they to protest something. From the description of the atmosphere it sounded as if the vast majority were simply there to skip school. Let's not forget the exchange between L. A. Mayor Villaraigosa and the protesting students where after explaining how he supported them said that their voices had been heard, he stands with them, and now it was time to return to school the students chanted "Hell no, we won't go!"
Really? I wonder if they will at least get to claim their part in the protect under "Civic Participation" in their applications to Harvard. But of course, this just might get them in...
First, I am very, very, very disappointed in our press on how it covers what is going on. It's amazing how supporters of H. R. 4437 are called "anti-immigrant" (see for example this story in the leftist (in a bad way) OC Weekly). A political rally was called "anti-immigrant" when it was anything but. For those of us who listened to what was being said, the sentiment was that yes, America is a nation owing much to immigrants, but not ILLEGAL ALIENS (*whew*, almost wrote "immigrants"). Yet they get a pass. In today's Union Tribune there is a cartoon in the editorial section showing an American flag with a magnifying glass help up to one of the stripes. There you see small stick figures spelling out "immigrants". Again, I don't hear anyone on my side of the fence (and what a strange side I have, which you would know if you have been keeping up with all my posts) say "We hate immigrants. Kick them all out!" Shame, shame, shame on you self-righteous media folks. Neutral? Just reporting the facts? Bah! I read three newspapers each day and about a dozen magazines each week (not counting what I scan on the Web) and you all sounds like you are simply taking each others' copy, shifting around a few words, slapping on a slightly different title and congratulating yourselves on how you are "informing" the masses. Please, we're not all that stupid. I have yet to read anywhere a thoughtful explanation of your arguments, only how "mean" those of us who think our country is worth protecting are and that if we someone DID remove the illegal aliens nothing in this country would get done. Boloney (or is it bologna?). Here I place as much blame on President Bush as I do the L. A. Times. The constant repetitions of "They are doing jobs that American's won't do" is a crock. Who did that work BEFORE the problem became such a large one? Those expelling that line should at least finish it with an honest appraisal such as "They are doing jobs that Americans won't do for below living wage." At least THAT statement would refect reality and not just be political spin. But then they say "Why, it would drive up prices. Lettuce would cost $5 a head" (I heard this from an illegal alien advocate on the radio). Actually, labor costs are only a tiny fraction of the total cost of food production. As for overall cost to the federal government (and a comparison of how much taxes illegal aliens pay verses how much they take out of the system) can be found here. Just to give you a sampling, here in California the state spends over $8000 per child in school. Now ask yourself this question: With a marginal state tax of 9.3% on every dollar you make over $32,000, how much do you have to pay in state taxes to support one child with the taxes you pay? And that is ignoring all of the other things the state has to try to do with the money it takes in. And as for what it does to wages, well, the impact on the market for wage earners will remain depressed. It's sad that many blue-collar jobs today are no longer sufficient to place those workers in the middle class. The affect on the low end is similar to what is happening to the upper end of salaried workers due to the effects of off-shoring.
Okay, enough on illegal immigrants. I mentioned a confluence and here it is. My other pain lately has been over education. It's amazing what has been happening with the student walkouts supposedly in opposition to H. R. 4437. I've been listening to interviews of the students who have participated in the demonstrations on several different stations and here are some observations and questions I have for you folks:
First, many students interviewed said they teachers told them to join the protest against the House resolution. Second, when asked what they were protesting, in over 30 interviews not one student could accurately say what it was in the resolution they were protesting. One particularly painful exchange was as followings:
Q: Why are you here instead of in school?
A: Because I don't want my family to get deported.
Q: When did your parents come to the United States?
A: I think it was 1975 or 1976.
Q: So you were born here?
A: Yeah.
Q: Were your brothers and sisters born here?
A: Yeah.
Q: [I thought this was quite slick] So when did your parents become U. S. citizens?
A: 1985
Geeze. Other commonly hear statements were "We have a right to be here" and "We pay taxes, we should get to stay and vote".
Okay, this is for you who claim to be teachers... if you ARE telling kids to protest, for heaven's sake at least tell them some FACTS so they don't come across as idiots when asked. Not one interviewed could tell the questioners what the H. R. meant nor how laws get made in this country. These are high school students and college students, haven't they learned anything (or, given the state of education these days, I might rightfully ask if they have been taught anything)? Of course, this makes the assumption they really are they to protest something. From the description of the atmosphere it sounded as if the vast majority were simply there to skip school. Let's not forget the exchange between L. A. Mayor Villaraigosa and the protesting students where after explaining how he supported them said that their voices had been heard, he stands with them, and now it was time to return to school the students chanted "Hell no, we won't go!"
Really? I wonder if they will at least get to claim their part in the protect under "Civic Participation" in their applications to Harvard. But of course, this just might get them in...
Friday, March 24, 2006
Jesus Christ, Illegal Alien?
I almost succumbed to the California mindset and titled this post "Jesus Christ, Illegal Immigrant". Luckily my solid conservative genes kicked in and I caught myself. When the ruckus started a few years ago and I began to notice that the press was substituting the words "undocumented immigrant" for "illegal alien" I took a pledge then and there to always say "illegal alien". Now, about four years of left-leaning media saturation almost brought me down. The fact that most media outlets have dropped the "illegal" aspect made me think that I would be okay in changing "alien" for "immigrant". Subtle. Of course, the Devil took on the form of what the Scriptures call the most subtle of animals (Genesis 3:1 for you KJVers, or you can use other translations of the Hebrew such as "cunning" if you prefer say ESV). Now, being the conservative that I am I believe in standing for the American version of "God, King, and Country" but I still get a sharp pain in the pit of my stomach when politicians try to pepper their speeches with religious references because, let's face it, most have at best a facile understanding of the Bible. Hence the latest speech given by Mrs Clinton (or is it Ms Clinton, or Ms Rodham? I can't keep these kinds of things straight) on the issue of the recent U. S. House of Representatives bill concerning the status illegal aliens, where the junior senator from New York made the astonishing statement that would make criminals of the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus Himself! I have read the speech and tried to create logic diagrams of her "argument" and for the life of me I just don't see it. Thinking I may have missed something in the actual historical context I search through my rather extensive theological holdings and could find nothing that placed either the story of the Good Samaritan or anything of the facts surrounding the life of Christ into the current framework of the illegal alien debate. Now I know Bill Clinton did the same thing with some of his various invocation of religious imagery, but at least the man sounded like he meant it. If you listened to her give the speech you know what I mean... a complete lack of emotion or even the slightest hint of conviction in what she was saying displayed with her voice. While this does not take away from any argument, I think a speaker should at least convey something of the passion they feel when speaking on such a charged topic.
Will politicians on both sides of the spectrum PLEASE stop trying to bolster their support by the intonation of Biblical references? I distrust more than half of the so-called trained clergy out there, what makes politicians with no theological training believe that I am going to think "Why, they must be alright on this issue, they said 'Jesus' in their speech!" Perhaps this is what most Americans do these days... if so, God help us! I have the same words for the self-important actors attempting to speak with authority on political topics as I do for politicians using religion... "Shut up already!"
Will politicians on both sides of the spectrum PLEASE stop trying to bolster their support by the intonation of Biblical references? I distrust more than half of the so-called trained clergy out there, what makes politicians with no theological training believe that I am going to think "Why, they must be alright on this issue, they said 'Jesus' in their speech!" Perhaps this is what most Americans do these days... if so, God help us! I have the same words for the self-important actors attempting to speak with authority on political topics as I do for politicians using religion... "Shut up already!"
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Our Annual *NOT* Sideways Trip
Now that the car is unloaded, dinner finished (an excellent home-made pasta dish) and about half a bottle of Nebbiolo down it's time to catch the blog up to date. Long before the movie Sideways Pookie and I have made an annual trip up the coast to do some wine tasting. While we have done the Napa/Sonoma rounds, I think I enjoy the wineries in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties more than the more celebrated places further north. Over two days we visited 10 wineries and tasted a little over 80 wines (and even a couple of beers... it was Saint Patrick's Day weekend after all).
After waking up a little after 4 AM on Friday, we hopped in the car and headed to our destination, the wineries around Los Olivos. Our first stop was at Bridlewood Winery, one of the most beautiful properties in the area. Truth be told, over the years I have found their wines inconsistent. This year's tastings though found all they presented very solid, enjoyable wines. We left with several bottles of the 2002 Estate Syrah and their Vinter's Selection Viognier. Next up was my personal favorite, Brander Vineyards. One of the original vineyards of the Santa Ynez Valley, Brander had never let me down with their product and this year proved no exception. They have just released their wonderful Cuvee Natalie as well as their well regarded 2005 Sauvignon Blanc. I was also happily taken with their 2004 Merlot. I used to hate Merlots, but that was before I tasted those of the central coast. To me, most Merlots are watery and have no "legs". My first trip to central coast showed me there was hope for these and I was taken enough with Brander's that I bought a few bottles of it (so if you like Merlot, come on over). We added to our Brander list a couple of bottles of Cuvee Nicolas and we were ready to go (that completed our first case). We asked Nancy for some place off the beaten path to try and she said we should try Beckmen Vineyards. We took her advice and slowly, carefully made our way to Beckmen (amazing how fast wine tasting affects you when you haven't eaten for almost 6 hours). Beckmen's practices bio-dynamic farming and they have several maps in the tasting room to show you how they put their philosophy into practice. Their wines tend to be "Rhone style" which I truly enjoy. We came away with a few bottles of their tasty 2004 Grenache and a wonderfully blended 2004 Cuvee Le Bec. By this time we really needed something to soak up the wine. The choice was to go to the restaurant featured in Sideways (NOT!, though the food really is fantastic I just could not stand to hear one more "Oh it's just like in 'Sideways'" comment) or to a fine little dining spot just around the corner from Los Olivos cafe, this one NOT featured in Sideways, Patrick's Side Street Cafe. Their open face prime sandwich really hit the spot and after about an hour slowly savoring a fine lunch we were ready to go back out into the vineyards. We went by the tasting room of Fess Parker Winery where last time we got to spend a few minutes in the presence of Fess Parker himself (hey, if you grew up on Disney's Davy Crockett it would be a big deal to you too), and finally got to our last desination, Gainey Vineyard. Gainey has one of the best spots in the central coast to relax with a glass of wine and are known for their events held throughout the year. This year presented us with some difficult decisions on what to buy (we were running out of room and we still had Paso Robles to go), but after much agonizing we wound up with their bright Sauvignon Blanc and their just newly released Riesling (so new it's not up yet on their Web site).
By this time we had tasted about 45 wines and felt it was time to head to the hotel. After a nice little 90 minute nap it was time for dinner. We dressed and decided to head into Santa Barbara. Unfortunately CHP had different plans. It seems there was a car jacking in SLO resulting in a 70 mile chase down the 101 resulting the death of the car jacker. CHP had closed off 101, so we decided not to be reverse snobs and head to The Hitching Post where we were treated to a choice steak dinner and another sampling of local wines (as was stated in the movie this place does have its own label). After salad, soup, duck, steak, and a healthy slice of key lime pie (and a smattering of their own wine) it was time to head back to the hotel and tuck in for the night. Unfortunately for me, I discovered the new Doctor Who series on Sci-Fi and was mesmerized by it (in case you don't know, my home does not have television coming to it... a conscious decision made many years ago). I am not quite sure what I think about it yet, will probably have to wait and buy the series and watch it before making my decision. Only after watch the first two episodes was I able to fall asleep.
Saturday morning took up up 101 to Paso Robles. We went first to the only "big" winery on our trip, Meridian Vineyards. As luck would have it, we arrived during the 14th annual Paso Robles Zinfandel Festival, so in addition to their normal tasting they were offering barrel draws of their new Zins along with some scrumpy chocolates. After tasting some excellent wines and chocolates, we left with a few bottles of their limited release Paso Robles Syrah (some of their last bottles) and their just released limited edition 2004 Sangiovese. We next went to a very nice property that specializes in Italian style wines, the Arciero Family Estates, home of EOS wines. This is one of the most "butch" wineries, where else can you see a formula one racing car on the tasting grounds. We tasted some nice Italian style wines and walked off with some bottles of their 2004 Vin Rose and a fantastic blend under their Novella label called Synergy. From here it was just a short hop, skip, and slightly erratic drive to my favorite Italian style wine maker, Martin Weyrich where we dined on some delicious free BBQ while tasting some fantastic wines. By the time we were done we left with a case that included the aforementioned Nebbiolo and a "you gotta get some" Insieme, a great blend of seven different grapes in lip-smackin' proportion. After getting quite full on smoked meat and some of the finest red wine I had that day, we jumped across the 101 to Grey Wolf Cellars. Unfortunately we met up with our first wine tour bus and had to suffer several drunk people. Luckily, having to navigate through the inebriated masses didn't take away from the nice wines and BBQ tri-tip we tasted. After about 30 minutes we came away with a few bottles of their well-balanced 2003 Meritage and their 2003 Roussanne. We figured we had time for one more winery and we decided to try the "Dam [sic] fine wines" of Castoro Cellars. Unfortunately we encountered the largest congregation of wine tasting tours (perhaps due to the fact that their tasting sheet allowed 15 wines for sampling). We tried 13 (including a nice little port), but left with two very nice fruit-forward wines, a Petite Sirah and a fantastic little wine they call Primitivo.
By now it was back to the hotel in Buellton. After a quick stop in SLO, we went back to the hotel and took a short nap. That night we had dinner at a nice little restaurant. By now we were full of wine so we sampled their beers (simple but nice) and after a filling dinner retired back to the hotel.
That takes us up to this morning. After a long but uneventful drive back to San Diego and spending an hour at the gym, I now see that my glass wine, like my evening entry, is at an end. Now, I just have to think up how to get all of you over here to try them out...
After waking up a little after 4 AM on Friday, we hopped in the car and headed to our destination, the wineries around Los Olivos. Our first stop was at Bridlewood Winery, one of the most beautiful properties in the area. Truth be told, over the years I have found their wines inconsistent. This year's tastings though found all they presented very solid, enjoyable wines. We left with several bottles of the 2002 Estate Syrah and their Vinter's Selection Viognier. Next up was my personal favorite, Brander Vineyards. One of the original vineyards of the Santa Ynez Valley, Brander had never let me down with their product and this year proved no exception. They have just released their wonderful Cuvee Natalie as well as their well regarded 2005 Sauvignon Blanc. I was also happily taken with their 2004 Merlot. I used to hate Merlots, but that was before I tasted those of the central coast. To me, most Merlots are watery and have no "legs". My first trip to central coast showed me there was hope for these and I was taken enough with Brander's that I bought a few bottles of it (so if you like Merlot, come on over). We added to our Brander list a couple of bottles of Cuvee Nicolas and we were ready to go (that completed our first case). We asked Nancy for some place off the beaten path to try and she said we should try Beckmen Vineyards. We took her advice and slowly, carefully made our way to Beckmen (amazing how fast wine tasting affects you when you haven't eaten for almost 6 hours). Beckmen's practices bio-dynamic farming and they have several maps in the tasting room to show you how they put their philosophy into practice. Their wines tend to be "Rhone style" which I truly enjoy. We came away with a few bottles of their tasty 2004 Grenache and a wonderfully blended 2004 Cuvee Le Bec. By this time we really needed something to soak up the wine. The choice was to go to the restaurant featured in Sideways (NOT!, though the food really is fantastic I just could not stand to hear one more "Oh it's just like in 'Sideways'" comment) or to a fine little dining spot just around the corner from Los Olivos cafe, this one NOT featured in Sideways, Patrick's Side Street Cafe. Their open face prime sandwich really hit the spot and after about an hour slowly savoring a fine lunch we were ready to go back out into the vineyards. We went by the tasting room of Fess Parker Winery where last time we got to spend a few minutes in the presence of Fess Parker himself (hey, if you grew up on Disney's Davy Crockett it would be a big deal to you too), and finally got to our last desination, Gainey Vineyard. Gainey has one of the best spots in the central coast to relax with a glass of wine and are known for their events held throughout the year. This year presented us with some difficult decisions on what to buy (we were running out of room and we still had Paso Robles to go), but after much agonizing we wound up with their bright Sauvignon Blanc and their just newly released Riesling (so new it's not up yet on their Web site).
By this time we had tasted about 45 wines and felt it was time to head to the hotel. After a nice little 90 minute nap it was time for dinner. We dressed and decided to head into Santa Barbara. Unfortunately CHP had different plans. It seems there was a car jacking in SLO resulting in a 70 mile chase down the 101 resulting the death of the car jacker. CHP had closed off 101, so we decided not to be reverse snobs and head to The Hitching Post where we were treated to a choice steak dinner and another sampling of local wines (as was stated in the movie this place does have its own label). After salad, soup, duck, steak, and a healthy slice of key lime pie (and a smattering of their own wine) it was time to head back to the hotel and tuck in for the night. Unfortunately for me, I discovered the new Doctor Who series on Sci-Fi and was mesmerized by it (in case you don't know, my home does not have television coming to it... a conscious decision made many years ago). I am not quite sure what I think about it yet, will probably have to wait and buy the series and watch it before making my decision. Only after watch the first two episodes was I able to fall asleep.
Saturday morning took up up 101 to Paso Robles. We went first to the only "big" winery on our trip, Meridian Vineyards. As luck would have it, we arrived during the 14th annual Paso Robles Zinfandel Festival, so in addition to their normal tasting they were offering barrel draws of their new Zins along with some scrumpy chocolates. After tasting some excellent wines and chocolates, we left with a few bottles of their limited release Paso Robles Syrah (some of their last bottles) and their just released limited edition 2004 Sangiovese. We next went to a very nice property that specializes in Italian style wines, the Arciero Family Estates, home of EOS wines. This is one of the most "butch" wineries, where else can you see a formula one racing car on the tasting grounds. We tasted some nice Italian style wines and walked off with some bottles of their 2004 Vin Rose and a fantastic blend under their Novella label called Synergy. From here it was just a short hop, skip, and slightly erratic drive to my favorite Italian style wine maker, Martin Weyrich where we dined on some delicious free BBQ while tasting some fantastic wines. By the time we were done we left with a case that included the aforementioned Nebbiolo and a "you gotta get some" Insieme, a great blend of seven different grapes in lip-smackin' proportion. After getting quite full on smoked meat and some of the finest red wine I had that day, we jumped across the 101 to Grey Wolf Cellars. Unfortunately we met up with our first wine tour bus and had to suffer several drunk people. Luckily, having to navigate through the inebriated masses didn't take away from the nice wines and BBQ tri-tip we tasted. After about 30 minutes we came away with a few bottles of their well-balanced 2003 Meritage and their 2003 Roussanne. We figured we had time for one more winery and we decided to try the "Dam [sic] fine wines" of Castoro Cellars. Unfortunately we encountered the largest congregation of wine tasting tours (perhaps due to the fact that their tasting sheet allowed 15 wines for sampling). We tried 13 (including a nice little port), but left with two very nice fruit-forward wines, a Petite Sirah and a fantastic little wine they call Primitivo.
By now it was back to the hotel in Buellton. After a quick stop in SLO, we went back to the hotel and took a short nap. That night we had dinner at a nice little restaurant. By now we were full of wine so we sampled their beers (simple but nice) and after a filling dinner retired back to the hotel.
That takes us up to this morning. After a long but uneventful drive back to San Diego and spending an hour at the gym, I now see that my glass wine, like my evening entry, is at an end. Now, I just have to think up how to get all of you over here to try them out...
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Edyamuhkation
Ripped from the headlines of today's San Diego Tribune: CSU freshmen fail proficiency goal. According to the article more than half the freshmen in the state's largest public university system were academically unprepared this year. In fact, only 45% were "fully prepared" in both math and English. At Cal State San Marcos, of the 659 freshmen admitted in fall 2004, 63% needed remedial education in either math or English or both! Notice what this says, that 63% of those admitted, that is, they got in. Even though they were not prepared in the two most fundamental subjects they were allowed to enter the Cal State system. My question to you dear readers is "Why?" I just do not see the justification. Let me be frank, a college education is not due anyone but is something that must be earned. Yes, I will admit that I am a bit of an elitist but I don't see a problem with being one. I believe in earned privilege, that is, if you meet the criteria you are allowed to attend. I didn't grow up with any of the advantages that even most of the poor in San Diego have. Neither of my parents went to college. I went to the same rural high school they attended in the Missouri section of the Ozarks (yes, I am a hillbilly). The first house I remember didn't have running water and you could see the ground between the cracks in the floor. We didn't have a city paper, didn't have a town library (the elementary school library consisted of six book carts, one for each grade and even that was inaccessible 4 months out of the year). Growing up we probably had less than 20 books in the house (and several of those were different translations of the Bible). There was no Electric Company or Sesame Street and certainly no Discovery Channel or History Channel (heck, no cable television, we got CBS and NBC and on stormy days we picked up an ABC signal bounce). I was the first person in our extended family to go to college (my sister was the second). Not only did we go, we excelled (my sister graduated with a 4.0 majoring in business administration while I completed work in the areas of mathematics and computer science through the doctoral level). Our parents never pushed us to go to college, they couldn't economically support us, but they did emotionally and spiritually support us. I worked two and sometimes three jobs to put myself through the various colleges I attended. So please people, stop with the excuses.
It's interesting how people cry that our educational system needs more money, that we have too few teachers for so many students. Let's see, if 55% are not prepared perhaps that is one place to start looking. Just for fun take a class schedule, turn to the math and English offerings, and count the number of sections offered that are below the minimum level for college credit. Compare that number with the total number of sections offered for all courses that count toward a major in those areas (you may get quite a shock). Just think of the money and hours that are poured into classes whose sole purpose is to prepare students to take college-level classes (which I thought was one of the purposes of high school for those intending to go to college).
If we combine the information in this report with all those letters to the editor of people crying about our precious high school students being required to pass an exit exam to obtain their high school diploma (and for those of you not in California this simply amounts to the student showing they can adequately demonstrate eight grade math skills and show proficiency in English equivalent to that taught in the tenth grade) we get a sorry picture of what education is in our state. God help us.
It's interesting how people cry that our educational system needs more money, that we have too few teachers for so many students. Let's see, if 55% are not prepared perhaps that is one place to start looking. Just for fun take a class schedule, turn to the math and English offerings, and count the number of sections offered that are below the minimum level for college credit. Compare that number with the total number of sections offered for all courses that count toward a major in those areas (you may get quite a shock). Just think of the money and hours that are poured into classes whose sole purpose is to prepare students to take college-level classes (which I thought was one of the purposes of high school for those intending to go to college).
If we combine the information in this report with all those letters to the editor of people crying about our precious high school students being required to pass an exit exam to obtain their high school diploma (and for those of you not in California this simply amounts to the student showing they can adequately demonstrate eight grade math skills and show proficiency in English equivalent to that taught in the tenth grade) we get a sorry picture of what education is in our state. God help us.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Another Quiz
Actually, I have been told this before by other people.
You scored as Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones is an archaeologist/adventurer with an unquenchable love for danger and excitement. He travels the globe in search of historical relics. He loves travel, excitement, and a good archaeological discovery. He hates Nazis and snakes, perhaps to the same degree. He always brings along his trusty whip and fedora. He's tough, cool, and dedicated. He relies on both brains and brawn to get him out of trouble and into it.
Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com
You scored as Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones is an archaeologist/adventurer with an unquenchable love for danger and excitement. He travels the globe in search of historical relics. He loves travel, excitement, and a good archaeological discovery. He hates Nazis and snakes, perhaps to the same degree. He always brings along his trusty whip and fedora. He's tough, cool, and dedicated. He relies on both brains and brawn to get him out of trouble and into it.
Indiana Jones | 78% | ||
Neo, the "One" | 67% | ||
Lara Croft | 63% | ||
William Wallace | 63% | ||
James Bond, Agent 007 | 58% | ||
Batman, the Dark Knight | 54% | ||
Captain Jack Sparrow | 54% | ||
El Zorro | 50% | ||
Maximus | 46% | ||
The Amazing Spider-Man | 46% | ||
The Terminator | 38% |
Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com
Friday, March 10, 2006
Ramblings On Abortion, Final Thoughts
Well, it's time to finish (for now) my thoughts on the topic of abortion. I have yet to find any arguments that undo my initial logical construction showing how abortion is murder. It's simply a matter of logic. However, logic takes you only so far in real life. In my library I have a series of lectures by Professor Ronald Nash on philosophy and Christian apologetics. In a section addressing the logical problems that evil proposes to the Christian world view, after showing how many of the problems can be refuted using the tools of logic, Professor Nash says something to the effect of "When you are personally faced with problems of enormous evil in the world, you shouldn't turn to a philosopher to help you through it." What he means is that when you are emotionally distressed, knowing that a logical syllogism can "explain" the "why" doesn't do anything for the honest heart-wrenching feelings that you are experiencing. In the first three postings I leaned very hard on the logic and scientific facts that, to my mind show abortion to be wrong. These would not help me in dealing with say a rape victim who is contemplating an abortion. What that person needs is someone who will listen, who will show compassion and honestly try to help her and her family in this situation. That being said, we must make sure that we do not completely throw out logic to make way for emotion. Yes, someone was violated, a terrible act, but it does not follow that the wrong of rape can be countered with the wrong of murder (that in and of itself would take several postings, but to boil it down to what I am sure everyone has heard, "Two wrongs don't make a right"). As for the general argument pro-abortionists make of a woman's "right" to choose to have an abortion (the "It's my body, I can do with it as I so choose" position), how any anyone hold that position when it comes to taking the life of another human being? Privacy arguments do not help here either since wrongs done in private do not become rights. Your right to act for your own benefit ends at least at the point it places the life of another at risk, yet this is exactly the situation for elective abortion. Cases of rape and incest are one thing, but simply wanting to end a life just because you don't want the child is the weakest reason to have abortion.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Work and Fulfillment
My current "business related" book is John Maxwell's The 360 Degree Leader. In it Maxwell shows how 99% of all leadership in most organizations takes place in the middle, not the top, and how people in the middle who want to be considered leaders have to "lead up", "lead across", and "lead down" (interesting how people only view leadership as from the top down). A section I want to share is entitled "How to be fulfilled in the middle of the pack". The short answer is "learn to see the big picture", but rather than just leave it like that Maxwell gives the following hints:
Develop strong relationships with key people. "It's more important to get along with people than to get ahread of them"
Define a win in terms of teamwork. Here Maxwell quotes former basketball coach John Wooden "The main ingredient of stardom is the rest of the team."
Engage in continual communications. This includes communicating UP the chain as well as down.
Gain experience and maturity. "Maturity doesn't come with age. It begins with the acceptance of responsibility."
Put the team above your personal success. Leadership is about helping others to win.
Interestingly enough, this looks pretty much how a good familial relationship should be run. You and your partner/wife/husband/children are a team, a single unit. The strength of that unit rests in the relationships you have one with another. You win as a family, not just as individuals (second person plural pronoun here folks). As part of a family you have responsibilities to the other members in the family. Hmmm... looks like Maxwell provides not just good business advice, but he makes a pretty good "Dr. Laura" as well.
Interestingly enough, this looks pretty much how a good familial relationship should be run. You and your partner/wife/husband/children are a team, a single unit. The strength of that unit rests in the relationships you have one with another. You win as a family, not just as individuals (second person plural pronoun here folks). As part of a family you have responsibilities to the other members in the family. Hmmm... looks like Maxwell provides not just good business advice, but he makes a pretty good "Dr. Laura" as well.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Fun With Quizes
My friend Chris just sent me a fun little quiz to take. I thought I would share the results:
You scored as Babylon 5 (Babylon 5). The universe is erupting into war and your government picks the wrong side. How much worse could things get? It doesn't matter, because no matter what you have your friends and you'll do the right thing. In the end that will be all that matters. Now if only the Psi Cops would leave you alone.
Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com
You scored as Babylon 5 (Babylon 5). The universe is erupting into war and your government picks the wrong side. How much worse could things get? It doesn't matter, because no matter what you have your friends and you'll do the right thing. In the end that will be all that matters. Now if only the Psi Cops would leave you alone.
Babylon 5 (Babylon 5) | 81% | ||
Millennium Falcon (Star Wars) | 81% | ||
Enterprise D (Star Trek) | 81% | ||
Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica) | 75% | ||
Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) | 69% | ||
Moya (Farscape) | 63% | ||
Serenity (Firefly) | 63% | ||
FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files) | 56% | ||
Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda) | 50% | ||
Deep Space Nine (Star Trek) | 50% | ||
SG-1 (Stargate) | 44% | ||
Bebop (Cowboy Bebop) | 31% |
Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com
Ramblings On Abortion, Part Three
Okay, where were we? Oh yes, examining the key question to the abortion debate and the options avaiable (or, to sound fancy, applying our epistemology to the ontology of the fetus). So, if the fetus is an innocent human being, then based on the syllogism displayed in the first posting on abortion we must conclude that abortion is murder and if our moral values place murder in the "naughty" column then it must be avoided at all costs. So let's take a look at this idea of the fetus as a human being (I am assuming that people do not have a problem with me dropping the "innocent" part for now, so if you do please email me so we can discuss it).
In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court, in thinking it was taking a neutral position, said that they were not going to address whether or not the fetus was a human being. What is amazing to me is that these supposedly sharp folks couldn't see (or perhaps didn't want to see) that they really did. By allowing abortion, they in effect said that human life does not begin at conception, that the fetus is not a human being and thus can be removed/extracted/aborted/killed. I have never understood how people cannot see that just because they claim neutrality it does not mean they are neutral. Let me be as clear and as blunt as possible: Human life begins at conception. Period. Done. Next topic. What, you don't accept my word that it is? You want me to provide an argument for something that I see is as clear as crystal? (Hey, calm down, just being a little facetious). For me, the case of a fetus being a human being can be made on the following facts:
Fact: Let's look at a little basic genetics. Each human being has, to the best of our knowledge, a unique set of 46 chromosomes contining the genetic code for that person (forgive the mix of "human being" with "person", I know some people have problems with this but I promise to address it in a later post). If you stayed awake in class, you recall that 23 of come from the father's sperm and 23 come from the ovum and they combine to create a new and unique zygote. This tiny little creature has all of the genetic information that a fully developed person has. This isn't simply a blob of tissue, it is a completely new creature.
Fact: Because it is a new creature, the fetus in the mother's womb cannot be considered "part" of the mother. In fact, if you follow this line of thinking (that the fetus is simply part of the mother's body) then you get some startling conclusions, such as, the mother has will have four legs, four arms, two heads, and in about half of the cases both a penis and a vagina. When you also take into consideration that often the bloodtype of the fetus is different from the mother as well as the fact that fertilized ova maintain their characteristics regardless of where they incubate (a fertilized ovum from a black couple that is implanted in a white woman will become a black baby), it is pretty clear to see that the fetus isn't simply an extention of the mother.
Fact: The development requirements for a fetus as the same as those of a baby (or for a human at any stage of development): food, water, air, and time. This leads to certain problematic issues for those who want to maintain that the difference between a fetus and "human being" is one of development, for going down that path we have to conclude that we are NEVER really human beings since there is always some level of development occurring.
The conclusion is pretty easy to make: The union of a sperm with an ovum causes the creation of new human being. This human being, which at the time of union we call a zygote, if given time, air, and nourishment will be born (even though I disagree with this usage I will call this) a baby. Given time, air, and nourishment this baby will grow into a toddler, then a teenage (the argument against being a human being is stronger here than at conception IMHO), then an adult, etc. Aha! (you might say "This fetus is only a 'potential' human being"... but let's think seriously about this folks, even a potential human being must be an actual something in order to be a potential human being. What is it? Let's not confuse development and function with ontology. There are no "potential human beings" just as there are no "potential cats". All human beings are actual. We might be potential NBA stars (like my nephew Justin) or potential CEOs (me, me, me), but it's the functioning that is potential, the "being" is actual. If you disagree, write me, for even I your humble blogger have the potential to be mistaken.
In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court, in thinking it was taking a neutral position, said that they were not going to address whether or not the fetus was a human being. What is amazing to me is that these supposedly sharp folks couldn't see (or perhaps didn't want to see) that they really did. By allowing abortion, they in effect said that human life does not begin at conception, that the fetus is not a human being and thus can be removed/extracted/aborted/killed. I have never understood how people cannot see that just because they claim neutrality it does not mean they are neutral. Let me be as clear and as blunt as possible: Human life begins at conception. Period. Done. Next topic. What, you don't accept my word that it is? You want me to provide an argument for something that I see is as clear as crystal? (Hey, calm down, just being a little facetious). For me, the case of a fetus being a human being can be made on the following facts:
Fact: Let's look at a little basic genetics. Each human being has, to the best of our knowledge, a unique set of 46 chromosomes contining the genetic code for that person (forgive the mix of "human being" with "person", I know some people have problems with this but I promise to address it in a later post). If you stayed awake in class, you recall that 23 of come from the father's sperm and 23 come from the ovum and they combine to create a new and unique zygote. This tiny little creature has all of the genetic information that a fully developed person has. This isn't simply a blob of tissue, it is a completely new creature.
Fact: Because it is a new creature, the fetus in the mother's womb cannot be considered "part" of the mother. In fact, if you follow this line of thinking (that the fetus is simply part of the mother's body) then you get some startling conclusions, such as, the mother has will have four legs, four arms, two heads, and in about half of the cases both a penis and a vagina. When you also take into consideration that often the bloodtype of the fetus is different from the mother as well as the fact that fertilized ova maintain their characteristics regardless of where they incubate (a fertilized ovum from a black couple that is implanted in a white woman will become a black baby), it is pretty clear to see that the fetus isn't simply an extention of the mother.
Fact: The development requirements for a fetus as the same as those of a baby (or for a human at any stage of development): food, water, air, and time. This leads to certain problematic issues for those who want to maintain that the difference between a fetus and "human being" is one of development, for going down that path we have to conclude that we are NEVER really human beings since there is always some level of development occurring.
The conclusion is pretty easy to make: The union of a sperm with an ovum causes the creation of new human being. This human being, which at the time of union we call a zygote, if given time, air, and nourishment will be born (even though I disagree with this usage I will call this) a baby. Given time, air, and nourishment this baby will grow into a toddler, then a teenage (the argument against being a human being is stronger here than at conception IMHO), then an adult, etc. Aha! (you might say "This fetus is only a 'potential' human being"... but let's think seriously about this folks, even a potential human being must be an actual something in order to be a potential human being. What is it? Let's not confuse development and function with ontology. There are no "potential human beings" just as there are no "potential cats". All human beings are actual. We might be potential NBA stars (like my nephew Justin) or potential CEOs (me, me, me), but it's the functioning that is potential, the "being" is actual. If you disagree, write me, for even I your humble blogger have the potential to be mistaken.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Station Break
My partner and I have been watching "Absolutely Fabulous" recently. Last night, while watching the episode titled "Jealous", Edina (Jennifer Saunders) gave one speech that, if you pay attention, actually gives a rather meaningful message to today's society:
"I was gonna make a speech, but I just can't be bothered anymore. I mean this used to be, like, fun, you know. You know it used to be fun, you just ball out all the fun bits now, you know, with all these lunches and launches… You know, with some no career celebrities and party desperates… And what for, huh? It all culminates in crap-tags and mags? Well I'm sorry there has to be something more than that, doesn't there? Well I had a speech, you know? The whole projected-intergrated-global-tele-network system, bloody system, system… But you know, if that's what the world's coming to I don't want to be in it, I don't want that.I don't want to be in some sort of hyper-space bloody virtual reality, I don't want that! Exchanging email with some bloody old-age hippies with more information at their fingertips than is safe, I don't want that. What kind of reality is that, with a 13-amp plug on the end of it, huh [Emphasis mine]? That can be unplugged like that. [She gets up to leave] No, I'm not going yet. No, you, [points to her competition] you you sit there with your bell-curves and bloody ad-man, crack-head ad-man over there, those kings of bastardization, who took anything that was ever real and genuine and honest and attached it to a toilet cleaner. Whereas I, like a bird upon the wire, like a drunk in a midnight choir, I have tried, in my way, to be free. [Edina tries to sing] You can laugh but you know something, I don't want more choice I JUST WANT NICER THINGS! And you, tear that look off your face with your whales and your cancer and your AIDS and starvation, yeah, skimming any profit off the whole of human misery, ladeling us all with this 'global guilt.' You know it may not be all great and good but it ain't that bad, you know, so common' world cheer up, it may never happen ? [Emphasis mine]."
Eddy... I couldn't have said it better myself.
"I was gonna make a speech, but I just can't be bothered anymore. I mean this used to be, like, fun, you know. You know it used to be fun, you just ball out all the fun bits now, you know, with all these lunches and launches… You know, with some no career celebrities and party desperates… And what for, huh? It all culminates in crap-tags and mags? Well I'm sorry there has to be something more than that, doesn't there? Well I had a speech, you know? The whole projected-intergrated-global-tele-network system, bloody system, system… But you know, if that's what the world's coming to I don't want to be in it, I don't want that.
Eddy... I couldn't have said it better myself.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Ramblings On Abortion, Part Two
Okay, let's talk a little more about the charged topic of abortion. Last post I created a simple syllogism to show my problem with the current state of abortion on demand:
P1: Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.
P2: A fetus is an innocent human being.
P3: Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
C: Abortion is murder.
The greatest argument I see people having is with P2, my statement that the fetus is an innocent human being. How, let's discuss that premise for a moment. There are two parts in the description of a fetus: (1) it is innocent and (2) it is a human being. Let's start with the second part first, as that seems to be the largest source of objection. Let's look at it first as a logic puzzle (ignoring for the moment any emotional appeals) and ask "What are our possible options?" These options are rather simple, either the fetus is a human being or it is not. Two options. However, the problem goes a little deeper than that as a main part of the argument of Roe (and, honestly, almost all pro-abortion arguments) deals not just with ontology but also epistemology(that is, not just what the fetus is, but what we know about what the fetus is). So, when thought of this way, the options laid out before us are as follows:
Option 1: The fetus is a human being, and we know it.
Option 2: The fetus is a human being, and we don't know it.
Option 3; The fetus is not a human being, and don't know it.
Option 4: The fetus is not a human being, and we know it.
Now, I take the position of option 1, which means that abortion does equate to murder. Most pro-abortionists would claim option 4 is correct and, if they are correct, there is no reason to disallow abortion in any case. However, a large number of people (perhaps even the majority of Americans) claim to hold one of the "agnostic" position (option 2 or option 3). In fact, Blackmum in his opinion about Roe v Wade made the statement that the Supreme Court could not settle the question of the personhood of the fetus and thus they should err on the side of pro-abortionists (essentially, we don't know what it is, so it is okay to kill it). I claim that this is the wrong path to take in the case of expressed agnosticism. In the case of option 2, abortion is at best manslaugher, the accidental killing of a human being. It's like fumigation without checking if anyone is in the building. If there is and they die, you cannot plead ignorance. Thus the more conservative approach of checking before you release the gas is the best course, that way you can say that you know the building is empty and knowingly answer the question "Is there anyone in the house?" Now what about case 3? Again with the fumigation example, you didn't check, fumigated the building, and no one died. So what? At best, you got lucky. You didn't care, you were simply irresponsible (and criminal negligence is still open as a charge). Thus to me, the agnostic position cuts the way opposite of that taken by most pro-abortionists. Being a responsible human being means erring on the side against the willful killing of the fetus.
P1: Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.
P2: A fetus is an innocent human being.
P3: Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
C: Abortion is murder.
The greatest argument I see people having is with P2, my statement that the fetus is an innocent human being. How, let's discuss that premise for a moment. There are two parts in the description of a fetus: (1) it is innocent and (2) it is a human being. Let's start with the second part first, as that seems to be the largest source of objection. Let's look at it first as a logic puzzle (ignoring for the moment any emotional appeals) and ask "What are our possible options?" These options are rather simple, either the fetus is a human being or it is not. Two options. However, the problem goes a little deeper than that as a main part of the argument of Roe (and, honestly, almost all pro-abortion arguments) deals not just with ontology but also epistemology(that is, not just what the fetus is, but what we know about what the fetus is). So, when thought of this way, the options laid out before us are as follows:
Option 1: The fetus is a human being, and we know it.
Option 2: The fetus is a human being, and we don't know it.
Option 3; The fetus is not a human being, and don't know it.
Option 4: The fetus is not a human being, and we know it.
Now, I take the position of option 1, which means that abortion does equate to murder. Most pro-abortionists would claim option 4 is correct and, if they are correct, there is no reason to disallow abortion in any case. However, a large number of people (perhaps even the majority of Americans) claim to hold one of the "agnostic" position (option 2 or option 3). In fact, Blackmum in his opinion about Roe v Wade made the statement that the Supreme Court could not settle the question of the personhood of the fetus and thus they should err on the side of pro-abortionists (essentially, we don't know what it is, so it is okay to kill it). I claim that this is the wrong path to take in the case of expressed agnosticism. In the case of option 2, abortion is at best manslaugher, the accidental killing of a human being. It's like fumigation without checking if anyone is in the building. If there is and they die, you cannot plead ignorance. Thus the more conservative approach of checking before you release the gas is the best course, that way you can say that you know the building is empty and knowingly answer the question "Is there anyone in the house?" Now what about case 3? Again with the fumigation example, you didn't check, fumigated the building, and no one died. So what? At best, you got lucky. You didn't care, you were simply irresponsible (and criminal negligence is still open as a charge). Thus to me, the agnostic position cuts the way opposite of that taken by most pro-abortionists. Being a responsible human being means erring on the side against the willful killing of the fetus.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Ramblings On Abortion, Part One
Today my good friend Chris sent a link to an issue I admit has been off my radar scope for some time regarding the decision of the South Dakota supreme court on abortion. The letter was short but passionate regarding his disagreement with their decision. I'm not too sure if he knew my thoughts regarding abortion, so to make the record public I hereby declare myself firmly in the "pro-life" camp. Now to be honest, my most passionate reasons tend to stem from my theology rather than my philosophy but I do think that my rational processes create a valid structure for being against abortion as it currently stands. The email though did something to me (something good), it started me thinking about the subject matter again, which lead me to think about this whole blogging thing. Some topics are really difficult to write about, especially ones that are (1) emotionally charged and (2) require strong, often long-winded and intricate logical arguments. I don't know about you, but I still have problems reading online articles for extended periods of time. So, to help us both out I will chop what I have to say into several hopefully smaller articles (though perhaps not consecutive, depending on who Cheney shoots or Michael Moore lies about). I will also try to the best of my ability to leave overt reference to theological arguments out since not everyone is convinced that God or some higher power exists.
So here goes nuttin': For me, abortion as practiced today is simply murder. Okay folks, thanks for stopping by, don't forget to tip on your way out. But seriously, if my understandings are correct, the conclusion is inescapable and we must take action (after all, murder is at the very least illegal if not down right immoral... and yes, I do separate the two). So how do I come to this conclusion? By the following argument:
P1: Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.
P2: A fetus is an innocent human being.
P3: Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
C: Abortion is murder.
Now I don't think my definition of murder is off the mark so P1 should stand. Some people may quibble with my use of the word "fetus" in P3, so if you want to use "embryo" that would be fine with me, I think that the argument works as well. Where I think most people will have problems is with P2, that is, they will say that I am off my rocker to say that a fetus (or embryo) is an innocent human being. In fact, to me, that is the the nut of the problem that needs to be cracked, and unlike Justice Blackmum in the original Roe v Wade decision , I am not afraid to try (interesting enough, I think one of his strongest arguments works against the pro-abortionist, but more on that in a later blog).
So, there you have it, my starting point. In subsequent writings I hope to expand on the argument with attention to P2. Hope you stick around and let me know what you think.
So here goes nuttin': For me, abortion as practiced today is simply murder. Okay folks, thanks for stopping by, don't forget to tip on your way out. But seriously, if my understandings are correct, the conclusion is inescapable and we must take action (after all, murder is at the very least illegal if not down right immoral... and yes, I do separate the two). So how do I come to this conclusion? By the following argument:
P1: Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.
P2: A fetus is an innocent human being.
P3: Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
C: Abortion is murder.
Now I don't think my definition of murder is off the mark so P1 should stand. Some people may quibble with my use of the word "fetus" in P3, so if you want to use "embryo" that would be fine with me, I think that the argument works as well. Where I think most people will have problems is with P2, that is, they will say that I am off my rocker to say that a fetus (or embryo) is an innocent human being. In fact, to me, that is the the nut of the problem that needs to be cracked, and unlike Justice Blackmum in the original Roe v Wade decision , I am not afraid to try (interesting enough, I think one of his strongest arguments works against the pro-abortionist, but more on that in a later blog).
So, there you have it, my starting point. In subsequent writings I hope to expand on the argument with attention to P2. Hope you stick around and let me know what you think.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
"Don't be evil": Only as good as the definition of evil.
For those of you who do know know the significance of the phrase, "Don't be evil" is the informal motto of Google, probably the most talked about company of the last couple of years. Over the past couple of weeks I have seen more articles than I care to recount on how American search companies (including Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft) are dealing with China and how they caved in to the pressure exerted by the Communist Party (no, not the Democrat party of the U. S., the Communist party that controls mainland China). If you really, truly don't know what I am talking about, here are a couple of articles, two condemning their actions from the International Herald Tribue and Reporters Without Borders (yeah, I'm referencing them, don't have a stroke), and one that is a bit more mixed from InformationWeek. Now I think there may be some merit in the arguments of the big companies that they are "bringing the Internet" to China and that it is practically impossible to actually block everything. So be it. But let's be honest, if in the pursuit of profit they are willing to compromise here then what else will they compromise on? As Google is market's "flavor of the moment" they will be the main topic of discussion, but in all honesty they bring it upon themselves. You see, for all the supposed depth that the Googlites think exists in saying they are guided by "Don't be evil", I am shocked that these supposedly smart people would allow themselves to be guided by such fuzzy thinking. Google has claimed that they are simply making themselves be in compliance with a foreign government. I hope they do not really think that legal = good (or moral). In fact, if you look at their activities in other areas, this appears not to be the case those this is their main argument with respect to the China issue. When examined from a philosophical point of view they are terribly all over the map... which I suppose reflects a solid indoctrination in elitist moral relativism (and in reading up on my subjects under current discussion, that appears to be an accurate assessment of their background). For example, in an article in Wired, Google says that they have a policy of not accepting ads for any person or group is "anti- anything". So if you are a group against the selling of children for sex (that is, "anti" child sex slave trade), Google wouldn't, based on this simple statement of their current moral view, accept an ad from you while there is at least the possibility of them accepting one advertising the Asian child sex trade (after all, if you are advertising it you can take that as a "pro" position)? Of course, the "anti" policy seems to be more a suggestion (or a quip for the press) than a true guide since Google does accept ads for "anti-smoking". The fact that Google accepts advertising for adult content sites is an intriguing commentary on their morality: Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not... welcome to contemporary liberal thinking. And lets not forget that while they didn't acquiesce to the federal goverment's request for search information in the name of privacy, they did collaborate with China in the fight AGAINST freedom of access of information.
Contemporary market purists may say that what these companies are doing is simply "the price of doing business". This is why I suppose I am not a proponent of contemporary market theory. I am all for free markets, but I do not buy what has become known as the Nexus of Contracts Theory of the corporation, an outgrowth of economic work lead by Milton Friedman based on the idea of the corporation's sole moral obligation of protecting shareholder profits. I think we let companies get away with far too much just because of market valuations. I'm sorry, but for me "money makes right" has no more argumentative strength than does "might makes right".
Contemporary market purists may say that what these companies are doing is simply "the price of doing business". This is why I suppose I am not a proponent of contemporary market theory. I am all for free markets, but I do not buy what has become known as the Nexus of Contracts Theory of the corporation, an outgrowth of economic work lead by Milton Friedman based on the idea of the corporation's sole moral obligation of protecting shareholder profits. I think we let companies get away with far too much just because of market valuations. I'm sorry, but for me "money makes right" has no more argumentative strength than does "might makes right".
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Work, work, work
Short post. Between work and school starting back up this week has been quite busy. And look at all the fun we could be having! I mean, how many times does the vice president shoot someone during a hunting trip? And just how many ways can California Democrat assembly people reject a sexual predator law (and just what is the acceptable number of images of child pornography should one be allowed)? And your friendly conservative blogger has actually found a terribly liberal cartoon funny (no, not the ones causing the Islamic uproar... Boondocks!). So, hold on, I'll be back ASAP.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Two Huhs?
Huh Number One: In yesterday's San Diego Union Tribune, Babak Rahimi, assistant professor of Islamic Studies at UC-San Diego, wrote the following in an editorial titled Why Many Muslims Are Angry: "In sum, the demonizing caricature of Muhammad is more about the reduction of the Muslim world into a single sterotypical image of violence and rage than a satirical critique of Muslim's rejection of freedom of speech." So let's see... they react to the West's supposed caricature of them as full of violence and rage by, let's see, being violent and showing rage? What makes it almost humorous is Rahimi's throwaway sentence, after eight paragraphs of speaking of inflamatory cartoons and "explaining" why they act that way, "The above explanation is not, however to absolve those Muslims of responsiblity of the recent violence...", but then goes on to say that they are taking the "bait" and that the "true reality" is that the Muslim rage is a reaction to the "dehumanization" of Muslims than an essential feature of Islam. Geeze, let's see, if the initial, common reaction is rage and violence, from where does this come? And the dear professor seems to overlook the fact that repeated reports of Islamic clerics fanning the flames of the common people. Now where do the common people find their understanding of what is core to Islam? Hmmm...
Huh Number Two: While I rarely, rarely read the Los Angeles Times (AKA Left-Angeles Times I came across an article that really, really made me go "HUH?". The article was End Is Not Near Enough for Pastors. The opening was typical of those about evangelical gatherings, Evangelical ministers meet in Inglewood to discuss ways to convert millions and hasten the Second Coming. Hasten the Second Coming? "No way" I thought, but then I read the whole article and sure enough there is a quote from James Davis, president of the "Billion Souls Initiative"of the Global Pastor's Network: As we advance around the world, we'll be shortening the time needed to fulfill that great commission [Christ's command to spread the Gospel to the ends of the Earth]. Then, the Bible says, the end will come. Excuse me, but having read and studied the same passages of the Bible, I see nothing of the sort. Logically what we have here is a problem of causality. Spreading the Gospel to the whole world will not CAUSE the Second Coming. At most we can say that while it is a necessary action it is not sufficient in a causal manner on its own. In the end, no one knows the time, only God. There is no indication that you can manipulate God's divine timeline. Why, oh why, do they have to make such statements in a public forum? It just makes it harder on the rest of us.
Huh Number Two: While I rarely, rarely read the Los Angeles Times (AKA Left-Angeles Times I came across an article that really, really made me go "HUH?". The article was End Is Not Near Enough for Pastors. The opening was typical of those about evangelical gatherings, Evangelical ministers meet in Inglewood to discuss ways to convert millions and hasten the Second Coming. Hasten the Second Coming? "No way" I thought, but then I read the whole article and sure enough there is a quote from James Davis, president of the "Billion Souls Initiative"of the Global Pastor's Network: As we advance around the world, we'll be shortening the time needed to fulfill that great commission [Christ's command to spread the Gospel to the ends of the Earth]. Then, the Bible says, the end will come. Excuse me, but having read and studied the same passages of the Bible, I see nothing of the sort. Logically what we have here is a problem of causality. Spreading the Gospel to the whole world will not CAUSE the Second Coming. At most we can say that while it is a necessary action it is not sufficient in a causal manner on its own. In the end, no one knows the time, only God. There is no indication that you can manipulate God's divine timeline. Why, oh why, do they have to make such statements in a public forum? It just makes it harder on the rest of us.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
I just don't get it
This is what I get for going too long between vents. The more I read in the papers the more confused and angry I seem to become. Let's take two events, one major and one that should have been major but got little coverage in the San Diego Tribune.
First, has anyone not heard about the cartoons involving Mohammed? If you've been sleeping for the last few weeks you can read the story here. Because of some Danish cartoonists depicting Mohammed in not necessarily the most flattering of light we have had riots, massive property damage, dozens of injuries, and even deaths. Some of the extremists within Islam are calling for the deaths of the cartoonists, claiming that any depictions of Mohammed are prohibited by the Koran. Apparently that is not true. While Islam carries the same prohibitions against graven images as the Christian Bible, there is no explicit prohibition against creating images of Mohammed (see here). Now it has come to the surface that not only is the initial argument about the prohibition against images of Mohammed bogus, but so are some of the images circulated by come Islamic leaders being used as instigation and agitation of Arabs around the world! And they want to be called the religion of peace?! Let's get real. At lunch the other day with my friend Andrew I compared how the "peaceful" radical Islamists handle the cartoons with those of how fundamentalist Christians handled the infamous Piss Christ and The Virgin Mary where we have in one a crucifix submerged in urine and the other an image of Mary splattered with elephant dung. I searched for reports of rioting Christians, acts of vandalism, injury, and killings... couldn't even find a Christian fahtwa. Let's see, on the one hand we have Mohammed, a prophet, whose image is drawn, not necessarily in the most flattering of light. On the other we have a crucifix, a symbol of God incarnate at the supreme moment of passion, submerged in a jar of human waste along with a depiction of Mary, the mother of Jesus, the one the Bible declares to be the most blessed of women, covered in animal excrement. Geeze, which would you think should generate the most heat? What's worse, my own government, headed by those who are supposed be of my party and represent my values, are screwing up again. On the one hand our state department seems to be saying that the cartoonists were naughty and shouldn't have done it while President Bush says that we stand by our friends in the Netherlands. Please, people, one signal (and in this case it had better be at least on the side of Bush's rather lukewarm support).
The second story is somewhat related to the other at least tangentially. Last year a mother in Queens, Andrea Skoros, sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited. The school officials said that the display was of secular symbols and did include a Christmas tree (oops... shouldn't say that, in our screwed up world we are supposed to say "holiday tree", which I suppose means I can keep mine up all year round since we have holidays throughout the year and those who demand the use of the "holiday tree" term don't specify WHICH holiday... naw, I'll call it what it is, a Christmas tree). What is frightening is that today a small AP article states that a federal appeals court has upheld the school's policy. What idiots! The menorah isn't a religious symbol? Are those people completely ignorant of what the menorah symbolises?! And the star and crescent represents what? (Is there ANYONE who doesn't know... anyone?) I am so happly at least one judge dissented, the brave Judge Chester Straub, who said that the policy utilizes religious symbols of certain religions but bans the symbols of another. So let's see, the school places symbols of certain religions in the display but has banned a nativity scene... how can anyone disagree with Judge Straub's commonsense dissent? As Mrs Skoros has said, she never was wanting the other symbols removed, just add an appropriate symbol for the nearly two billion Christians. Now, if she were a (so called) peaceful extreme Islamist do you think she would be seeking the addition at least one symbol of equal communicative value, or the subtraction of all symbols not a part of Islam? And yet gentle readers, what religion, what one set of beliefs is it okay to disparage and ban in our supposed modern age? Here, let me help you, it isn't Islam...
First, has anyone not heard about the cartoons involving Mohammed? If you've been sleeping for the last few weeks you can read the story here. Because of some Danish cartoonists depicting Mohammed in not necessarily the most flattering of light we have had riots, massive property damage, dozens of injuries, and even deaths. Some of the extremists within Islam are calling for the deaths of the cartoonists, claiming that any depictions of Mohammed are prohibited by the Koran. Apparently that is not true. While Islam carries the same prohibitions against graven images as the Christian Bible, there is no explicit prohibition against creating images of Mohammed (see here). Now it has come to the surface that not only is the initial argument about the prohibition against images of Mohammed bogus, but so are some of the images circulated by come Islamic leaders being used as instigation and agitation of Arabs around the world! And they want to be called the religion of peace?! Let's get real. At lunch the other day with my friend Andrew I compared how the "peaceful" radical Islamists handle the cartoons with those of how fundamentalist Christians handled the infamous Piss Christ and The Virgin Mary where we have in one a crucifix submerged in urine and the other an image of Mary splattered with elephant dung. I searched for reports of rioting Christians, acts of vandalism, injury, and killings... couldn't even find a Christian fahtwa. Let's see, on the one hand we have Mohammed, a prophet, whose image is drawn, not necessarily in the most flattering of light. On the other we have a crucifix, a symbol of God incarnate at the supreme moment of passion, submerged in a jar of human waste along with a depiction of Mary, the mother of Jesus, the one the Bible declares to be the most blessed of women, covered in animal excrement. Geeze, which would you think should generate the most heat? What's worse, my own government, headed by those who are supposed be of my party and represent my values, are screwing up again. On the one hand our state department seems to be saying that the cartoonists were naughty and shouldn't have done it while President Bush says that we stand by our friends in the Netherlands. Please, people, one signal (and in this case it had better be at least on the side of Bush's rather lukewarm support).
The second story is somewhat related to the other at least tangentially. Last year a mother in Queens, Andrea Skoros, sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited. The school officials said that the display was of secular symbols and did include a Christmas tree (oops... shouldn't say that, in our screwed up world we are supposed to say "holiday tree", which I suppose means I can keep mine up all year round since we have holidays throughout the year and those who demand the use of the "holiday tree" term don't specify WHICH holiday... naw, I'll call it what it is, a Christmas tree). What is frightening is that today a small AP article states that a federal appeals court has upheld the school's policy. What idiots! The menorah isn't a religious symbol? Are those people completely ignorant of what the menorah symbolises?! And the star and crescent represents what? (Is there ANYONE who doesn't know... anyone?) I am so happly at least one judge dissented, the brave Judge Chester Straub, who said that the policy utilizes religious symbols of certain religions but bans the symbols of another. So let's see, the school places symbols of certain religions in the display but has banned a nativity scene... how can anyone disagree with Judge Straub's commonsense dissent? As Mrs Skoros has said, she never was wanting the other symbols removed, just add an appropriate symbol for the nearly two billion Christians. Now, if she were a (so called) peaceful extreme Islamist do you think she would be seeking the addition at least one symbol of equal communicative value, or the subtraction of all symbols not a part of Islam? And yet gentle readers, what religion, what one set of beliefs is it okay to disparage and ban in our supposed modern age? Here, let me help you, it isn't Islam...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)