Search This Blog


Thursday, April 17, 2014

Bobo endorses Lewis' trilemma

K T Cat: Well, This Kind Of Explains Why I've Always Liked U2 --
Interviewer: So then, what or who was Jesus, as far as you're concerned?

Bono: I think it's the/a defining question, for a Christian is, "Who was Christ?" And I don't think you're let off easily by saying "a great thinker" or "a great philosopher" ... because, actually, *he* went 'round saying he was the Messiah. That's why he was crucified; he was crucified because he said he was the Son of God. So, he either, in my view, *was* the Son of God, or he was ...

Interviewer: Not.

Bono: No, no! Nuts!

Interviewer: Nut? Yes? Yes?

Bono: Forget rock-and-role "messianic complexes", this is like, I mean, Charlie Manson type delirium. … And I find it hard to accept that all the millions and millions of lives, half the earth, for two thousand years, have been touched, have felt their lives touched, and inspired, by some nutter. I just, I don’t believe it.

Interviewer: So, therefore it follows that you believe he was divine?

Bono: Yes.

Interviewer: And therefore it follows that you believe that he rose physically from the dead?

Bono: Yes.

Continue reading ...

Monday, April 14, 2014

Scientism of the Day

Michael Egnor, quoting a Warm-monger -- "The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence."

Damn those "morons" in Flyoverland for not understanding "science" and for wanting evidence before they're willing to submit their lives to the arbitrary whims of the Warm-mongers!

By the way, Egnor quotes the Warm-monger, and comments, far more extensively. Do read his post.

Continue reading ...

Friday, April 11, 2014

I think I'll be even more skeptical this time

Mail Online: Could you soon be filling up with SEAWATER? US Navy reveals 'game changing' fuel created from water

I could be misremembering, but the main photo (of the contraption) in the linked article looks to me like the same photo I'd seen in similar articles a number of years ago.

The problem is that it takes more energy as an input than the system/process outputs. This doesn't mean that such a process can't be useful in some circumstances. But, it does mean that such a process is *still* dependent upon some other energy source, such as fossil fuels, or nuclear, or possibly solar.

So, if the goal is to make portable fuel -- that is, to convert electricity into fuel -- such a process may be useful. But, if the goal is to generate electricity/energy, then it's counter-productive.

Continue reading ...

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Gaywalkers, Gaytards, and the Gaystapo

Douglas Wilson: Gaywalkers, Gaytards, and the Gaystapo

Douglas Wilson: Too Thick to Deal With -- "... We are a generation that, in the words of Dabney, are simultaneously sentimental and inhumane. The only way we react with moral outrage anymore is if someone insults our bizarre and disjointed sentimentalist taboos.

But this is not mindless behavior on their part; it is a play they are running. They are running it very successfully. They arbitrarily make more and more things offensive to say, and then well-meaning Christians who want to “maintain a good witness” volunteer to police the boundaries of their new prohibitions. Orwellian double-speak abounds, with Christians who really should know better serving as the double-speak cops. They do this, thinking it our duty for the sake of the witness, when our real duty is to put our foot through the side of every double-painted lie.

Continue reading ...

Illegal vs Immoral ... And the Leftist War On Liberty

This post is prompted by a comment I recently posted on Victor Reppert’s blog. The context has to do with the leftist-gay alliance’s current moral enthusiasm to label as bigotry not just opposition to “the gay agenda”, but also insufficient enthusiasm for it (see the next-to-last paragraph).

My comment n Victor Reppert’s blog is this --
ozzielionel: "… everything that is legal is not necessarily moral."

And likewise, not everything that is immoral can reasonably-and-practically be made illegal.

And further, since all human laws – all of them that command “Do this” or “Do not do that” – are *always* backed up by the threat of state violence and state-sanctioned violent death, it is incumbent upon a sane, rational, and moral people, who cherish liberty, to keep laws to a minimum.

The root-cause of the problem here -- and most of you reading this will *refuse* to understand this … which is to say, you will *refuse* to move to the intellectual ground from which you can defend your own liberty – is that when the Republicans finally overturned the Democrats’ Jim Crow laws, they didn’t *merely* end the state demand-under-threat-of-violence that some citizens behave toward other citizens as though they were bigots, whether or not they would have behaved that way absent the state threat. Oh, no, not they! Not being content simply to end an injustice, the self-congratulatory civil-rights politicians had to go on and create a new injustice: using the threat of state-violence-unto-death to compel bigots to treat those against whom their bigotry ran as though they loved them.

The *reason* that the leftists are now so easily able to label simple people who simply wish to be left alone (*) as “bigots” who must be persecuted with all the resources of The State is because you, Mr and Mrs America, have already surrendered. You already subscribe to the twisted presuppositions from which they reason – no matter how much you whine about “political correctness gone wild”, all this is just the out-working of the twisted logic to which you already have surrendered.

(*) that would be *you*, Mr and Mrs America
Gentle Reader, until you are willing to defend the legal right of the “bigot” (whether real or so-called) to *be* a bigot, then you are not willing to defend your own legal and moral right to the liberty known as “freedom of association”, which just happens to be one of the fundamental liberties upon which all other liberties, and civil rights, depends. If you are not willing to demand that The State leave the “bigot” the hell alone, then you are not willing to assert your own liberty. Nor deserving of it.

Now, as a moral being, and as a member of society, it is certainly within your sphere-of-concern whether this person or that is a “bigot”. And if you think he is, then don’t deal with him. That’s all you need do … and that’s all you have the moral right to do.

But, as a citizen, it is generally not your business (*) whether someone is a “bigot”. What you do not have the moral right to do is to use the violent power of The State to crush the “bigot”.

(*) One of the few exceptions would be the allocation/spending of tax monies.

Continue reading ...

What Would You Have Them Have Done?

RD Miksa: History: What Would You Have Done?

As I commented: "Exactly.

I have always despised the pig-ignorance – when it’s not intellectual dishonesty – of the anti-Crusadesers. I have upon occasion given thought to showing, as so many others have done, that the Crusades were not unjustified (but, rather were long delayed) and that instead it is the current leftist-inspired mind-set of slandering our cultural ancestors that is unjustified. You have written the post I’d like to have written … so I‘ll have to be content with linking to it.

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

What’cha waitin’ on?

Bob Parks rhetorically asks, concerning the anemic sign-up for ObamaCare, "Sixty-six million progressives voted for the president. YOU wanted ObamaCare. .. What’cha waitin’ on?"

And, of course, we all know the answer -- It wasn’t supposed to work out this way (for those leftie voters) -- someone else was supposed to pick up the tab! When reality hits, as it inevitably must -- and leftie voters discover that *they* are that “someone else” – then it’s time to change the rules. Again.

Continue reading ...

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Why it it so difficult to comprehend?

Here is an email I have tried to send to an on-line magazine which is part of Conservatism, Inc. I don't expect this to be seen by an actual human being, or if it is, to be given any consideration.

When I click on the links to the excellent articles and analysis that [entity] provides, advertisements are thrown at me -- degrading my bandwidth and taking over my sound system -- and so I close the window ... having not read the excellent article and analysis.

In the near future, I expect that I will instruct my email to automatically send all emailings from [entity] into the "junk mail" folder.

My question this: why it it so difficult to comprehend that trying to take over your potential readers' browers is the best way to turn potential readers into non-readers?
I long ago stopped bothering with the Conservatism, Inc entity called National Review Online precisely for this reason, even before their editors made it so publicly clear that they were more concerned with "respectability", as defined by leftists, than with opposing and turning back leftism.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that if the advertising at a website – or on a television network – drives away the eyeballs and eardrums, then the website (or network) merely ends up cutting its own throat?

For example, the *reason* that broadcast television is floundering isn't due to cable television, it's because 20 or more minutes of every hour is commercials (and the same damned ones, over and over and over).

For example, the *reason* that cable television is floundering isn't due to "alternate choices", it's because 20 or more minutes of every hour is commercials (and the same damned ones, over and over and over).

For example, the *reason* that Hulu is going to be floundering in the not too distant future isn't due to "X, Y and Z", it's because there are too many commercials (and the same damned ones, over and over and over ... including even after you have indicated that you don't want to see a specific one again).

Continue reading ...

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Finally! A 'foreign leader' he won't bow to

CNN: Obama, Pope Francis meet for first time

Continue reading ...

Sunday, March 23, 2014

The 100

Lastnight, I watched the pilot for an apparently new (supposedly) science-fiction TV series called 'The 100' on Hulu.

My assessment: It could be a good and interesting series, as it starts with an interesting concept, but it won't be. And it will have next to no relationship to science fiction. What it *will* be is just one more excuse to parade "hot young bodies", and the sort of constant, stupid and pointless "drama" that immature women love, across the TV screen.

If you happen to watch the episode, ask yourself: Are *any* of these characters believable (*) as 16-18 year old kids who have spent their entire lives in a culture for which the only punishment for any crime is death? Is the brunette Trouble-Making Bitch believable as a 16 year old girl who has spent her entire life being hidden in her mother’s apartment - who, until she was discovered and imprisoned, has known at most three other persons in her entire short life?

Right after the semi-crash landing, the Tyrant-in-Waiting reveals that he is the Trouble-Making Bitch's brother. It's easy to miss, but someone in the background exclaims: "No one has a brother!" The meaning of this is that in this society, each woman is allowed to have just one child; her mother's violation of that "law" being the reason that the Trouble-Making Bitch had to be kept hidden, why she was imprisoned after she was discovered "hidden under the floor", and why he mother was "floated". But think about this: no society can last even one generation unless its women generally have at least two children.

This show is going to be just another compendium of all the stupid, counter-factual things that "liberals" love to believe, and to which they try to force reality to conform.

(*) The Cute Blonde, and the Black Kid who loves her, are just about believable.

Continue reading ...