What's so great about Ilion's blog?

Recently, one of the God-hating leftists who infest Michael Egnor blog asked, "What's so great about Ilion's blog?"

In full, he said, " What's so great about Ilion's blog? His posts consist mainly of links. There are hardly any signs of intellectual activity there."

Think about this condemnation of me he offers -- because I think that others' thoughts are worth thinking about and are worth sharing with others, therefore, there are hardly any signs of intellectual activity here.

You just know that if I never posted anything but my own musings, he'd be condemning me for that ... and in the same terms.

Leftists, atheists ... they are almost always intellectually dishonest.

Yet another conundrum

Here is yet another conundrum for evolutionism --

Cornelius Hunter has a recent post concerning the "sixth sense" of magnetoreception that many animal possess, with a focus on how this ability relates to evolutionism Evolutionists Conclude Magnetoreception Evolved (After They Doubted its Very Existence) ... but then, they “conclude” that about everything, once they stop denying that it exists.

Hunter: -- “... It is also another example of the failure of evolutionary theory. Not only is there no scientific explanation for how such magneto reception, processing and decision-making could evolve, but the entire idea runs counter to evolution. Fifty years ago evolutionists ridiculed the idea that animals could detect such weak signals and use them in a sort of geographic information service. Now they claim it is all a result of blind evolution. As one evolutionist explained regarding the loggerhead turtles, “We think different areas along the migratory pathway are marked by unique magnetic signatures, and the turtles have evolved responses that are coupled to these signatures.” They think that not because the turtle’s magnetoreception appears to be a product of evolution, or that they have anything close to a scientific explanation for how it could have evolved. They think that because they believe evolution is true.

That is the extent of evolution’s contribution to this research.”

Here is the conundrum for evolutionism -

Supposedly - it’s (presently) Gospel in evolutionism -- the earth's magnetic field periodically collapses and reverses.

So, one must wonder, given Darwinsm/evolutionism, and give the periodic collapse and reversal of the earth’s marnet field, how do there happen to be species that rely upon magnetoreception to get to where they need to be when they need to be there (for instance, their breeding or spawning grounds)?


A collapse and reversal is supposed to happen on an average of 450,000 years. That hardly seems like time enough for magnetoreception to randomly evolve-and-fix. Or, even if it were enough time, about the time a species came to get good at it and to depend upon it, the magnetic field would collapse and reverse.

According to the Wickedpedia (no foe of evolutionism, that!) - " A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the Earth's magnetic field such that the positions of magnetic north and magnetic south are interchanged. The Earth's field has alternated between periods of normal polarity, in which the direction of the field was the same as the present direction, and reverse polarity, in which the field was the opposite. These periods are called chrons. The time spans of chrons are randomly distributed with most being between 0.1 and 1 million years with an average of 450,000 years. Most reversals are estimated to take between 1,000 and 10,000 years. The latest one, the -BrunhesMatuyama reversal, occurred 780,000 years ago. A brief complete reversal, known as the Laschamp event, occurred only 41,000 years ago during the last glacial period. That reversal lasted only about 440 years with the actual change of polarity lasting around 250 years. During this change the strength of the magnetic field dropped to 5% of its present strength."

So, according to evolutionism, a mere 41,000 years ago, there was a brief (i.e. 440 years) complete reversal of earth’s magnetic field. Now, while 440 years (or 250 years) may be “brief” on geological time-scales, in the life-span of an organism which needs to be at the right places -- feeding grounds and/or breeding grounds -- at the right times, this span of time of being unable to rely upon its magnetoreception to get there equals species extinction.

Hey, we do that here too!

Dubai sends American to max-security prison for … a YouTube satire video

As Bob Parks noted: Hey, we do that here too!

Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks VI

The blogger ‘Shadow to Light’ has a recent post concerning just how weak-vaporous are Jerry Coyne’s “powerful arguments for atheism”. I have some comments --

Shadow to Light: "This [the sixth "argument"] is a nonsense question. We inquire about the origin of something if we have reason to think that thing came into existence. Treating God as if He is supposed to be one more thing that is part of contingent reality means you have not seriously considered the question of God’s existence, which is probably why this is a favorite argument among the pre-teens and young teens."

Also, as an "argument", it is blatant straw-manning and question-begging built upon an equivocation. Consider it again --

Jerry Coyne: "6. Who made God? Secularism provides the best explanation for the idea of God, for we have ample reason to think (and in fact have often witnessed) that gods are created by the human mind."

The equivocation: no "idea of God" is God himself. Conceptions of 'god' may or may not be accurate -- they may or may not actually refer to the actual God -- but even accurate conceptions of God are incomplete. And none of them is God himself: no more than is one's understanding of one's father one's father himself.

The strawman: as 'Shadow to Light' notes, "[t]reating [the Biblical Judeo-Christian conception of the Creator-]God as if He is supposed to be one more thing that is part of contingent reality means you have not seriously considered the question [and arguments] of God’s existence"

This strawman contains another equivocation -- Coyne is treating the Biblical Judeo-Christian conception of the Creator-God -- the uncreated/non-contingent Necessary Being who is the "ground of all being", who is "being itself" -- as being logically equivalent to any of the various the pagan conceptions of their gods, all of whom were conceived as being contingent, all of whom were conceived either as having been born of some pre-existing deity, or as having spontaneously "arisen" from some pre-existing state of affairs.

It is a favorite strawman of atheists to knock down Zeus and then triumphantly proclaim that they have knocked down The Ancient of Days.

The question-begging: by equivocating between conceptions of God and God himself, this atheist "argument" begs the question whether the term 'God' refers to anything other than this or that conception of 'god'. That is, this "argument" *begins* with the assumption that the terms 'God' and 'god' refer ever and only to ideas and never to what those ideas are believed to concern. So, of course, by *assuming* that the Judeo-Christian use of the term 'God' refers *only* to the Judeo-Christian concept of what God is like, and never to God Himself, he is able to "conclude" that God is merely an idea "created by the human mind."

Well, d'oh!

Keep in mind, Gentle Reader -- this is the *best* that the militant God-haters (and would-be murderers of his people) can do.

Gettin' your freak on ... and not

Bob Parks: How To Piss Off Your Wife

'I do not think that word means what you think it means'

Bob Parks: Boneheads Of The Day -- Notice the sign a person in the picture is holding -- as Inigo Montoya might say, "I do not think that word means what you think it means". For, after all, what they are demanding for 'Juan' is the opposite of justice.

The other side!

Washington Times: Obama: Hole U.S. ‘digging out of’ requires billions more in unemployment benefits

The problem is that you and I ... and everyone else ... just aren't smart enough to grasp the sheer genius of continued digging when you find you've dug yourself onto a hole. Sure, everyone likes to say, "The first thing to do when you realize you've dug yourself into a hole is to stop digging", but that conventional "wisdom" just shows a lack of imagination.

You see, as Our Zero, Who art The Won, has realized, the only sure way to get yourself out of the hole you've dug yourself into is to keep digging until you reach the other side!

The other side is, of course, China: when the Democrats have turned America into China, then all our problems will be solved.

The MFAP hypothesis of human evolution

I've know about this particular howler for some months. I wish to share with Gentle Reader Michael Egnor's amusing take: You thought descent from apes was bad

Fun with 'life expectancy' comparisons

Bob Parks linked to a supposed news story and commented: Screenshot Of The Day

The US ranks 26th for life expectancy, right behind Slovenia

The left [is] using this to bash American health care while avoiding the daily inner city crime contributions

I commented --

"Life expectancy" rankings between polities using different metrics are inherently dishonest -- and the US uses a different set of metrics than European countries do (hint: ours is more honest, and lowers our "score" in comparison to theirs).

For instance, infant mortality rates -- and how they are counted and then computed into the "life expectancy" number -- has a significant impact on the "score" being used to compare countries. The US counts *all* live births, even if the infant dies immediately after its birth. On the other hand, most other countries *don't* count all live births, but rathe count only those infants who survive some arbitrary cut-off period -- days or weeks, even as much as a full year. The majority of infant mortality occurs within the first few days of birth, and unless a society is a total hell-hole, if an infant survives the first year, he's generally going to make it to adulthood.

Consider:
If there are 98 people -- and just to make the math simple -- all of whom live exactly 70 years, then the average life-span of that group of people was obviously 70 years [i.e. (70 * 98) / 98].

But, add to the group a ninety-nineth person who died at birth, and the average life-span of the group drops to 69.29 years [i.e. ((70 * 98) + 0) / 99].

Now, add a one-hundredth person who died at birth, and the average life-span of the group drops to 68.6 years [i.e. ((70 * 98) + 0 + 0) / 100]

In the US, we count those two persons who died at birth; most European countries don't.

Who wouldn't want to live in the hypothetical polity with an average life-span "score" of 70 years as compared to the one with a "score" of 68.6 years -- and yet, these two hypothetical polities are the exact same place! The only difference between them is *how* the average life-span is being calculated.

Also, keep in mind, in calculating these "average life-spans", I *know* exactly how long the persons being counted actually lived. In contrast, in "calculating" "average life expectancy", no one yet knows how long the persons being counted actually will live: "average life expectancy" is derived via actualial computations, not from computations of actual lives lived.

As Mr Parks said: The left [is] using this to bash American health care while avoiding the daily inner city crime contributions ... because leftists don't give a damn about truth, and they will use *any* excuse they can get you to swallow to get you to give up your liberty and so increase their power over your life.

At least she left the comments

At least she left the comments -- none of which are supportive of her -- in place. That, in itself, is worthy of note.

Jenny Erikson: How My Husband Found Out I Was Leaving Him

Edit: 2013\12\06
The blogger 'Malcolm the Cynic' weighs in

Click Baby

K T Cat: Hilarious!

Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks V

I just happened to see this over at Uncommon Descent, and thought I'd share it with Gentle Reader --
Barry Arrington: If I Made This Stuff Up No One Would Believe Me

Mark Frank: “PVH is surely right that it is always possible you are wrong about an objective belief.”

Barry: “Mark, is it possible that that statement is wrong?”

Mark Frank: “Yes”

to which Mark Frank replied:

Can anyone explain to me what Barry finds ridiculous about this? I made an assertion. Like all assertions I might be wrong. Clearly I think I am right, but I am fallible.

The typical 'atheist' or 'skeptic' (or 'Science!' fetishist) simply doesn't *think* ... neither about what "the bad guys" say, nor about what they themselves say; even *after* it has been pointed out that there is a logical flaw in what they assert, they do not rationally/logically examine it to see the flaw for themselves.

What happened here is that in one easy step, Barry Arrington used the "Skeptical" game Mark Frank was playing against the game itself ... and against Mark Frank's 'Science!' fetishism.

Here's how the "Skeptical" game works --

You, not being a self-proclaimed 'skeptic' and paragon of 'Reason!' and 'Science!', that is, not being a God-hater, state (or even argue) 'X'.

Now, 'X' may or may not have anything directly to do with God or morality or other such "offensive" topics, but if it leads to God or morality or so forth, then the 'skeptic', being a paragon of 'Reason!' and 'Science!', simply *must* deny it, denegrate it, and "prove" that you're an idiot.

So, the 'skeptic', that a paragon of 'Reason!' and 'Science!', when he can't attack what you've said on rational and logical grounds -- as he generally can't -- resorts to various forms of irrationality and illogic. Currently, one of their favorite means to denegrate the ideas they hate is play the "Radical Skepticism" card, that is, to simply deny that any knowledge is possible.

Understand this: Mark Frank, and PVH before him, didn't show any error or flaw in whatever it was that someone else had said which they woshed to deny. Instead, simply by asserting "that might be wrong/incorrect", they magically transformed it into a wrong/incorrect statement or argument.

And, if you, trying to be "civil", let them play the "Radical Skepticism" card, or worse, agree with its premises, then, for their purposes, they "win". For, keep in mind, such God-haters don't care about getting at the truth of reality, but care about getting rid of God, somehow, anyhow, and about silencing anyone who is trying to discover or explicate more about God.

==== Edit: 2013/12/02
The explanation for the fact that Mr Frank (and PVH before him) was playing an intellectually dishonest game, rather than demonstrating actual skepticism, has to do with the nature of logic and logically valid reasoning --
1) when one starts with true premises, and reasons validly (i.e. logically) from them, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be other than true;
1a) when one starts with true premises, BUT reasons invalidly (i.e. illogically) from them, then it is possible for the conclusion to be either true or false ... for it it not logically connected to the premises;
2) when one starts with false premises, and reasons validly (i.e. logically) from them, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be other than false;
2b) when one starts with false premises, and reasons invalidly (i.e. illogically) from them, then it is possible for the conclusion to be either true or false ... for it it not logically connected to the premises;
3) when one starts with possibly true premises, and reasons validly (i.e. logically) from them, then it is possible for the conclusion to be either true or false ... this is because the premises may have been false, after all -- that is, such a conclusion *may* be a case of 1) or of 2);
3a) when one starts with possibly true premises, and reasons invalidly (i.e. illogically) from them, then it is possible for the conclusion to be either true or false ... for it it not logically connected to the premises AND the premises may or may not be true, after all -- that is, such a conclusion *may* be a case of 1a) or of 2a);

Had Mr Frank been demonstrating actual skepticism about whatever it was he wished to deny, he might have attempted to show that the premises were false; he might have attempted to show that the reasoning from the premises was logically invalid; lastly, he might have attempted to show that the truth-value of the premisses is unknown, and thus, though the resoning may have been logically valid, the conclusion cannot be trusted as being true.

He *pretended* to be taking the third tack, simply by asserting his "conclusion" that the thing he wished to deny was possibly false: either because the premisses were possibly false or because the reasoning was possibly invalid.

Ilíon, do you see what's happening here?

B.Prokop: "Ilíon, do you see what's happening here?"

Oh, I do, indeed! "What's happening here" is that B.Prokop was demonstrating his leftist intellectual hypocrisy. If Gentle Reader really needs me to flesh this out, I will, so long as you help me see what you're not quite getting.

MEANWHILE, for Gentle Reader's edification and/or education, here are a number of recent new items illustrating what *really* goes on under systems of socialized medicine ... of course, these news items are "via ideologically-filtered media, i.e., an alternate (un)reality", and are thus not at all to be trusted nor given any credence --

From Denmark: LifeNews.com: 19-Year-Old Recovers as Doctors Start to Harvest Her Organs -- I've linked to horror stories like this before, both in Europe and in America. It's apparently worse in Europe, for their official protocols seem to be more relaxed than ours, but it happens here, too.

"Carina’s family is now suing the hospital for damages. Her family’s lawyer claims that she keeps asking whether her doctors were trying to kill her. “Those bandits in white coats gave up too quickly because they wanted an organ donor,” Carina’s father told the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet."

Exactly! There is a noisy political market for the transplanting of vital organs -- and the concomitant ongoing life-long expense of anti-rejection drugs -- but the human beings who will be strip-mined for those vital organs die individually, quietly, tucked away somewhere where no one needs to think about the moral cost.

From Ireland: (Daily) Mail Online: 'The doctors told us to let Simon die. Instead we tried for a baby... and ended up with twins!': The inspirational film-maker who refused to accept the 'death sentence' of Motor Neurone Disease -- "It's time for you to choose to die [because paying for a machine to breathe for you cuts into our budget for "sex change" operations]"

From the UK: The Telegraph: Pensioner left on end of life pathway for four days -- Understand what is being described here: "doctors" deliberately chose to withhold care -- including food and water -- from this old man; "doctors" and "nurses" *deliberately* ignored his pleas for water for four days; then, with the excuse that his organs were "too damaged", "doctors" again *deliberately* choose to not give him food, but rather to put him into an induced coma ... so that his suffering as he died the death-by-hunger-and-thirst that they had *chosen* to inflict upon him would not be so readily apparent.

This is not a one-off, this sort of thing is done all the time under Britain's NHS; this is official policy! These "doctors" will no more face prosecution than do the Dutch and Belgian "doctors" who openly euthanize "patients" who not only didn't ask for it, but actively declined it.

I had previously linked to these stories --

From the Belgium: The Telegraph: Belgian killed by euthanasia after a botched sex change operation

From the Belgium: (Daily) Mail Online: Deaf twins who discovered they were going blind and would never see each other again are euthanized in Belgian hospital

Here is a comment by the blogger 'Wintery Knight' explaining *why* socialized medicine does and must produce such monstrous results -- Wintery Knight: Doctor shortage: how Obamacare makes Americans lose their doctors

The problem is that when government controls health care, they spend the money on things that will buy them more votes. People who need expensive care like this definitely do not get treated. In government-run health care, government takes control of the money being spent by individuals on actual health care in the private sector. They then redirect that money into public sector spending on “health-related” services. Instead of helping people who are really sick, government-run systems cut lose those sick people and concentrate on buying perfectly healthy people things like condoms, abortions, IVF and sex changes. They spread the money around to more people in order to buy more votes. The main goal is to get the majority of people dependent on government so that they continue to vote for bigger government. The few people who need expensive health care? They can just go die in a ditch.

Concerning the Belgian woman who was "killed by euthanasia after a botched sex change operation", my comment at the time was this: "So, rather than actually trying to help this poor confused and mentally-ill woman, the "liberal" answer was to surgically mutilate her sexually (probably at tax-payer expense) ... and then, since that didn't actually help her, as of course it could not, the "liberal" final solution is to put her down."

Can you not see 'Wintery Knight's' explanation being worked out? Before the "sex change" operation, she was perfectly healthy" -- physically, though not mentally nor emotionally. What she *needed* was to understand and incorporate into her psyche the truth that her mother's hatred of her had nothing to do with her, nor her body, nor her sex.

But, there is political hay to be made in using government force and violence to compel those it controls to pay for "sex change" operations, and far less in trying to actually help people as they really need. So, off to be mutilated she goes! And, when it inevitably becomes clear that she's still enslaved to her mother's hatred of her, off to be murdered she goes!

What the poor woman needed was spiritual freedom (which comes, ultimately, only from God) from her mother's hatred of her, what she got is death.

Mrs Obama is a 'Birther'

For the second time recently, Bob Prokop, a leftist from Victor Reppert's blog, who has mysteriously taken to reading and commenting here (and who is constantly amused by his own witticism of equating my opposition to the imposition of leftist tyranny upon free-born Americans with advocating "Hell's Own Constitution"), has questioned whether I am a "birther" (*).

I am not.

However, Michelle Obama is a "birther" -- I have seen at least two videos of her expressing her "birtherism" before the Democratic Party handlers taught her to shut up about the matter.

Here is a video of Mrs Obama, in 2008, addressing the Perversion Caucus of the Party of Perversion (and Death), referring to Kenya as Barack Hussein Obama's "home country" (see the :40 to :47 mark) --

Think about this: back in 2008 -- before he and his handlers realized that they'd better change the issue -- BHO's own wife, who had, as she says, "lived with him for twenty years", *believed* and *said right out in public* that Kenya was his "home country".

Now, as I've pointed out multiple times, *where* Barack Hussein Obama, Jr, was born is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether he meets the Constitutional requirements to occupy the office of President of the United States. Nevertheless, the Democrats had tried, and so far succeeded, to use the issue of *where* he was born as a red-herring to deflect attention from the real issue: Is Barack Hussein Obama a natural born US citizen? (hint: no, he is not, and his failure to be a natural born US citizen has nothing to do with his birth-place) and to tar those who point to the *real* issue as "birthers", on par with "911 truthers".

The Republican Party and their shills have been happy to cooperate in this Democratic Party red-herring ... for they want someday to run Mario Rubio or Bobby Jindal or Ted Cruz -- none of whom are natural born US citizens -- for the presidency without having to worry about the pesky Constitutional requirement.

This is how Republics die.

======

(*) The second instance of B.Prokop accusing me of being a "birther" is here.

The first instance of B.Prokop accusing me of being a "birther" is here. NOTE: I had explained to him at that time, now nearly four months ago, that I am not a "birther"; I had explained to him at that time *why* I refer to the Obamanation as an 'alien' (regardless of where he was born); I had explained to him at that time *why* (though, there is more I could have said) the Obamanation is not Constitutionally able, thus not legally able, to occupy the office of President of the United States.

But, B.Prokop is a leftist ... so none of that matters. All that matters is protecting the brand; or, as in this case, protecting the face that represents the brand ... so long as that face still looks useful.

Obamamandias

Douglas Wilson: Obamamandias

Trailer Of The Day

Bob Parks: Trailer Of The Day

God in the Dock - Tragedy and Trilemma

by way of Brutally Honest -- Dr Bryan Cross: God in the Dock: Tragedy and Trilemma

Then [concerning his son's death] at some point while still pounding on the wheel and repeatedly interrogating God with no reply forthcoming, a kind of trilemma began to form in my mind, and I gradually realized that under each of its three horns what I was doing was silly and pointless. Either God did not exist, or God was evil, or God was good. In what I had witnessed in Joshua's suffering, any God who was morally indifferent or 'neutral' or apathetic was just evil. If God did not exist, my complaining was silly and pointless, because in that case nobody was listening. And if God were evil, then my complaints were also silly and pointless, because there would be no point complaining to an evil deity about ill treatment, since if he were evil he wouldn't care about failing to be good. I realized by this process of reasoning that my act of complaining to God about an injustice could only make sense if God is good. But then, of course, if God, being God, is good not by participation in goodness or by derived goodness, but as Goodness itself (ipsum bonum), then my act of complaining to Him also did not make sense because in that case He certainly has a good reason for allowing my son's suffering and death to happen, a reason I cannot presently see. I would be complaining to Goodness itself about its behavior, as though I know Goodness better than Goodness knows Goodness, and as though I know better than Goodness how Goodness ought to run things. And that too would be silly and pointless (and arrogant), because one can't show up Goodness by appealing to Goodness. Any attempt to do so only shows up one's own insufficient understanding of Goodness, and is thus self-refuting. The proper response, if God is Goodness, would not be to rail against Him but instead to trust Him, even if I never found out the good, justifying reason for Joshua's death, even if for the rest of eternity I never could find out that reason because it was so far above my finite comprehension.

The "argument from pain", aka, "the argument from evil", is the best arrow in the quiver of God-denialism ... and yet it actually *supports* Judeo-Christianity. To put it another way, at best, God-denial is a category error.

This is the trilemma Dr Cross came to see --
1) God is not ... in which case, railing against injustice is pointless. Who is listening? Who gives a damn about it? Who is going to do a damned thing about it?
2) God is, but is *not* Goodness Itself, and may even be wicked (*) ... in which case, railing against injustice is pointless. Who is listening (except maybe to gloat like a Bondian villain)? Who gives a damn about it? Who is going to do a damned thing about it?
3) God is and *is* Goodness Itself (*) ... in which case, railing against injustice is pointless, for he already knows, and he has already decreed the judgment against it, and has already fixed the time of justice and restitution.

If you say you trust God ... then *trust* him.

And, if you deny God, or deny that he is Good ... then shut the Hell up, for you have nothing to say.


(*) Now, there are whole other arguments that show the logical incoherence, and thus the absurdity, of the propositions "God is wicked" and "God is not Goodness Itself", but that's not our concern here.

And, of course, the proposition "God is not" is also absurd, for among its many absurd entailments is the absurdity that "Oneself is not". But, likewise, that is not our concern here.

The concern here is to help one see/understand/grasp that the "the argument from evil" is actually childish, in the negative sense: for it is not actually an argument at all, but is rather an appeal to emotion and it gets is "umph" from the studied *refusal* to maturely-and-rationally consider the matters of good-and-evil, in general, and/or one's pain or suffering.

An amazing (and amusing) juxtaposition

Canceled health care plans to get one years extension, president says --

WASHINGTON (AP/WJLA) - Admitting that his administration “fumbled” the healthcare rollout, President Obama made steps on Thursday in order to fix the beleaguered Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Obama said that Americans whose insurance would terminate at the end of 2013 will now be able to stay on their current plans for another year.
...

Even if he really were legally the President of the United States, we doesn't *have* the authority to suspend any part of "his signature legislation" ... not that any such legal niceties have every bothered him or his supporters.


White House: Obama would veto Republican healthcare bill --

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama would veto a bill sponsored by a Republican congressman that would allow insurers to offer healthcare plans slated to be canceled because they do not meet the new U.S. healthcare law's standards, the White House said on Thursday.

The veto threat came hours after Obama, under fire for the botched roll-out of his signature domestic policy achievement, said health insurers could extend by at least one year policies that were due to be canceled because they do not comply with new minimum requirements.
...

Meanwhile, Congress does have the authority to amend or suspend any portion of this illegal (*) so-called law, or to scrap the whole damned mess.

Open your eyes, Americans: this alien interloper thinks he’s an Absolute Monarch. This is how republics die, this is how tyrranies are born.

Mark Steyn:

Hewitt ... pointed out to Steyn that today’s move could postpone the worst of Obamacare to just before next year’s midterm elections.

“I think that’s true. I mean, he keeps using this line, oh he’s ‘only inflicting catastrophe on fewer than 5 percent of the population,” Steyn said. “That’s because he unilaterally decided to suspend the employer mandate for a year. Otherwise, a lot of spouses and children, for example just to take the most obvious thing, would be getting kicked off employer-based plans round about now. Now obviously this is unbecoming to a republic, to any kind of theory of responsible government. One of the indictments of George III that you excitable revolutionary colonials made was that he was arbitrarily suspending laws that had been passed and refusing to implement them according to his regal whims. Obama, having wrecked people’s lives by forcing insurance companies to comply with Obamacare, is now ordering them not to comply with Obamacare. I don’t even think that’s doable, but if it were doable then this would no longer be a free society.”

(*) It's unConstitutional, and thus illegal, no matter what those fools on the supreme Court have decreed.

Lena Dunham and the Politics of P****

Robert Stacey McCain (The Other McCain): Lena Dunham and the Politics of Vagina

"If you’ve ever watched Girls or have been aware of the things Lena Dunham says, you’d see a portrait of narcissism and entitlement.
…
“It is the idea that the women on the show are entitled to men wanting them. Despite any flaw — whether it be physical, emotional, or a lack of accomplishments — they are owed a relationship with a man. Based on this premise, any poor behavior or lack of interest in their appearance cannot be the cause of why he didn’t call back.”
– Amy Otto, Nov. 12

...
Annica Benning says this controversial ad for ObamaCare “portray[s] women as giddy, sex-starved and desperate”:

Amy Runyon-Harms, executive director of ProgressNow Colorado, defended them, saying: “People get upset when you portray women as independent.”
That is interesting — independence can now be defined based on sexual promiscuity?
In fact, the underlying message is not independence, as government-funded birth control doesn’t convey any form of personal independence, certainly not financially.

But that’s just it, see? Democrats want women to be “independent” from men — i.e., unmarried — so that they will then be dependent on government. And if these allegedly “independent” women are “giddy, sex-starved and desperate,” they’ll eventually need a scapegoat to blame for their miserable loneliness: Blame the oppressive patriarchy! Blame “corporate America”! Blame Republicans!

Defining “independence . . . based on sexual promiscuity” not only undermines marriage, but it also (a) results in women being infected with diseases, for which they require medical treatment, (b) creates demand for legalized abortion, and (c) fosters unwed motherhood, with more children growing up in poverty. The propaganda of Lena Dunham thereby helps grow the Democrat Party coalition.

And what about basic Judeo-Christian bourgeois morality, which Engels derided as “false consciousness”? It’s not just about sex, you know. The strongest possible condemnation of the liberal Welfare State can be summarized in four words: Thou shalt not steal.

It is fundamentally wrong to demand that government give you “free stuff” you have not earned, paid for by the taxes of people who work hard for their money. Amy Otto notices the “narcissism and entitlement” in Girls, which we might also call simple selfishness.

An irresponsible, self-centered attitude — Veruca Salt demanding, “I want it now” — is really what contemporary feminism is all about. Disassemble the ideological infrastructure, get past all the elaborate pseudo-intellectual rhetoric, and feminism is about the avoidance of responsibility: “Bad things happen to me because . . . sexism!”

It’s like the lazy young hippie punk with no skills who nevertheless refuses to take a “dead end job” at a fast-food restaurant because he’s not about cooperating with The Capitalist System, man.

And most of the so-called women in North America totally buy into this mindset ... regardless of the fact that most of them will say, "Oh, but I'm not a feminist!" (Which mostly just means "I'm not a lesbian")

"Disassemble the ideological infrastructure, get past all the elaborate pseudo-intellectual rhetoric, and feminism is about the avoidance of responsibility"

That's true of the whole spectrum mental illnesses which comprise leftism.

The ultimate goal of leftism -- of which feminism is just one tool -- isn't socialism; that's just (currently) the most effective way to get there. The ultimate goal is statism/totalitarianism.

I Have Seen the Future, and it Is Idiocy

Dalrymple: I Have Seen the Future, and it Is Idiocy

... The contrast between the authorities’ alacrity on one hand in preventing innocent filming for a matter of a few minutes (the policeman said authorization was necessary because it might cause a disturbance, and, being kind, I refrained from laughing), and on the other their slow response to a nasty incident that might have ended in murder, was emblematic of the modern state’s capacity to get everything exactly the wrong way around, to ascribe importance to trivia and to ignore the important. There are, of course, many more employment opportunities in trivia, since there is much more that is trivial in the world than is important.
...
It often seems, then, as if modern state authorities live in a looking-glass world: What normal people regard as important is for them of no importance, while what they regard as of supreme importance normal people regard as of no importance. For them the respectable are suspect and the suspect respectable. A tweed jacket is a sign of menace, while a broken bottle is a sign of harmless intent. ...

Coming soon to a country near you

USA Today: Venezuelan military seizes major retail chain --

CARACAS - Thousands of Venezuelans lined up outside the country's equivalent of Best Buy, a chain of electronics stores known as Daka, hoping for a bargain after the socialist government forced the company to charge customers "fair" prices.

President Nicolás Maduro ordered a military "occupation" of the company's five stores as he continues the government's crackdown on an "economic war" it says is being waged against the country, with the help of Washington.

Members of Venezuela's National Guard, some of whom carried assault rifles, kept order at the stores as bargain hunters rushed to get inside.

"I want a Sony plasma television for the house," said Amanda Lisboa, 34, a business administrator, who had waited seven hours already outside one Caracas store. "It's going to be so cheap!"
...
"This is for the good of the nation," Maduro said. "Leave nothing on the shelves, nothing in the warehouses … Let nothing remain in stock!"

The president was accompanied on television by images of officials checking prices of 32-inch plasma televisions.

Daka's store managers, according to Maduro, have been arrested and are being held by the country's security services. Neither Daka nor the government responded to requests for comment.

Maduro has long blamed the opposition for waging an economic war on the country though critics are adamant that government price controls, enacted by Chávez a decade ago, are the real cause for the dire state of the economy.

With such a shortage of hard currency for importers and regular citizens, dollars sell on the black market for nine times their official, government-set value. Prices, at shops such as Daka, are set according to this black market, hence the government's crackdown.
...

"Too extreme," you think? "That will never happen in the US!"

But it will -- it's all-but inevitable -- because most of the political elites and a good half the people already subscribe to the faulty -- and immoral -- reasoning used to justify the looting.

What do you think will happen to the economy ... and to society ... then? What do you think will happen once everyone realizes that what a man has is "his" only so long as "the government" hasn't yet decided to expropriate it to buy votes/popularity?

And, after the inevitable and utterly predictable collapse of social trust, and collapse of the economy, what do you think "the government" will say? Will it be, "Oops! We caused that with our doctrinaire leftist policies and actions; we shall un-do our destructive policies at once"? Or, will it be, "President [Leftist Shill] ordered a military "occupation" of [company X's] stores -- [so as to] force the company to charge customers "fair" prices -- as he continues the government's crackdown on an "economic war" it says is being waged against the country. [X's] store managers ... have been arrested and are being held by the country's security services."

As leftists like to say, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." What they don't tell you upfront is that those eggs are human heads. Still, it has been over two centuries since the French Revolution, and *every time* leftists get control over the dispensation of state violence, the result is windrows of human corpses. Every damned time. At this late date, anyone who doesn't *know* what the leftists ultimately have in store for him doesn't know because he refuses to know.

Margaret Thatcher is generally credited with the observation that "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." What most people don't want to think about is the fact that before the (current batch of) socialists admit this, as eventually even they must, they are quite willing to convert any number of human lives into money. But, of course, that just shifts the problem with socialism being that eventually you run out of other people's lives.

'Liberal' political response to 'the will of The People'

Bob Parks: Bonehead Of The Day

Republicans Claim Historic Win In Annapolis Mayoral Race
Annapolis City Council considers stripping mayor’s powers
Flashback: MA legislature flip-flops on governor’s senatorial appointment power

Using Annapolis Alderman Ross Arnett and Massachusetts’ desire for one-party rule as precedent, maybe we should make the Virginia governor a “ceremonial” position until a Republican is reelected. That’s only fair, right Dems?

Since the Democratic Party went insane in 1968, they've been even worse about this sort of thing than they were before. This isn't just "dirty politics", this is leftism in action.

Keep this *always* in mind: leftists are always liars, scoundrels and hypocrites; you *can't* compromise with these people, about anything. You might as well be done with it and just cut your own throat.

First, put the guns away

Doug Wilson: You Ain’t Gonna Make It With Anyone Anyhow

...
What the soft Christian left does not appear to understand is that whenever the offering plate is passed, and the collection officer is wielding a firearm and has big, block letters on his jacket, and looks at you meaningfully, the results, however remunerative, are not what you seem to be claiming. The large offering would not be an instance of Christian love, compassion, tenderness, thoughtfulness for the poor, or any of that glow-in-your-heart talk.

Statist redistribution depends upon coercion and violence, pure and simple. It is not love, it is not compassion, and it cannot be supported by appeals to all the Christian happy words. Put the guns away, and then let’s talk about Christian concern for the poor.
...
The left needs to stop its love affair with bossing people around, making people do things, fining them if they don’t, putting them in prison if they resist, and raiding their houses with SWAT teams if someone in authority suspected something. As Charles Krauthammer once put it memorably, liberals don’t care what you do, so long as it is mandatory.
...

I would say that it's not *merely* that "soft Christian left does not appear to understand", but that they *will not* understand.

Wilson's last paragraph touches upon a fundamental difference in attitude and approach between conservatives/rightists and leftists:
* the conservative attitude is "if it's not forbidden, it's permissible"
* the leftist attitude is "if it's not mandatory, it's forbidden"

People refuse to learn from reality and history

Robert Tracinski: Ten Lessons of ObamaCare -- the problem is deeper than ObamaCare: the problem is governmant ... and a population that government has trained to believe that they can live indefinately off the labor of others; that is, to believe that by collectively stealing the liberty of others, they can individually live "for free" and with no loss of their own liberty, or moral worth.

Here are Mr Tracinski's ten lessons:
1. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
2. Regulation stifles production.
3. The power to tax is the power to destroy.
4. No one is accountable.
5. Politicians lie.
6. The press lies, too.
7. The Law of Unintended Consequences.
8. The Law of Intended Consequences.
9. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
10. Freedom is indivisible.

Do read the whole thing.

Your society on feminism

Wintery Knight: Psychologist claims father is an unfit parent for refusing to yield to son’s demands for fast food -- The cases W.K. discusses (and the millions more like them all across North America) are the direct result of the deliberate goal of feminists, and leftists in general, to destroy the family, to destroy fatherhood, to destroy masculine authority.

Most women reading this next sentence (by which I mean 'women' of whatever chromosomal compliment) are going to shriek like banshees at my “sexist” heresy, but the truth is that ultimately this sort of thing, and much else that is destroying the nation, is the result of our great-grandfathers giving in to the demands of perpetually-dissatisfied females by giving all “women” (*) an acknowledged public voice in the running of the polity. The sad fact is even if a society starts out with almost all its females actually being mature women, once it gives women the vote, human nature – and the politicians’ race to the bottom for votes – ensure that within three to four generations most of the “women” in that society will be exactly the sort of worthless, weak, utterly dependent, yet-continually-boasting-of-being “strong, independent women”, females-stuck-in-junior-high-school that we see around us everywhere.


(*) My intent is to make a distinction between women – mature persons who happen to be female, and who really are "strong, independent women", and of whom there are precious few living in this age – and “women” (some of whom even have XY chromosomes) whose minds are stuck in junior high school.

Hey, It's Almost Chanukah!

Laura Rosen Cohen: Hey, It's Almost Chanukah!

Raped by the police

Vox Day: Raped by the police -- I especially liked the police chief's response/attitute in the newscast video at the first link --

Newsguy: "... Just one question, as the police chief of Demming, what reassurances could you give people, that when the come through your town, that they're not going to be abused or violated by your police officers?"

Police chief: "We follow the law in every aspect, and follow procedures and protocols that we have in place."

Newsguy: "And do you think, in your own opinion, as the chief of police here, do you think that those officers in this particular case did that?"

Police chief: (paraphrased) "[That question is above my pay grade: I have no opinion on the matter]"

She's such a woman

She's such a woman ... and I mean that in a very negative way.

So, I was reading Laura Rosen Cohen's blog, and came across this link, (approvingly) concerning Kathy Shaidle -- and one of her recent reactions to criticism.

So, here's what I saw when I decided to click:

Someone posting as 'Frip88' didn't like *how* she'd written something:

Shaidle: "When he appeared just before Christmas, he was no De Niro. He was no Bronson, either—the word “vengeance” made craggy flesh in the Death Wish (as in, fulfillment) series."

What a horribly crafted sentence.

And, truth be told, it *is* "a horribly crafted sentence".

So -- of course -- Shaidle and her fan-boys/girls simply must respond in the irrational way that most women respond to criticism -- *especially* when it's valid criticism:

Bahoomba: Meow.

brewin: Shaidle is a good writer because she is uncannily good at reading people. And her killer phrases far outweigh her bad.
Grammar nazis are rarely worth reading.

Kathy Shaidle: Hey thanks, Brewin. I don't let the jibes of anonymous jealous unpublished grammar nazi commenters bug me :-)

brewin: I think the operative phrase is "you're not smart enough to tell me how to write" ;-)

Keep on punching above your weight (literally)

RevantDream: Grammar nazis are rarely worth reading.
Hear hear.

Mal: What a crafty semblance of horror.

Peter Crawford: William Shatner is a funny man. Here in Britain he is universally liked due to his guest- hosting appearances on various shows, always genial and often hilarious.

To those who dislike Kathy Shaidle's sentence constructions, I invite you to go back to your dank couches, to tug weepily at the tattered remnants of what was once a proud young manhood.

*IF* one has read Shadle for any length of time, surely one can savor the irony (and hypocrisy) of her reaction.

A case of 'Big Business' takes a hit to the wallet

As we all know, "liberals", with their heartfelt solicitous concern for "the little guy", have a constitutional distrust/hate of "Big Business" (*) -- one of their favorite means of denigrating ideas or arguments they don't like and don't want to deal with is to associate them in some way with "Big Business", a la "Oh, that's just 'Big Oil/Pharma/Ag/etc' speaking ... so it's automatically false (and a lie)" -- so, I'm sure we can expect to see rejoicing from "liberals" all across the land, now that "Big Abort" has taken a hit to its quite ample wallet.

Michael Egnor (quoting Wesley Smith): "If abortion was really only 3% of [Planned Parenthood]..."


(*) except, of course, when they don't

Cargo Cult Modernity

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog: Government Is Magic

More on the militarization of the police

Michale Egnor: The militarization of law enforcement

I'll be jumping right on that

This is an email I received the other day --

NOTIFICATION OF YOUR FUNDS‏

FROM THE DESK OF LORD ADAIR TURNER
CHAIRMAN, FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (FSA).

It has come to our notice via our central monitoring computer that your huge fund has been credited in your name for transfer with a London Bank.

Under the stipulated enabling Law of the Government of Great Britain and Wales and other Commonwealth States, any huge fund that has been found in our computer system waiting to be transferred without claims for a period of 6 months or less, shall be confiscated and forfeited to the Government of Great Britain and Wales.

We do hereby ask you to contact this office immediately with your personal data such
Your full name and address
Your Company's name and position if any
Your present occupation
You mobile phone number

For ratification, processing and re-validation of your payment file within the 5 working days of this notice or consider your fund confiscated.

We appreciate your urgent co-operation.

LORD ADAIR TURNER,
CHAIRMAN, FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (FSA).
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM

I certainly don't want "the Government of Great Britain and Wales" to confiscate my "huge fund"!

Damnit! I waited more than five days!

Progressive "reasoning" in action

Catherine Taibi, Huffington Post: Sean Hannity's Call To Obamacare Hotline Gets Employee Fired --

When Sean Hannity called the Obamacare hotline, not only did he not get the answer he wanted, but he also got a woman fired. Luckily for her, Hannity had the money to help her out.

The Fox News and radio host called the hotline on Monday and spoke on-air with employee Erling Davis about promised improvements to the Obamacare website. Hannity brought Davis back onto the show on Thursday, and she revealed that she had been let go after their conversation.

Davis said that when she returned to work the morning after the phone call, she was escorted up to HR and told that she would be released from the company. When Hannity asked her what the specific reason was, she told him that her employer said she was not permitted to have contact with the media. Davis claimed she was never told this and had no idea that this was company policy.

Hannity promised Davis a one year tax-free salary of $26,000, as well as help her to find a new job so that she can continue to support her two children.

No, you intentionally illogical and irratonal "liberal", Hannity did not "get her fired".

Sorcery Is The Only Reasonable Explanation

K T Cat: Sorcery Is The Only Reasonable Explanation

Star Trek Continues

on YouTube: (as I inderstand it, it's a fan-made edisode) Star Trek Continues E01 "Pilgrim of Eternity" -- it's no worse than the original professionally-written series.

Race-card of the Day

Wm.A.Jacobson (Legal Insurrection): Anatomy of how a racism lie spread half way around the world

Look, leftists lie -- that is a bedrock truth that you need to get set into your mind. One of their favorite lies is to accuse people (*) of “racism”. And it continues to work because *you* continue to cringe in fear that you’ll be falsely accused of “racism” if you step too far out of the bounds the leftists have currently decreed. Until *you* are willing to say, "[Bleep] that shit!", or any other way you want to phrase it that means the same thing, and mean it, and stand by it no matter how they howl for your blood, then you will continue to be a slave to the leftists. Well, you'll eventually be freed ... when they murder you.


(*) primarily, but not, exclusively "right-wingers" -- they'll accuse *anyone* of "racism" if the accusation will serve their purpose of fomenting racial resentment and hatred, as witness their shameful and intellectually dishonest treatment of, for example, George Zimmerman and Paula Deen, *both* of whom are "liberals" and Democrats.

There are *reasons* for stereotypes

There are *reasons* for stereotypes ... that main one being that they accord with what multitudes of people have experienced over time. One of the stereotypes about Gypsies is that they kidnap children. The leftist/post-modernist pious myth that stereotypes are ipso facto immoral, and the corollary command of non-judgmentalism, are themselves immoral assertions. "... Child abduction is certainly no longer common among Gypsies, but the economic logic was explained in Oscar-winning Slumdog Millionaire: mutilated children make better beggars because they excite more pity among passerbys [sic], but do you really want to mutilate your own child?"

Take it seriously. Because they do.

Wm.A.Jacobson (Legal Insurrection): Tyrants if left to their own devices

'The empirical counterpart to the Argument From Reason'

The Deuce:

Wow. WOW. I don't follow DI at all, but I have seen BDK around, and he did seem unusually civil for a materialist atheist.

The first thought that pops into my mind is that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a full-fledged materialist atheist to have a genuine good-faith rational conversation. Even on that rare occasion that one seems polite and civil, it turns out to be an elaborate bait-n-switch ploy.

And the second thought that pops into my mind is that this sort of thing is basically the empirical counterpart to the Argument From Reason. To have a good-faith debate requires that all parties accept the premise that there is such a thing as truth, that truth is objective and independent of us, that truth is something that we can and should try to know better, and that there are laws of logic that can lead us from true premises to true conclusions and weed out falsehoods by exposing the contradictions that they lead to. This is the "common ground" between a Christian and a pagan, and anyone else capable of good-faith dialogue.

It's also precisely that premise that materialist atheism is incompatible with, according to the Argument From Reason. If that's true, we should expect to make certain empirical observations. We should expect to see materialists acting as if truth *isn't* something objective and knowable through employing inviolable laws of logic via human reason. We should expect them to approach debate in a purely mercenary fashion, seeing it all as a power play to push their narrative rather than a quest for truth. We should see them resort to ridicule, sophistry, censorship, dishonesty, and even violence wherever they think it can work.

Of course, we should expect them to deny that they think all this until the cows come home, because admitting that you're an anti-truth mercenary who doesn't believe in truth and cares only about winning the narrative is not a winning tactic for an anti-truth mercenary who doesn't believe in truth and cares only about winning the narrative.

And, on those rare occasions where a materialist atheist does seem to be engaging in civil good faith discussion, we shouldn't be surprised to find that it's all just part of some elaborate misdirection for winning the narrative after all. Sheesh.

News from home

Richland Source: Best-selling author Mark Steyn addresses audience at theatre -- The Ashbrook Center is located at Ashland University, in Ashland (city), Ahsland County, Ohio ... the county next door to where I live. I wasn't there, I was in Stark County.

'The tunnel led right to the kindergarten.'‏

Via Laura Rosen Cohen, The Jerusalem Post: IDF uncovers Palestinian terrorist tunnel leading from Gaza to kibbutz in Israel -- "Underground passageway - built with Israeli concrete slabs - took over a year to build, say army sources, was 3rd discovered this year."

As I commented --
Well, you know, it's all the fault of those perfidious Jooo... , er, Zionists, because the Zionist entity won't allow enough concrete into Gaza to build both tunnels and kindergartens.

'Think about this, Ilion. Perhaps you will learn a lesson'

It seems that a certain lying hyopcrite, whom I prefer to ignore whenever I can, *still* seeks my attention, and possibly approval, even after all this time and all the lies he has spread about me. Yesterday, he (or she) posted the following here

Hello, Ilion.

Yes, I know. You don't care what I have to say, so I'll keep this brief.

Remember how you and Zach on DI used to be rather 'buddy buddy'? You know - teaming up to attack and insult those nasty, "lying" theists (like myself, Ben and others) who you regarded negatively for one reason or another (aka 'for disagreeing with you on any topic')?

He was a sockpuppet of a materialist atheist. Specifically, BDK.

All I want to say right now is this: An atheist used a fake Christian identity, primarily to attack Christians and anti-materialists. Insofar as he encouraged you to attack as well, and defended your behavior, there's a very reasonable conclusion to draw: he regarded you as a kind of useful idiot. The Christian who he didn't need to fight or oppose, and in fact could stand to gain by encouraging.

Think about this, Ilion. Perhaps you will learn a lesson.

Feel free to make a post about yours truly, reacting with fury to this realization. Chances are, I will not notice it. On the off chance you realize you have, to some degree, been played by an atheist, you can contact me on my blog to discuss matters. I will not expect your arrival.

In the post to which he (or she) links, he says, among other nuggets:

I know I have some Dangerous Idea regulars around here. There's a variety of regular names there (aside from, of course, Victor Reppert himself.) In particular, we have Blue Devil Knight and Zach. BDK is an atheist and a materialist. Typically well-mannered, etc. Zach is a very angry non-materialist Christian who doesn't like 'Christians relying on obviously poor arguments instead of focusing on the good ones'. BDK is typically civil. Zach mocks, insults and generally attacks people he disagrees with - with a particular axe to grind against yours truly, though ingx24 and others have been on the receiving end. In fact, others have long noticed that Zach has a habit of going after theists negatively to quite the extreme, and not having much attention paid to atheists. Quite the gulf between them.

And it turns out they're the same person.

Before I go on - kudos to ingx24, who had this to say at one point: I feel like Zach might be a materialist in disguise trying to make his criticisms of dualist arguments seem plausible by pretending he's a dualist. It seems like Zach spends more time criticizing anti-materialist arguments than he does criticizing materialism.

To which I can only say... sharp eye, ingx24. Ilion? If you're reading this, not nearly as sharp of an eye.
...
[Quoting himself] But I'm not going to pretend this was some meager one-time slipup. Ilion's gotta be tearing his hair out right about now if he sees this.
...
But there are lessons here. First? Just because someone is well-spoken and civil doesn't mean they're gracious. BDK apologized profusely, but then again, who doesn't apologize profusely when they think they're irrevocably caught? ...

My comments, non-exhaustively and in no particular order:
1) I? A "useful idiot" of the intellectually dishonest atheist/materialist Zach/BDK? Well! That thesis certainly explains many things quite nicely, don't you think, such as this post from 13 months ago?

Zach: "Ilion I am a Christian."

I actively doubt it.

Zach: "I just find the utter lack of charity in reading atheists, from people on this site, disgusting."

No, you are "disgusted" by clear, logically consistent, unemotional, non-sentimental, critical thinking.

Zach: "Ilion is the Babinsky of Christians."

You do know, do you not, that hypocrit[e]s are damned-of-God?

Does the reader not realize how rare it is of me to say to someone something so serious as, "I doubt that you are a Christian"?

2) Why, pray tell, would I be tearing out my hair over Blue Devil Knight's accidental self-de-soxing?

2a) Oh, that's right! because I am "buddy buddy" with 'Zack' and have now been exposed as having been made a useful idiot by BDK.

2b) Plus, the intellectually dishonest ingénue, 'ingx24', who won't call himself an atheist, even though he is (I mean, to the extent that *anyone* is a real atheist in this degenerate age), and who can't seem to admit even to himself that he really is a materialist, has been shown to have a sharper eye than I ... at any rate, in 13-month 20/20 hindsight.

3) As best I recall, there is only one person with whom I was ever "buddy buddy" on Mr Reppert's blog, and that person emphatically was not 'Zach'. Moreover, that person has chosen for the past year and a half and more to not only misrepresent me, but to actively lie about me.

4) Even now, even after having caught out Blue Devil Knight in such gross intellectual dishonesty (which term the lying hypocrite seems reluctant to use), the fool is still calling BDK "civil"? Whereas I *never* made that mistake ... and that is one of the reasons some of the regulars at Mr Reppert's blog hate me so.

Hell! even the ever-polite Victor Reppert was, at one point (at about the time I had lost most interest in his blog), commiserating with ... get this ... Blue Devil Knight about mean ol' me. I saw the posted conversation months later, quite by accident searching for something or other, and I have no idea how to find it again. Still, in observing how Mr Reppert's community-of-commenters has evolved over the past couple of years, it seems to me that he got just what he wanted. Or, at least, deserves (*).



Perhaps the lying hyopcrite might find it prudent to expend a bit more concern about his (or her) own lessons learned than with mine. Just a wild blue-sky thought on my part.

(*) Oh, my! Does that imply that I deserve a certain radical leftist bomb-thrower ;) who has been recently dabbling his toes in "the dark side"?

Obama as Bullshitter

William Vallicella: Obama as Bullshitter

While listening the other day to Barack Obama shuck and jive about fiscal responsiblity, shamelessly posturing as if he and not his Republican opponents is the fiscally responsible one, when he is in truth the apotheosis or, if you prefer, the Platonic Form of fiscal irresponsibility, I realized just how uncommonly good our POMO Prez is at bullshitting. He is indeed a consummate bullshitter. But what is it to bullshit, exactly? When is a statement bullshit?

According to Harry Frankfurt, a statement is bullshit if it is

. . . grounded neither in a belief that it is true nor, as a lie must be, in a belief that it is not true. It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth — this indifference to how things really are — that I regard as of the essence of bullshit." (emphasis added)

Professor Frankfurt has a fine nose for the essence of bullshit. The bullshitter is one who 'doesn't give a shit' about the truth value of what he is saying. He doesn't care how things stand with reality. The liar, by contrast, must care: he must know (or at least attempt to know) how things are if he is to have any chance of deceiving his audience. Think of it this way: the bullshitter doesn't care whether he gets things right or gets them wrong; the liar cares to get them right so he can deceive you about them.

'There's too much money in politics'

Michael Egnor: There's too much money in politics. Your tax money, specifically.

The real reason for the US Civil War -- Statism

James Padilioni Jr (posted by John Jay Ray): Lincoln: Separating the Man from the Mythos

'Let him be anathema'

'Let him be anathema' ... or, "methinks he doth protest too much".

'Vox Day' has a recent post, Mailvox: a creedal correction, wherein he insists, yet again, that that he is too a Christian. He still isn't, no matter how often he claims he is. Consider:

As it happens, my views are entirely Nicene in the proper sense, they simply do not happen to be in line with what should be technically considered Constantinoplene rather than Nicene. Consider the actual Nicene Creed of 325:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

By whom all things were made;

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

I readily affirm all of that. Now, one can certainly quibble over the "one substance with the Father" aspect, as it can be interpreted in various ways and I do not accept it means that "the Father Almighty" and "the Son of God" are exactly equal and wholly interchangeable at all times because this is an explicitly anti-Biblical position; how can God the Father have abandoned Himself?

But, of course, he *doesn't* "readily affirm all of that" -- that's the whole point his statement that "one can certainly quibble over the "one substance with the Father" aspect" and the subsequent strawmanning -- for he explicitly and repeatedly denies that the Son is "begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father"

Moreover, his "reasoning" contra his own strawmanning reflects either ignorance or dishonesty -- "... because this is an explicitly anti-Biblical position; how can God the Father have abandoned Himself?" He's making reference to Christ's words just before he died -- "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" -- by which Christ was reminding disciples of Psalm 22, telling them they were seeing it being fulfulled as a prophesy.

First century Jews didn't call "Psalm 22" that; that's our name for it. They called it "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", that being its first line. Read the psalm -- read it in light of the Gospels' record of what was happening on Golgotha. Far from moping in self-pity, Christ was at that very moment proclaiming his victory!

While it's not a part of the Creed itself, the Creed of 325 has an attached anathema:

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'-they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

By his own words -- by his appeal to the Creed of 325, which he likes to pretend is substantively different from the Creed of 381 -- he condemns himself.

Edit 2013/10/06: Concerning the strawman in his post --

... Now, one can certainly quibble over the "one substance with the Father" aspect, as it can be interpreted in various ways and I do not accept it means that "the Father Almighty" and "the Son of God" are exactly equal and wholly interchangeable at all times because this is an explicitly anti-Biblical position; how can God the Father have abandoned Himself?

When one affirms the proposition that "Jesus Christ is God", there are three general categories of ways to understand the divinity of Christ that one has affirmed:
1) 'Modalism' (also called 'Sabellianism') -- this is the anti-trinitarian position that God only seems to be multiple distinct Persons. 'Modalism' affirms the unity of God, and affirms the divinity of Christ, but does so by means of denying that God is a multiplicity of Persons.
2) 'Trinitarianism' -- this is the orthodox Christian position that God really is multiple distinct persons (and specifically, three). 'Trinitarianism' affirms the unity of God, affirms the divinity of Christ, and affirms that Christ taught us that he is distinct from both the Father and the Holy Spirit.
3) Various flavors of "tri-godism" (of which 'Arianism' is a paradigm example) -- these are anti-trinitarian positions that affirm the divinity of Christ, and affirm the distinctivenes of the Divine Persons, but do so by means of denying the unity of God. Or, to put it more bluntly, these positions affirm the divinity of Christ by means of using the term 'God' incoherently.

'Vox Day' explicitly and openly rejects the orthodox Christian doctrine of the 'Trinity' -- while trying to present himself as the *real* orthodox Christian vis-a-vis the Nicene Creed. But, he is not a 'Sabellian'; rather, he is a "tri-godist".

So, that background explained, 'Vox Day' is strawmanning by intentionally conflating (*) 'Modalism' with 'Trinitarianism'. He then presents a little seeming contradiction -- whether it's contradictory, or merely paradoxical, it might be so for 'Modalism', but not for 'Trinitarianism' -- the paradoxical (or contradictory) nature of which is based on cultural-and-literary ignorance, and then pretends to have knocked down 'Trinitarianism'. -- This "argument" of his is no more intellectually honest than the standard operating procedure of (most) 'atheists', whereby they knock down Zeus and then pretend to have knocked down Christ.


(*) He does this about other things he cares about. For instance, in this recent post (as he has done many other times), he intentioally conflates "open borders" with respect to immigration with "free trade".

... and no one noticed

The world ended yesterday ... and no one noticed! (*)

Kristor: The Wilderness of Liberty

(*) I wonder, what do the Democrats and other leftists think they're going to do once the taxpayers grasp that the world didn't end just because the federal government "shut down"?

At the same time, even "the end of the world" cannot keep the federales from doing the really important things, like erecting the 'Barry-cades'

Laura Rosen Cohen on the 'Barry-cades': "Remember folks, there have been more people assigned to upset and disrespect WWII vets than there were to [protect US personnel in] Benghazi."

When The Bleeding Heart Becomes The Iron Fist

Let's turn that around

The Telegraph: "Julia Gillard reveals her 'murderous rage' at sexist attacks" --

Ms Gillard also revealed her reasons for making her famous “misogyny” speech in parliament last year in which she stared down then opposition leader Tony Abbott, now the prime minister, telling him: “I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not.” The speech made global headlines and is set to go down as one of the defining moments of her leadership. [sic]
...
Ms Gillard said she was disgusted that Mr Abbott and others responded to her misogyny speech by claiming she was playing the “gender card”.

“It just amazes me that we can be having this infantile conversation about gender wars,” she said.

“You just feel like saying: ‘Well, if it was your daughter and she was putting up with sexist abuse at work, what would you advise her to do?’… We have to be able to say strongly to women and girls that you have got a right to an environment that treats you with respect, treats you as an equal and that raising your voice about that isn’t starting a war, it isn’t playing the victim, it’s just asking for what simply is right”.

Let's turn that around -- "You just feel like saying: ‘Well, if it was your [son] and [he] was putting up with [allegedly] sexist [alleged] abuse at work, what would you advise [him] to do?’… We have to be able to say strongly to [men] and [boys] that you have got a right to an environment that treats you with respect, treats you as an equal and that raising your voice about that isn’t starting a war, it isn’t playing the victim, it’s just asking for what simply is right."

So, women's "equality" to men can't exist unless it is enforced by men -- by fathers and/or husbands -- acting on behalf of women. And, of course, this "equality" can't really exist unless most men -- those who aren't the elitist enforcers -- are made not equal.

Understand this: feminism is the (leftist) demand that we men forevermore acknowledge women as our superiors ... not superiors in the sense of actually being better at anything, except maybe whining, but superior in the sense have possessing special "rights" superior to ours.

Look, Toots, I *might* be pursuaded that you're my equal, but you will never by my superior.

'Liberalism' in action

The Telegraph: "Belgian killed by euthanasia after a botched sex change operation" -- So, rather than actually trying to help this poor confused and mentally-ill woman, the "liberal" answer was to surgically mutilate her sexually (probably at tax-payer expense) ... and then, since that didn't actually help her, as of course it could not, the "liberal" final solution is to put her down.

Hypocrite

As Gentle Reader may know, I long ago lost interest in the hypocrite. However, I didn't (nor plan to) remove the link on my blogroll to his blog. I happened to bounce over there a minute ago... to see what the people on his blogroll are talking about ... and happened to see his 'Now' post.

Then

Then

Now

Exactly

a comment at 'Jihad Watch' even as we resist Islam, we are becoming Islamised --

I was talking to my sister about what happened in Kenya. She is not really interested, and is very absorbed by her natural-health business. But she has learned quite a bit from me, albeit reluctantly, and knows there is a problem (damn right there is.)

She asked how I can cope with the information I receive about jihad killing, etc. I said that I think I have become Islamised to some extent: I hear so much about savagery that in a way I am like them now, used to it, used to the idea of beheadings and stonings, even though I want to fight such things like crazy.

How must it be for Christians stuck in the "Muslim world" to be exposed to the islamisation process of acceptance of brutality? What a life!

So it occurs to me that even as we resist Islam, we are becoming Islamised. What a creepy thought.

Exactly: "So it occurs to me that even as we resist Islam, we are becoming Islamised. What a creepy thought."

This has happened before within the world we used to call Christendom -- one very important reason that the Spanish were so vicious five centuries ago is that they had spend the previous seven centuries ruled by and/or fighting the Moslems.

A walking illustration

A walking illustration of her own argument ... OR, to parody the Iconic Question (*), "Does this attitude make me look like a big ass?"

Kathy Shaidle has made herself a walking illustration of her own argument (I use the term loosely) that women should never have been given the vote. And she will never allow herself to see it, much less step back from it.

I'll keep my own comments and opinions to a minimum and let Miss Shaidle speak for herself.

On her personal blog a few days ago, Miss Shaidle linked to her recent effort at PJ Media. The first few sentences left me both yawning and sure that whatever it is she was on about, it was something about which I don't give a damn ... apparently something to do with her Glory Daze as a leftist (**) and a 'punk'. *Oh! Yawn! Rebellion! Edginess!* No biggie; we're not all going to be interested in the same things. So, I just closed the window and moved on to something else on her blog that would interest me.

Then, today, she linked to a comment someone had made that tickled her fancy. I don't normally read the comments made in response to her (or other authors') articles. But, I followed the link ... and while I was there I read this comment by a 'MAPN':

Came here because of a Kathy Shaidle link. Read it, and still have no idea what the point is. Except that I've always avoided people with strong clothing prejudices of any kind, or who use clothes to "make a statement".

and her response to it:

Not a fan of subtlety. Noted!

I'll spare the reader my opinion of that sort of use of "noted".

So, because 'MAPN' has a valid point about her style and because her brush-off mildly irked me, I sent her this little email:

I think the problem the fellow was trying to bring to your attention is that oftentimes your "subtlety" approaches that of a blank piece of paper.

The point being, of course, that that "subtlety" which leaves your readers with no idea what your point is is a "subtlety" too far.

This is her response to me:

No, he's just a moron. Anyone who doesn't understand what I'm getting at should stick to their college football games, because expecting them to catch up with my years of reading and influences would obviously be too much for them

This is my response back:

I hope you someday re-read what you just said.

And this is what will likely be the last correspondence between us:

Other people's thickness isn't my problem; when they boast about it, it is singularly unbecoming and deserving of scorn. It's that simple.

Call me old fashioned, but you've recently begun assuming a "familiar" tone with me that I don't care for. I have no time for patronizing scolds who presume to tell me what to write and how to write it, particularly total strangers.

Well played! It is surely the goal of every author of note to pointlessly alienate her fans.

Kathy Shaidle has no time for "patronizing scolds" ... and I have no time for whining feminist hypocrites.



(*) Oh, you know the one I mean! "Do these jeans make my ass look big?"

(**) News Flash: She's *still* a leftist ... she just, for whatever reason, no longer wishes to consider herself a leftist.

So, Bertolli is out

Adweek: Bertolli Makes the Most of Barilla Chairman's Anti-Gay Comments - Pro-gay posts in social media

So, apparently Barilla's chairman recently said that his company would never use "gay" "couples" in its advertising -- and, being a pussy, quickly backtracked when the Borg of Leftism, Inc got word of it and started their utterly predictable shrieking.

OK, that was bad enough -- I mean, the cowardly caving, not the initial comment. Look, it's not that difficult ... if you don't "have the courage of your convictions", then don't express them in the first place.

But, then, along comes their competitor, Bertolli, to join in the Leftist piling-on.

Fine, Bertolli; you've made your stand.

Here is mine: you products are not welcome in my house.

Idolatry

Michael Egnor: Magdi Allam and the Catholic Church

Proph (at The Orthosphere): Losing our religion III: The Francis issue

The idolatry of which I speak is that of Mr Egnor and Proph and many of their commenters with regard to the RCC, the One True Bureaucracy. Let's concentrate on Mr Egnor's response to Mr Allam's reason/excuse for leaving the Roman denomination.

Gentle Reader may recall a recent post of mine, 'A Suicide Pact?', in which I linked to the web-page laying out the official position of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops with respect to "comprehensive immigration reform", wherein I said that the position of the USCCB is one of deliberate national suicide. Gentle Reader may not know that I linked to that page in response to Mr Engor's quote of Hilaire Belloc, to the effect that the One True Bureaucracy is the House of Man.

Linking to the USCCB's statement, I asked Mr Egnor:

Do you (and Belloc) mean this Catholic Church? You know, the one that asserts that Christians have a duty to aid in the destruction of the country, both as a polity and as a people?

To relate this to the OP, my thought is that the USCCB is telling us that [-- as Christians --] we must burn our house down.

One is free to follow the discussion (including, if so inclined, the postings by the intellectually dishonest fools 'Anonymous', 'Hoo', and 'Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan Navy'), but the short of it is that despite his long-term expression of concern over Leftism's intentional acts and policies aimed at destroying America as a polity and as a people, when the leftists are wearing the robes of prelates, he can no longer find his voice.

Now, consider Mr Egnor's recent post concerning Magdi Allam

Michael Egnor, quoting John Allen, Jr, concerning Magdi Allam:

Unfortunately, in thinking about why Allam took this step, most people haven't gotten past the headline. If you consider the entire essay he published March 25 outlining his thinking, it makes for very interesting reading.

Allam says he's leaving Catholicism because of what he describes as four "physiological" features of the church he can no longer tolerate:

* "Relativism," meaning the fact that the church "welcomes inside itself an infinity of communities, congregations, ideologies and material interests that translate into containing everything and the opposite of everything."

* "Globalism," meaning the church "takes positions ideologically contrary to nations as identities and civilizations that must be preserved, preaching the overcoming of national boundaries."

* A tendency to being "do-gooders," meaning "putting on the same level, if not actually preferring" the interests of people outside one's community with the community's own interests.

* A "temptation to evil," which Allam blames on "imposing behaviors in conflict with human nature ... such as priestly celibacy, abstaining from sex outside marriage and the indissolubility of marriage, along with the temptation of money."

I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ.

"Relativism" and "Globalism" used in the sense Allam uses it is a good thing; the Church must avoid sectarianism and exclusion to the greatest extent possible. Certain ideologies must be anathema-- Marxism, Nazism, atheism, for example-- but the world's only truly global organization must not be captive to pointless sectarianism.

And a tendency to be "do gooders"? Goodness gracious, that is what the Christian life is. We are called to radical do-gooding, by the original do-gooder Himself.

Some of Allam's criticisms of the Church's supposed accommodation with Islam resonate with me a bit as well, but I trust the Church. She alone has fought Islam for 1400 years. She understands the issues as no other entity does. Defiance has its place, for sure, and I share Allam's general assessment of the totalitarian nature of Islam, but lives and souls are at stake, and the Church's policy of engagement and respect has much to say for it.

I trust the Church.

Allum's fourth "physiological" feature which he can 'no longer tolerate' is raw nonsense. The Church is right on all of these issues.

Quothe Michael Egnor, "I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ."

Simply amazing!

Mr Allam's first three points, according to Mr Allen (who appears to be quoting Allam), and Mr Egnor's responses to them, are:

1) ""Relativism" -- meaning the fact that the church "welcomes inside itself an infinity of communities, congregations, ideologies and material interests that translate into containing everything and the opposite of everything."

2) "Globalism" -- meaning the church "takes positions ideologically contrary to nations as identities and civilizations that must be preserved, preaching the overcoming of national boundaries."

"I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ.

"Relativism" and "Globalism" used in the sense Allam uses it is a good thing; the Church must avoid sectarianism and exclusion to the greatest extent possible. Certain ideologies must be anathema-- Marxism, Nazism, atheism, for example-- but the world's only truly global organization must not be captive to pointless sectarianism."

So, while avoiding addressing Mr Allam's actual criticisms of the socio-political stances of the ruling bureaucracy of the One True Bureaucracy, Mr Egnor nevertheless asserts that those socio-political stances are "those of Christ."

Let's consider "Globalism", as Mr Allam appears to be using the term -- meaning the church "takes positions ideologically contrary to nations as identities and civilizations that must be preserved, preaching the overcoming of national boundaries."

According to Mr Egnor, these positions are "those of Christ." According to Mr Egnor, it is God's Will to destroy the nations as discrete peoples, and to destroy the nation-states as discrete polities.

Now, I deny that this is God's Will for nations, as peoples or as polities ... but, is this not *exactly* what I had previously argued on his blog is the socio-political stance of the One True Bureaucracy, and which (at the time) he couldn't quite bring himself to acknowledge? Is it not *exactly* what I had previously said (though had not argued) on my blog is the socio-political stance of the One True Bureaucracy, and which Bob Prokop is unwilling to see, even though it is right there in black and white, requiring only that one read with comprehension?

3) A tendency to being "do-gooders" -- meaning "putting on the same level, if not actually preferring" the interests of people outside one's community with the community's own interests.

"I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ.

And a tendency to be "do gooders"? Goodness gracious, that is what the Christian life is. We are called to radical do-gooding, by the original do-gooder Himself."

Christ does not call us to prefer the interests of other families, communities, and nations over the interests of our own families, communities, and nations. Christ does not demand of us that we betray our natural loyalties; he calls us to rightly understand and order them, but not to betray them, not to violate them, not to destroy them.

Christ does, sometimes, call us to prefer the interests of other individuals over our own narrow personal interests. But, even then, it is a matter of proper understanding or ordering. It is not that Christ calls us to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of 'The Other', but rather that he calls us to *stop* sacrificing 'The Other' for the sake of our improper interests.

This is not Christianity to which Mr Egnor is agreeing and defending, it is Leftism.

Leftism is a heresy of Judeo-Christianity, and specifically of Catholicism -- Leftism could never have arisen in a purely Hindu social milieu, for instance -- and even in the best of times, Catholicism has *always* been on the brink of falling into Leftism. Apparently, The One True Bureaucracy has committed itself to Leftism, at last.

So, it seems to me, the question is now: who are the faithful Catholics who are faithful to Christ, and who are those who are faithful to the Bureaucracy? As for all men, the question is always "Whom do you worship? Is your God Christ, or is your god Something Else?"