Well, here we are again on Christmas Eve.
Sigh, a time to commune with the Ghosts of Christmas Past, a time to try and enjoy the Ghost of Christmas Present and a time to try not to worry too much about the Ghosts of Christmas yet to come.
I'm looking forward to the Patriots vs. Giants game at the Meadowlands Saturday night. Hopefully it won't be too cold and either way, it's a once in a lifetime opportunity. Here's hoping the Giants figure out a way to stop the Pats.
In the 2008 Presidential race, who the hell knows what's going to happen. I think the country needs someone who will draw the people closer together and not be a polarizing agent. In other words we need a moderate that a wide cross section of the country can trust and who will do what is necessary to repair the damage of the Bush years.
I can't see Hillary Clinton in that role. Barack Obama and John Edwards yes, but not Hillary. On the Republican side Mitt Romney's reaction to Mike Huckabee's criticism of the Bush Administration was to chide him for being disloyal. This, in a nutshell, is the problem with the Republican Party, loyalty is more important than integrity.
Yet, Huckabee did tell it like it is about the failures of this administration. He may have his head up his ass about evolution but the man's not afraid to tell it like he sees it and one has to admire any politician that does that.
I guess that we shall see what we shall see.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
New Jersey Ends Death Penalty
The Coliseum in Rome is lit today in golden lights celebrating the outlawing of the Death Penalty in the Sovereign State of New Jersey.
Governor Corzine signed the bill passed by the legislature making New Jersey the first state since the Supreme Court reinstated the Death Penalty in 1978 to abolish it.
Hopefully this is only the first domino.
Governor Corzine signed the bill passed by the legislature making New Jersey the first state since the Supreme Court reinstated the Death Penalty in 1978 to abolish it.
Hopefully this is only the first domino.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
New Jersey Senate Votes to End Death Penalty
The State of New Jersey is on the verge of eliminating its death penalty statute. On Monday, December 10th the New Jersey Senate voted for abolition by a margin of 21-16. The Assembly will vote on Thursday and is also expected to approve abolition.
Governor Corzine has indicated that he will vote the bill, which replaces the Death Penalty with Life without Parole, into law. When that occurs, New Jersey will become the first state to legislatively abolish the death penalty since it was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1978. As of January 1st 2007, there were 11 inmates of Death Row in New Jersey whose sentences would automatically be commuted to Life without Parole. New Jersey has never executed anyone under its current death penalty statute.
Let’s hear it for the Blue State of New Jersey. Use of the death penalty is on the decline in the U.S. and a majority of Americans now prefer Life without Parole over the Death Penalty. Someday the presidential candidates, all of whom support the death penalty, might even look into why that’s the case.
Governor Corzine has indicated that he will vote the bill, which replaces the Death Penalty with Life without Parole, into law. When that occurs, New Jersey will become the first state to legislatively abolish the death penalty since it was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1978. As of January 1st 2007, there were 11 inmates of Death Row in New Jersey whose sentences would automatically be commuted to Life without Parole. New Jersey has never executed anyone under its current death penalty statute.
Let’s hear it for the Blue State of New Jersey. Use of the death penalty is on the decline in the U.S. and a majority of Americans now prefer Life without Parole over the Death Penalty. Someday the presidential candidates, all of whom support the death penalty, might even look into why that’s the case.
Friday, December 07, 2007
The Golden Compass
I haven’t seen the movie and I didn’t read the books. As a matter of fact I had never heard of the books until the Christian fruitcakes started howling about an atheist conspiracy.
Given the flap and baggage surrounding this movie it’s hard to put much credence in the reviews around the internet, including the reviews by the professionals. Hey, my faith in the media is way down so why should I believe even the lowly movie critics are being honest with me?
As far as I can tell though, the movie sounds like a bit of a dud. Too much of it appears to have been left on the cutting room floor and, supposedly, it’s hard to follow and feels rushed. At least that’s the impression I’m getting from reviews that strike me as uninfluenced by the religious squabbling.
What I find funny is the number of Christians posting venomous attacks on the movie simply because they’ve been led to believe its anti-Christian and anti-God. Some of the faithful have even called for a boycott. This simply causes me to ask again why Christians are afraid to place their “truths” in direct competition with other “truths” that contradict their beliefs. Always their initial reaction is to try and silence anyone that has a different slant on reality. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that Christianity might be shown up for the nonsense that it is?
As far as Phillip Pullman and his books are concerned, based upon what I’ve learned, the man is a definite atheist and an outspoken critic of C.S. Lewis and his Narnia books. The “His Dark Materials” trilogy, of which “The Golden Compass” is the first book, appears to be a sort of anti-Paradise Lost where those fighting on the side of Hell are the good guys. The church and religion are portrayed as an evil dictatorial duo that would fit right into Orwell’s 1984.
Now there seems to be universal agreement that the more controversial points from the books are very much downplayed in the movie. But, according to the fruitcake crowd, that’s where the conspiracy comes in. The downplaying in the movie is a trick to lure young, innocent, and unsuspecting minds into reading the books which will shatter both their belief in Christianity and their faith in God.
Gee, all of a sudden Christians are worried about warping young minds. The same minds that they wash repeatedly with Christian dogma as soon as the poor things learn language. If I remember correctly, weren’t churches hiring busses to take the kiddies to see “The Chronicles of Narnia” and weren’t even some renting the movie and giving shows in the church? Weren’t too worried about warping young minds then were you?
Ok, enough anti-religious venting. I can’t really judge Pullman’s books without reading them but I suspect that his atheistic world view shows through loud and clear. I wouldn’t expose pre-teens to these kinds of ideas because they’re just not intellectually ready for them. As for teenagers, it would depend upon the maturity and intelligence of the teen. When they’re ready, they should be exposed to these ideas and left to decide for themselves where the truth lies. Didn’t a Jewish philosopher one time say something to the effect that if it is of God, you won’t be able to prevent it from winning and if it’s not of God, you won’t be able to prevent it from losing?
So Christians, why are you so afraid of ideas that might not line up with your theology?
Given the flap and baggage surrounding this movie it’s hard to put much credence in the reviews around the internet, including the reviews by the professionals. Hey, my faith in the media is way down so why should I believe even the lowly movie critics are being honest with me?
As far as I can tell though, the movie sounds like a bit of a dud. Too much of it appears to have been left on the cutting room floor and, supposedly, it’s hard to follow and feels rushed. At least that’s the impression I’m getting from reviews that strike me as uninfluenced by the religious squabbling.
What I find funny is the number of Christians posting venomous attacks on the movie simply because they’ve been led to believe its anti-Christian and anti-God. Some of the faithful have even called for a boycott. This simply causes me to ask again why Christians are afraid to place their “truths” in direct competition with other “truths” that contradict their beliefs. Always their initial reaction is to try and silence anyone that has a different slant on reality. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that Christianity might be shown up for the nonsense that it is?
As far as Phillip Pullman and his books are concerned, based upon what I’ve learned, the man is a definite atheist and an outspoken critic of C.S. Lewis and his Narnia books. The “His Dark Materials” trilogy, of which “The Golden Compass” is the first book, appears to be a sort of anti-Paradise Lost where those fighting on the side of Hell are the good guys. The church and religion are portrayed as an evil dictatorial duo that would fit right into Orwell’s 1984.
Now there seems to be universal agreement that the more controversial points from the books are very much downplayed in the movie. But, according to the fruitcake crowd, that’s where the conspiracy comes in. The downplaying in the movie is a trick to lure young, innocent, and unsuspecting minds into reading the books which will shatter both their belief in Christianity and their faith in God.
Gee, all of a sudden Christians are worried about warping young minds. The same minds that they wash repeatedly with Christian dogma as soon as the poor things learn language. If I remember correctly, weren’t churches hiring busses to take the kiddies to see “The Chronicles of Narnia” and weren’t even some renting the movie and giving shows in the church? Weren’t too worried about warping young minds then were you?
Ok, enough anti-religious venting. I can’t really judge Pullman’s books without reading them but I suspect that his atheistic world view shows through loud and clear. I wouldn’t expose pre-teens to these kinds of ideas because they’re just not intellectually ready for them. As for teenagers, it would depend upon the maturity and intelligence of the teen. When they’re ready, they should be exposed to these ideas and left to decide for themselves where the truth lies. Didn’t a Jewish philosopher one time say something to the effect that if it is of God, you won’t be able to prevent it from winning and if it’s not of God, you won’t be able to prevent it from losing?
So Christians, why are you so afraid of ideas that might not line up with your theology?
Sherri Shepherd of the View
Ignorance I can forgive. Stupidity is a little harder to take. I define stupidity as not realizing that you’re ignorant.
Sherri Shepherd is a moron who should be prevented from continuing to pollute the airwaves. First she didn’t know whether the earth was round or flat and now she argues that Christianity predates ancient Greece.
Don’t we have enough problems with education in this country? Our so-called “students” lag behind every industrialized nation in every category yet we continue to allow bozos like Shepherd to broadcast their ignorance daily.
PLEASE, get this moron off the air.
Sherri Shepherd is a moron who should be prevented from continuing to pollute the airwaves. First she didn’t know whether the earth was round or flat and now she argues that Christianity predates ancient Greece.
Don’t we have enough problems with education in this country? Our so-called “students” lag behind every industrialized nation in every category yet we continue to allow bozos like Shepherd to broadcast their ignorance daily.
PLEASE, get this moron off the air.
Romney’s Mormon Speech
Mitt said all of the right things if he wanted to assuage the concerns of Evangelical Christians. He said all of the wrong things for those of us that would prefer a purely secular government but, then again, very few of us are going to vote Republican anyway.
If I had a major problem with anything Romney said, it was his statement that “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”
I would agree that religion requires freedom but freedom clearly does not require religion. As a matter of fact I think it’s safe to say that freedom is a whole lot safer without religion. Just look at the Theocracies of the world and tell me which of them are “free?”
But in terms of why I’m not going to vote for Romney or Huckabee this is all sort of beside the point. If I was going to disqualify a candidate because they claim to be religious I wouldn’t be able to vote for anyone. I disqualify Romney because I think that his insistence that he accepts his Mormon faith has to include accepting the Book of Mormon as true. In my opinion, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that the Book of Mormon is a load of nonsense made up by a fast talking con man. To my mind accepting the truth of the Book of Mormon in the face of the evidence demonstrates horribly unreliable judgment.
You have to be willing to re-evaluate your beliefs based upon new evidence! If you’re not willing to do so you don’t deserve to be the President of the United States. Hell, you don’t deserve to have your own hot dog cart. This is one of the major problems with the current administration. Bush and his cronies continue to believe what they believe regardless of mounting evidence that they are freaking WRONG!
We saw this demonstrated with Global Warming, we saw it demonstrated with Iraq and now we’re seeing it demonstrated with Iran. When are we going to figure out that this is a REALLY bad way to run anything but especially a really bad way to run a country? And we want to elect someone else that thinks this way?
Is it possible I'm wrong about the Book of Mormon or the direction the evidence points? Sure it is, but if I can't make decisions based upon my own ability to reason and analyze questions, what can I base them upon?
Huckleberry Hound has the same freaking problem with evolution. Read the lips of every reputable scientific organization in the country. Evolution is a fact and Intelligent Design is religion and not science. Even the court in Dover Pennsylvania made it clear that ID was just warmed over Creationism yet Huckabee still takes the position that ID should be taught as an alternate scientific theory.
This is the same problem on a different topic. We don’t need any more of this we really don’t. How about we start to grow up and at least try to make decisions in this country based upon the facts, regardless of how unpleasant we might find those facts to be.
Would I overlook these idiosyncracies if I didn't disagree with these two guys on just about every other question? I doubt it. Rightly or wrongly I consider the questionable judgment displayed by these two points of critical importance.
If I had a major problem with anything Romney said, it was his statement that “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”
I would agree that religion requires freedom but freedom clearly does not require religion. As a matter of fact I think it’s safe to say that freedom is a whole lot safer without religion. Just look at the Theocracies of the world and tell me which of them are “free?”
But in terms of why I’m not going to vote for Romney or Huckabee this is all sort of beside the point. If I was going to disqualify a candidate because they claim to be religious I wouldn’t be able to vote for anyone. I disqualify Romney because I think that his insistence that he accepts his Mormon faith has to include accepting the Book of Mormon as true. In my opinion, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that the Book of Mormon is a load of nonsense made up by a fast talking con man. To my mind accepting the truth of the Book of Mormon in the face of the evidence demonstrates horribly unreliable judgment.
You have to be willing to re-evaluate your beliefs based upon new evidence! If you’re not willing to do so you don’t deserve to be the President of the United States. Hell, you don’t deserve to have your own hot dog cart. This is one of the major problems with the current administration. Bush and his cronies continue to believe what they believe regardless of mounting evidence that they are freaking WRONG!
We saw this demonstrated with Global Warming, we saw it demonstrated with Iraq and now we’re seeing it demonstrated with Iran. When are we going to figure out that this is a REALLY bad way to run anything but especially a really bad way to run a country? And we want to elect someone else that thinks this way?
Is it possible I'm wrong about the Book of Mormon or the direction the evidence points? Sure it is, but if I can't make decisions based upon my own ability to reason and analyze questions, what can I base them upon?
Huckleberry Hound has the same freaking problem with evolution. Read the lips of every reputable scientific organization in the country. Evolution is a fact and Intelligent Design is religion and not science. Even the court in Dover Pennsylvania made it clear that ID was just warmed over Creationism yet Huckabee still takes the position that ID should be taught as an alternate scientific theory.
This is the same problem on a different topic. We don’t need any more of this we really don’t. How about we start to grow up and at least try to make decisions in this country based upon the facts, regardless of how unpleasant we might find those facts to be.
Would I overlook these idiosyncracies if I didn't disagree with these two guys on just about every other question? I doubt it. Rightly or wrongly I consider the questionable judgment displayed by these two points of critical importance.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
“Under God” and “In God we Trust”
Here we go again. Michael Newdow, a doctor AND a Lawyer from California, is continuing his crusade to get “Under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” off of U.S. currency.
Twice now Newdow has gotten Federal courts to acknowledge that “Under God” in the pledge in unconstitutional because it violates a child’s right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The case stalled the first time around when the Supreme Court ruled that Newdow did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.
On “In God we Trust,” a Federal court has ruled that it does not violate Newdow’s right to be an atheist and Newdow has appealed. A Federal appeals court will hear both cases and regardless of the decisions, both questions will probably end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
This question is not that obvious. Who is this “God” that the phrases refer to? It could be the Christian God; it could be the Islamic Allah; it could even be Zeus, Odin or the Universe I guess.
It could be, but we really know that isn’t how it’s intended.
The intent is that it’s the Christian God. In a pinch Christians will allow Jews to share that God and they may even allow Muslims to join the party but polytheists such as Wiccans, Hindus and followers of Asatru probably need not apply.
One might be able to argue that the phrases do not apply to a given religion, but they clearly apply to a class of religions and they certainly acknowledge a belief in God over a non-belief in God.
Now here’s where it gets tricky. Does the establishment clause require strict neutrality between belief in God and non-belief in God? There is a difference between religion and a belief in God. One can believe in what I call the secular God. Basically a belief that we’re more than a cosmic accident and there is some reason for our existence beyond the vague genetic imperative implied by natural selection, but that rejects all religions as false.
Some folks call this philosophy Deism. But Deism also attempts to define the nature of God. Deism believes God wants humans to act “morally” but leaves the definition of “morally” somewhat open. To my mind then Deism is a religion, a somewhat fuzzy and vaguely defined religion perhaps but a religion nonetheless.
Personally I always fall back upon a militant agnostic outlook. I don’t know if there’s a God, but if there is, he hasn’t given me any revelations so why should I believe he’s provided them to anyone else?
But I digress. I think this is a case where intent matters and the intent was, I believe in both cases, clearly intended to honor the Christian concept of God. That being the case, I believe that “Under God” and “In God we Trust” both do in fact violate the first amendment. I also think the case is far stronger with “Under God” due to the coercive argument.
That being the case, both should be declared unconstitutional, but, given the current Supreme Court membership, they won’t be.
The entire attempt is ill considered and is just going to end up giving those who would like to staple the label “Christian Country” onto the U.S. another argument in their favor and an opportunity to declare victory. Besides, we have a hell of a lot more important things to worry about like a war in Iraq, universal Health Care and an educational system that has American teens lagging behind the rest of the industrialized world in science and math.
Twice now Newdow has gotten Federal courts to acknowledge that “Under God” in the pledge in unconstitutional because it violates a child’s right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The case stalled the first time around when the Supreme Court ruled that Newdow did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.
On “In God we Trust,” a Federal court has ruled that it does not violate Newdow’s right to be an atheist and Newdow has appealed. A Federal appeals court will hear both cases and regardless of the decisions, both questions will probably end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
This question is not that obvious. Who is this “God” that the phrases refer to? It could be the Christian God; it could be the Islamic Allah; it could even be Zeus, Odin or the Universe I guess.
It could be, but we really know that isn’t how it’s intended.
The intent is that it’s the Christian God. In a pinch Christians will allow Jews to share that God and they may even allow Muslims to join the party but polytheists such as Wiccans, Hindus and followers of Asatru probably need not apply.
One might be able to argue that the phrases do not apply to a given religion, but they clearly apply to a class of religions and they certainly acknowledge a belief in God over a non-belief in God.
Now here’s where it gets tricky. Does the establishment clause require strict neutrality between belief in God and non-belief in God? There is a difference between religion and a belief in God. One can believe in what I call the secular God. Basically a belief that we’re more than a cosmic accident and there is some reason for our existence beyond the vague genetic imperative implied by natural selection, but that rejects all religions as false.
Some folks call this philosophy Deism. But Deism also attempts to define the nature of God. Deism believes God wants humans to act “morally” but leaves the definition of “morally” somewhat open. To my mind then Deism is a religion, a somewhat fuzzy and vaguely defined religion perhaps but a religion nonetheless.
Personally I always fall back upon a militant agnostic outlook. I don’t know if there’s a God, but if there is, he hasn’t given me any revelations so why should I believe he’s provided them to anyone else?
But I digress. I think this is a case where intent matters and the intent was, I believe in both cases, clearly intended to honor the Christian concept of God. That being the case, I believe that “Under God” and “In God we Trust” both do in fact violate the first amendment. I also think the case is far stronger with “Under God” due to the coercive argument.
That being the case, both should be declared unconstitutional, but, given the current Supreme Court membership, they won’t be.
The entire attempt is ill considered and is just going to end up giving those who would like to staple the label “Christian Country” onto the U.S. another argument in their favor and an opportunity to declare victory. Besides, we have a hell of a lot more important things to worry about like a war in Iraq, universal Health Care and an educational system that has American teens lagging behind the rest of the industrialized world in science and math.
Friday, November 30, 2007
A Teddy Bear Named Muhammad
A British school teacher in the Sudan allowed her class, of mostly Muslim students, to name a stuffed Teddy Bear they were using as part of their school lessons. The students choose the name “Muhammad,” according to one report after a popular boy in the class.
Incredibly, police showed up at the school shortly afterward to arrest the teacher on blasphemy charges for insulting the Prophet Muhammad, charges which carried with them a potential six month prison term and 40 lashes. Severe diplomatic pressure from Britain and others led the religious court to reduce the charges to insulting religion and it sentenced the teacher to 15 days in prison.
This wasn’t good enough for the faithful however who turned out in force demanding the woman’s execution.
Yes, you heard me right, they wanted to execute this lady for allowing her class to name a Teddy Bear Muhammad.
You will excuse me, but who’s insulting the Prophet more, children who want to include him in their education or the whackos asking for the execution of a teacher that allowed them to do so? Here's another example of why religion, any religion, cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed any legal authority.
In the past I’ve made comments to the effect that we’re going to have to share this world with Islam so we might as well figure out how to co-exist peacefully. After this, I’m not sure it’s possible. Maybe the only answer is to kill them all and let Sky Daddy sort them out.
Anyone want to take any bets on how long it will be before someone offers a Teddy Bear on the Internet wearing a “Muhammad” T-shirt? I might buy one of those.
Explain to me again why I'm supposed to "respect" religion? Is it supposed to be out of fear? You will excuse me again but I don't do fear.
Incredibly, police showed up at the school shortly afterward to arrest the teacher on blasphemy charges for insulting the Prophet Muhammad, charges which carried with them a potential six month prison term and 40 lashes. Severe diplomatic pressure from Britain and others led the religious court to reduce the charges to insulting religion and it sentenced the teacher to 15 days in prison.
This wasn’t good enough for the faithful however who turned out in force demanding the woman’s execution.
Yes, you heard me right, they wanted to execute this lady for allowing her class to name a Teddy Bear Muhammad.
You will excuse me, but who’s insulting the Prophet more, children who want to include him in their education or the whackos asking for the execution of a teacher that allowed them to do so? Here's another example of why religion, any religion, cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed any legal authority.
In the past I’ve made comments to the effect that we’re going to have to share this world with Islam so we might as well figure out how to co-exist peacefully. After this, I’m not sure it’s possible. Maybe the only answer is to kill them all and let Sky Daddy sort them out.
Anyone want to take any bets on how long it will be before someone offers a Teddy Bear on the Internet wearing a “Muhammad” T-shirt? I might buy one of those.
Explain to me again why I'm supposed to "respect" religion? Is it supposed to be out of fear? You will excuse me again but I don't do fear.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
A Rape in Saudi Arabia
A woman in Saudi Arabia was kidnapped and gang raped by seven men. The men were convicted and sentenced to prison. Unfortunately, at the time the woman was kidnapped she was in a car with a male friend who was not a relative.
That, according to the medieval thinking prevalent in Theocracies, violates Islamic Law and therefore the woman was also convicted and sentenced to six months in jail and 90 lashes. She appealed the verdict and the Saudi General Court increased the sentence to 200 lashes!
That’s a lot of lashes. That could be an effective death sentence depending upon how the lashes are applied and with what.
And these are the “Good Muslims,” the so-called “Moderate Muslims.” Tell me again how Islam is a religion of peace?
There was an international hue and cry over the verdict but the Saudi court defended it by simply saying that the charges were “proven.” That’s not the point you morons! The point is you might want to consider crawling a little closer to the 21st Century!
The reaction from our State Department was, given the attitude of the Bush Administration toward religion and women and the financial ties of the Bush family with Saudi Arabia, muted beyond all acceptability.
Clearly trying so hard to be “respectful” of the Saudi’s religion, the closest the State Department came to criticizing the verdict was a statement by one spokesman that the verdict "causes a fair degree of surprise and astonishment."
DUH, ya think? Well, I don’t have to be respectful. This is beyond barbaric. Do you really need any additional evidence that Islam is the religion of barbarism and intolerance? Do you really need any additional indication of the horrors that can occur when religion is given any kind of power whatsoever?
Religion needs to be relegated to the margins of society and not only in this country, but everyplace. If we don’t manage to make this happen, the future is going to be a very unpleasant place.
That, according to the medieval thinking prevalent in Theocracies, violates Islamic Law and therefore the woman was also convicted and sentenced to six months in jail and 90 lashes. She appealed the verdict and the Saudi General Court increased the sentence to 200 lashes!
That’s a lot of lashes. That could be an effective death sentence depending upon how the lashes are applied and with what.
And these are the “Good Muslims,” the so-called “Moderate Muslims.” Tell me again how Islam is a religion of peace?
There was an international hue and cry over the verdict but the Saudi court defended it by simply saying that the charges were “proven.” That’s not the point you morons! The point is you might want to consider crawling a little closer to the 21st Century!
The reaction from our State Department was, given the attitude of the Bush Administration toward religion and women and the financial ties of the Bush family with Saudi Arabia, muted beyond all acceptability.
Clearly trying so hard to be “respectful” of the Saudi’s religion, the closest the State Department came to criticizing the verdict was a statement by one spokesman that the verdict "causes a fair degree of surprise and astonishment."
DUH, ya think? Well, I don’t have to be respectful. This is beyond barbaric. Do you really need any additional evidence that Islam is the religion of barbarism and intolerance? Do you really need any additional indication of the horrors that can occur when religion is given any kind of power whatsoever?
Religion needs to be relegated to the margins of society and not only in this country, but everyplace. If we don’t manage to make this happen, the future is going to be a very unpleasant place.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Blacklisted by History?
That’s the claim made about Senator Joe McCarthy in a book by M. Stanton Evans. Ann Coulter, who has also defended McCarthy, is all giddy about the book since it provides the "pretense of scholarly throat-clearing and objectivity" that the Los Angeles Times pointed out was missing in her defense of McCarthy.
Coulter is missing the point of the L.A. Times critique. Even if your unjustified assertions and accusations happen to be right, that doesn’t justify the unjustified assertions and accusations. Evans, by producing a scholarly work, doesn’t justify your washer woman approach to history.
As for Evans’ book, it’s hard to say because I haven’t read the book although I am tempted to do so. My hesitation is based upon the book descriptions I’ve read which lead me to suspect that the book primarily says (1) the Communist threat in the late 1940s and early 1950s was really something to be concerned about and (2) McCarthy has been unjustly accused of a lot of things.
Neither of these two positions particularly surprises me. As a matter of fact, I probably could have you told you that would be the case.
Anyone familiar with the history of the period could see that Soviet Communism was a real threat especially with a Western Europe still prostrate after WW II.
Anyone familiar with human nature knows that once a villain, justly or unjustly, becomes identified, he gets the blame for all kinds of things. I’m surprised McCarthy wasn’t accused of killing Cock Robin as well all the other stuff flung in his direction.
Neither of these two things are the issue. The issue is whether McCarthy, in trying to offset the Communist threat, didn’t become by virtue of the methods he used, a bigger threat to American liberties than the Communists he was so worried about.
Does this sound familiar? Hasn’t the Bush administration been a greater threat to American liberties than all the Islamo-Fascists ever spawned?
If there is a fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives, it may well be that Liberals are willing to trade security for liberty while Conservatives are willing to trade liberty for security.
Coulter is missing the point of the L.A. Times critique. Even if your unjustified assertions and accusations happen to be right, that doesn’t justify the unjustified assertions and accusations. Evans, by producing a scholarly work, doesn’t justify your washer woman approach to history.
As for Evans’ book, it’s hard to say because I haven’t read the book although I am tempted to do so. My hesitation is based upon the book descriptions I’ve read which lead me to suspect that the book primarily says (1) the Communist threat in the late 1940s and early 1950s was really something to be concerned about and (2) McCarthy has been unjustly accused of a lot of things.
Neither of these two positions particularly surprises me. As a matter of fact, I probably could have you told you that would be the case.
Anyone familiar with the history of the period could see that Soviet Communism was a real threat especially with a Western Europe still prostrate after WW II.
Anyone familiar with human nature knows that once a villain, justly or unjustly, becomes identified, he gets the blame for all kinds of things. I’m surprised McCarthy wasn’t accused of killing Cock Robin as well all the other stuff flung in his direction.
Neither of these two things are the issue. The issue is whether McCarthy, in trying to offset the Communist threat, didn’t become by virtue of the methods he used, a bigger threat to American liberties than the Communists he was so worried about.
Does this sound familiar? Hasn’t the Bush administration been a greater threat to American liberties than all the Islamo-Fascists ever spawned?
If there is a fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives, it may well be that Liberals are willing to trade security for liberty while Conservatives are willing to trade liberty for security.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Saying No to Baby Jesus
The Detroit suburb of Berkley has for decades, acording to Michigan papers, displayed a crèche outside of city hall during the Christmas season. Last year, after the ACLU pointed out that the nativity only display probably violated the law, the city council gave the display to the local clergy association which agreed to put up the display at city churches.
Sounds like a reasonable compromise right? Take it off public property but save the tradition by having the display rotate through the churches in the area.
At least it seemed reasonable to everyone but a group of local Christians. You know the kind I mean, the kind that thinks preventing Christians from forcing their religion on everyone else is a violation of their rights and persecution equivalent to being tossed to the lions.
These folks managed to get enough signatures to force a vote on a city charter amendment that would require the city to display, at a minimum, a Mary, Joseph and infant Jesus on city hall property.
More rational heads prevailed however and the measure was defeated 55-45.
And so, another round of the so-called Christmas wars has ended.
I guess I‘m a little confused as to why they didn’t simply expand the holiday display with a Menorah, Santa and his reindeer and a Frosty the Snowman. Adding the secular elements, assuming they were as prominent as the crèche, would have shifted the display into the legal realm. Perhaps it was an issue of cost or space or perhaps they didn't want to sully the local tradition. I can understand that. At my age, tradition is important.
In any event, I can’t imagine anyone dumb enough to try and REQUIRE the town to display a nativity scene. I mean, an amendment saying it was ok might have had a fighting chance.
At least there are some folks in Michigan that appear to understand what is meant by the separation of church and state. This is another indication that Christopher Hitchens’ hypothesis that there are a lot more “nominal Christians” than “real Christians” in this country might have something to it.
Sounds like a reasonable compromise right? Take it off public property but save the tradition by having the display rotate through the churches in the area.
At least it seemed reasonable to everyone but a group of local Christians. You know the kind I mean, the kind that thinks preventing Christians from forcing their religion on everyone else is a violation of their rights and persecution equivalent to being tossed to the lions.
These folks managed to get enough signatures to force a vote on a city charter amendment that would require the city to display, at a minimum, a Mary, Joseph and infant Jesus on city hall property.
More rational heads prevailed however and the measure was defeated 55-45.
And so, another round of the so-called Christmas wars has ended.
I guess I‘m a little confused as to why they didn’t simply expand the holiday display with a Menorah, Santa and his reindeer and a Frosty the Snowman. Adding the secular elements, assuming they were as prominent as the crèche, would have shifted the display into the legal realm. Perhaps it was an issue of cost or space or perhaps they didn't want to sully the local tradition. I can understand that. At my age, tradition is important.
In any event, I can’t imagine anyone dumb enough to try and REQUIRE the town to display a nativity scene. I mean, an amendment saying it was ok might have had a fighting chance.
At least there are some folks in Michigan that appear to understand what is meant by the separation of church and state. This is another indication that Christopher Hitchens’ hypothesis that there are a lot more “nominal Christians” than “real Christians” in this country might have something to it.
Monday, November 05, 2007
To Die in Jerusalem
I watched the HBO Documentary “To Die in Jerusalem” over the weekend. The special is about the efforts of the mother of a seventeen year old Israeli girl, killed in a suicide attack, to arrange a meeting with the mother of the seventeen year old Palestinian girl that carried out the attack.
The attack was a cover story on Newsweek and got coverage on 60 Minutes II when it occurred in 2003. The HBO Documentary follows the attempts of the Israeli girl’s mother to set up a “mother to mother” dialogue.
They finally met, not face to face but via a satellite TV hookup. I wish I could say that the meeting was a success, and that at least the two mothers managed some degree of closure and solidarity, but that wasn’t the case.
The divide there is so deep that even two mothers, both of which had lost teenage daughters, couldn’t find any common ground.
This was a very depressing experience. The two girls were the same age as my youngest daughter. They should have been mall hopping with their friends and giggling about boys, clothes and music, not dying in a Jerusalem supermarket.
If you look at their pictures side by side, they could have been cousins. It sounded as if they had similar personalities and perhaps even similar interests. If they had met under peaceful circumstances they might even have been friends. Perhaps working together they could have helped heal the wounds. Instead they both lie cold and still in the damp earth, their laughter silenced forever, and whatever they may have accomplished lost to the world.
I can see no road leading to a solution in Palestine. In Iraq there is a road, it may be a bloody one, but it’s still a road. In Iraq the U.S. pulls out and the Iraqis fight their civil war. Hopefully it will be short and localized. Once it’s over, the Iraqis can rebuild and, eventually, move on.
In Palestine, I have no idea what you do. How do you solve the problem of two people trying to occupy the same space?
I’m not even sure you could solve the problem by carving out a Palestinian state. I suspect there would be so much disagreement over which parcels of land went to who that it would never be accomplished.
Then there’s the whole religion thing.
I don’t think religion is the root cause, land is the root cause and the Palestinians claim that they are the victims of an occupation by a foreign power. They don’t view the suicide attacks as terrorism, they view it as resistance. Allow me to suggest that the Palestinians consider the idea that men should be fighting their battles against other men and not children against children, and they also consider directing their “resistance” at the Israeli military and political structure rather than at a 17 year old running an errand at the supermarket.
When you attack an Israeli Humvee and armed soldiers, you can call it “resistance” and “courageous;” when you attack a supermarket and an unarmed teenage girl, I call it “terrorism” and “cowardly.” When you use a teenage girl to perform the supermarket attack, I call it “contemptible.”
If Allah exists, how do you think he would view a contemptible and cowardly act of terrorism against a child? I know that Saladin would weep for both girls.
This is not to say that all the blame rests at the doorstep of the Palestinians, far from it. They are victims, victims of the world not getting off its collective butt and helping to work out a solution for this problem.
Just because I don’t see a solution doesn’t mean there isn’t one. There are lots of people in this world a lot smarter than I am. I blame the international community; I blame the United Nations; I blame the so-called superpowers for not having helped to solve this problem twenty years ago.
It all comes home to roost. If the world had solved the Palestinian problem, there would be no Al-Qaeda, the World Trade Center would still stand, there would be no war in Iraq and perhaps Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be more clearly focused on peaceful usages.
In other words, I suspect that when all is said and done, history will identify the troubles in Palestine as the great failure of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Hopefully that failure won’t lead to catastrophe, but after watching this show, I’m not all that optimistic.
The attack was a cover story on Newsweek and got coverage on 60 Minutes II when it occurred in 2003. The HBO Documentary follows the attempts of the Israeli girl’s mother to set up a “mother to mother” dialogue.
They finally met, not face to face but via a satellite TV hookup. I wish I could say that the meeting was a success, and that at least the two mothers managed some degree of closure and solidarity, but that wasn’t the case.
The divide there is so deep that even two mothers, both of which had lost teenage daughters, couldn’t find any common ground.
This was a very depressing experience. The two girls were the same age as my youngest daughter. They should have been mall hopping with their friends and giggling about boys, clothes and music, not dying in a Jerusalem supermarket.
If you look at their pictures side by side, they could have been cousins. It sounded as if they had similar personalities and perhaps even similar interests. If they had met under peaceful circumstances they might even have been friends. Perhaps working together they could have helped heal the wounds. Instead they both lie cold and still in the damp earth, their laughter silenced forever, and whatever they may have accomplished lost to the world.
I can see no road leading to a solution in Palestine. In Iraq there is a road, it may be a bloody one, but it’s still a road. In Iraq the U.S. pulls out and the Iraqis fight their civil war. Hopefully it will be short and localized. Once it’s over, the Iraqis can rebuild and, eventually, move on.
In Palestine, I have no idea what you do. How do you solve the problem of two people trying to occupy the same space?
I’m not even sure you could solve the problem by carving out a Palestinian state. I suspect there would be so much disagreement over which parcels of land went to who that it would never be accomplished.
Then there’s the whole religion thing.
I don’t think religion is the root cause, land is the root cause and the Palestinians claim that they are the victims of an occupation by a foreign power. They don’t view the suicide attacks as terrorism, they view it as resistance. Allow me to suggest that the Palestinians consider the idea that men should be fighting their battles against other men and not children against children, and they also consider directing their “resistance” at the Israeli military and political structure rather than at a 17 year old running an errand at the supermarket.
When you attack an Israeli Humvee and armed soldiers, you can call it “resistance” and “courageous;” when you attack a supermarket and an unarmed teenage girl, I call it “terrorism” and “cowardly.” When you use a teenage girl to perform the supermarket attack, I call it “contemptible.”
If Allah exists, how do you think he would view a contemptible and cowardly act of terrorism against a child? I know that Saladin would weep for both girls.
This is not to say that all the blame rests at the doorstep of the Palestinians, far from it. They are victims, victims of the world not getting off its collective butt and helping to work out a solution for this problem.
Just because I don’t see a solution doesn’t mean there isn’t one. There are lots of people in this world a lot smarter than I am. I blame the international community; I blame the United Nations; I blame the so-called superpowers for not having helped to solve this problem twenty years ago.
It all comes home to roost. If the world had solved the Palestinian problem, there would be no Al-Qaeda, the World Trade Center would still stand, there would be no war in Iraq and perhaps Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be more clearly focused on peaceful usages.
In other words, I suspect that when all is said and done, history will identify the troubles in Palestine as the great failure of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Hopefully that failure won’t lead to catastrophe, but after watching this show, I’m not all that optimistic.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week
If you weren’t paying attention, you missed it. It was actually held between October 22 and October 26 at 114 College and University campuses. According to its sponsors it was “the largest, most successful campus demonstrations by students not associated with the anti-American left in the history of campus protest.”
Think about that statement for a second; two Young Republicans standing on the Quad and saying in unison “I hate Hillary” could qualify for that title as well. Given the gnashing of teeth there appears to be among conservative commentators, and the total silence about the event in the mainstream media, I suspect my mythical Young Republicans would have had a bigger impact.
So what was the point supposed to be? Well, apparently the objective was “to confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat.”
Uh-huh, and beyond that it was “a national effort to oppose these lies and to rally American students to defend their country.”
One has to wonder what these folks have in mind when they say they want “students to defend their country?”
Are they supposed to throw textbooks at the jihadists or what?
Let’s talk about the claims that George Bush created the war on terror or that Global Warming is a greater threat to Americans than terrorism.
George Bush didn’t create the war on terror nor does the political left, of which I am an upstanding member, say that. Oh, ok, some dummies may, but nobody is taking that seriously; this is a conservative straw man. What we are saying is that Bush doesn’t understand WHY we have a war on our hands, because he doesn’t understand why, he doesn’t understand how the war needs to be fought and because he doesn’t understand how the war needs to be fought, the war may take longer than necessary and lives will be lost that could have been saved.
His “they hate us because of our freedom” position is naïve to the point of being criminal. Clearly there is an element in the Islamic World that is going to hate our guts as long as we reject Fundamentalist Islam. The question is would this element have any real power if it weren’t for other factors?
Would a radical organization like HAMAS be in power if Palestinians weren’t faced with extreme poverty and a belief that they have been disenfranchised? I doubt it. While they may not hate us for “our freedom” they are understandably envious of our wealth and our lifestyle. A lifestyle that radical leaders tell them is built upon their poverty. People with a comfortable life style don’t usually strap bombs on and splatter themselves all over restaurant walls.
This is literally a war of cultures and lifestyles, our western affluence versus their eastern poverty. You don’t win this kind of war with bullets and bombs. You win it by giving the other guy hope that they can drag their lifestyle up to a tolerable level. We didn’t win the cold war with bullets or ballots; we won it with blue jeans and rock and roll.
That brings us to Global Warming. In the short term terrorism, and especially nuclear terrorism, is clearly the greater danger. However, read my lips, we are going to win the war on terror. The issue is not if, it’s when and at what cost. In the long term however, Global Warming has the potential of wrecking havoc on all of civilization. Granted, it’s a little hard to worry about quicksand when you’re fighting off alligators, but we can’t afford not to figure out how to do both. It’s quite possible there is a Red Line associated with Global Warming that once passed, will make it impossible to head off catastrophe.
The really bad news is we don’t have a clue where that line might be, so we’d better figure out how to win the war on terror and reverse, or at least halt, Global Warming at the same time. The last time I looked, dead is dead and it doesn’t make any difference how you got that way.
This brings me to Ann Coulter. It was reading her column that got me to talk about Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. Clearly she’s a great supporter of the event and she is entitled to her opinion.
However, allow me to quote from her column on this topic.
“College liberals are in a fit of pique because various speakers are coming to their campuses this week as part of David Horowitz's Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week… Apparently liberals support Islamo-fascism.”
Is that why people are upset? Or are they upset because Horowitz is tending to group into this Islamo-Fascist bucket all Muslims. Hey, I’m suspicious of Islam too, just like I’m suspicious of Christianity. I’d like one big happy secular alliance but I’m smart enough to realize that’s probably not going to happen any time soon. Since practically speaking I’m going to have to share this planet with Islam, I think we’d better figure out how to get along.
“Liberals believe in burning the American flag, urinating on crucifixes, and passing out birth control pills to 11-year-olds without telling their parents.”
I used to really hate Ann Coulter, but statements like this have gotten her a warm spot in my heart. I think it was Isaac Asimov that said the Bible was the best evidence against theism he ever saw. Well, Coulter is the best evidence against right wing conservatives I’ve ever seen. I simply do not believe that any individual with an ounce of decency would want to belong to any club which would have her as a member.
“College campuses across the nation are installing foot baths to accommodate Muslims' daily bathing ritual, while surgically removing the Ten Commandments from every public space in America. Maybe the Ten Commandments could be printed on towels and kept next to the foot baths.”
I see, so it’s college campuses that are removing the Ten Commandments from public space and not the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court, a direction driven by the desire to adhere to the intent of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. People who claim to be patriots but have disdain for the rule of law upon which this country is founded have always baffled me.
As for college campuses accommodating Muslim religious practices, isn’t that proper in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country? Of yeah, that’s right, I forgot, Coulter thinks everyone should be converted to Christianity at the point of a gun. Luckily for the rest of us, that pesky 1st Amendment gets in the way again.
If you want my definition of un-American, its people that want to discard principles, such as freedom of religion and religious tolerance, which Americans have been dying to protect for over 200 years.
It’s beyond me what the two 1st Amendment issues have to do with using the Ten Commandments as foot wipes.
“Liberals claim to be terrified that the Religious Right is going to take over the culture in a country where more than a million babies are exterminated every year, kindergarteners can be expelled from school for mentioning God, and Islamic fascists are welcomed on college campuses while speakers opposed to Islamic fascism are met with angry protests.”
I will give her credit for one thing, she can create more straw men is a paragraph than most people can in a year of columns. I will concede that Abortion Access is a complex issue which, I at least, am not going to attempt to address in a single phrase. To do so would be to trivialize the very babies she claims to be concerned about.
As for kindergarteners being expelled for mentioning God, dear old Ann is letting her imagination run away again and once again provides evidence that right wing conservatives have a club that no decent person would want to be a member of.
As for the so-called angry protests, that was simply people that disagreed with the position espoused by Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, and especially disagreed with the notion that all Muslims should be lumped into a single bucket because the whole concept of Islam is rotten to the core, exercising their 1st Amendment right to tell you that they think you have your head up your ass. What’s wrong with that?
I’ll defend your right to have and to express your opinion, but that doesn’t mean I give up my right to tell you that I think your opinion sucks.
I assume when she talks about the welcoming of Islamic fascists to college campuses, she is referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s talk at Columbia. Now here’s a funny thing, I hold Americans to a higher standard than those who aren’t weaned on the Constitution and the rule of secular law. We’re all the creations of our environment. How do you understand someone from a different environment if you don’t start a dialogue?
On the other hand, why shouldn’t I hold in total contempt so-called Americans who are betraying the very principles this country is based upon and who are comfortable engaging in absurdly exaggerated rhetoric? How do I know right wing conservatives do this? I know because I have Ann Coulter as an example.
Think about that statement for a second; two Young Republicans standing on the Quad and saying in unison “I hate Hillary” could qualify for that title as well. Given the gnashing of teeth there appears to be among conservative commentators, and the total silence about the event in the mainstream media, I suspect my mythical Young Republicans would have had a bigger impact.
So what was the point supposed to be? Well, apparently the objective was “to confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat.”
Uh-huh, and beyond that it was “a national effort to oppose these lies and to rally American students to defend their country.”
One has to wonder what these folks have in mind when they say they want “students to defend their country?”
Are they supposed to throw textbooks at the jihadists or what?
Let’s talk about the claims that George Bush created the war on terror or that Global Warming is a greater threat to Americans than terrorism.
George Bush didn’t create the war on terror nor does the political left, of which I am an upstanding member, say that. Oh, ok, some dummies may, but nobody is taking that seriously; this is a conservative straw man. What we are saying is that Bush doesn’t understand WHY we have a war on our hands, because he doesn’t understand why, he doesn’t understand how the war needs to be fought and because he doesn’t understand how the war needs to be fought, the war may take longer than necessary and lives will be lost that could have been saved.
His “they hate us because of our freedom” position is naïve to the point of being criminal. Clearly there is an element in the Islamic World that is going to hate our guts as long as we reject Fundamentalist Islam. The question is would this element have any real power if it weren’t for other factors?
Would a radical organization like HAMAS be in power if Palestinians weren’t faced with extreme poverty and a belief that they have been disenfranchised? I doubt it. While they may not hate us for “our freedom” they are understandably envious of our wealth and our lifestyle. A lifestyle that radical leaders tell them is built upon their poverty. People with a comfortable life style don’t usually strap bombs on and splatter themselves all over restaurant walls.
This is literally a war of cultures and lifestyles, our western affluence versus their eastern poverty. You don’t win this kind of war with bullets and bombs. You win it by giving the other guy hope that they can drag their lifestyle up to a tolerable level. We didn’t win the cold war with bullets or ballots; we won it with blue jeans and rock and roll.
That brings us to Global Warming. In the short term terrorism, and especially nuclear terrorism, is clearly the greater danger. However, read my lips, we are going to win the war on terror. The issue is not if, it’s when and at what cost. In the long term however, Global Warming has the potential of wrecking havoc on all of civilization. Granted, it’s a little hard to worry about quicksand when you’re fighting off alligators, but we can’t afford not to figure out how to do both. It’s quite possible there is a Red Line associated with Global Warming that once passed, will make it impossible to head off catastrophe.
The really bad news is we don’t have a clue where that line might be, so we’d better figure out how to win the war on terror and reverse, or at least halt, Global Warming at the same time. The last time I looked, dead is dead and it doesn’t make any difference how you got that way.
This brings me to Ann Coulter. It was reading her column that got me to talk about Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. Clearly she’s a great supporter of the event and she is entitled to her opinion.
However, allow me to quote from her column on this topic.
“College liberals are in a fit of pique because various speakers are coming to their campuses this week as part of David Horowitz's Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week… Apparently liberals support Islamo-fascism.”
Is that why people are upset? Or are they upset because Horowitz is tending to group into this Islamo-Fascist bucket all Muslims. Hey, I’m suspicious of Islam too, just like I’m suspicious of Christianity. I’d like one big happy secular alliance but I’m smart enough to realize that’s probably not going to happen any time soon. Since practically speaking I’m going to have to share this planet with Islam, I think we’d better figure out how to get along.
“Liberals believe in burning the American flag, urinating on crucifixes, and passing out birth control pills to 11-year-olds without telling their parents.”
I used to really hate Ann Coulter, but statements like this have gotten her a warm spot in my heart. I think it was Isaac Asimov that said the Bible was the best evidence against theism he ever saw. Well, Coulter is the best evidence against right wing conservatives I’ve ever seen. I simply do not believe that any individual with an ounce of decency would want to belong to any club which would have her as a member.
“College campuses across the nation are installing foot baths to accommodate Muslims' daily bathing ritual, while surgically removing the Ten Commandments from every public space in America. Maybe the Ten Commandments could be printed on towels and kept next to the foot baths.”
I see, so it’s college campuses that are removing the Ten Commandments from public space and not the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court, a direction driven by the desire to adhere to the intent of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. People who claim to be patriots but have disdain for the rule of law upon which this country is founded have always baffled me.
As for college campuses accommodating Muslim religious practices, isn’t that proper in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country? Of yeah, that’s right, I forgot, Coulter thinks everyone should be converted to Christianity at the point of a gun. Luckily for the rest of us, that pesky 1st Amendment gets in the way again.
If you want my definition of un-American, its people that want to discard principles, such as freedom of religion and religious tolerance, which Americans have been dying to protect for over 200 years.
It’s beyond me what the two 1st Amendment issues have to do with using the Ten Commandments as foot wipes.
“Liberals claim to be terrified that the Religious Right is going to take over the culture in a country where more than a million babies are exterminated every year, kindergarteners can be expelled from school for mentioning God, and Islamic fascists are welcomed on college campuses while speakers opposed to Islamic fascism are met with angry protests.”
I will give her credit for one thing, she can create more straw men is a paragraph than most people can in a year of columns. I will concede that Abortion Access is a complex issue which, I at least, am not going to attempt to address in a single phrase. To do so would be to trivialize the very babies she claims to be concerned about.
As for kindergarteners being expelled for mentioning God, dear old Ann is letting her imagination run away again and once again provides evidence that right wing conservatives have a club that no decent person would want to be a member of.
As for the so-called angry protests, that was simply people that disagreed with the position espoused by Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, and especially disagreed with the notion that all Muslims should be lumped into a single bucket because the whole concept of Islam is rotten to the core, exercising their 1st Amendment right to tell you that they think you have your head up your ass. What’s wrong with that?
I’ll defend your right to have and to express your opinion, but that doesn’t mean I give up my right to tell you that I think your opinion sucks.
I assume when she talks about the welcoming of Islamic fascists to college campuses, she is referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s talk at Columbia. Now here’s a funny thing, I hold Americans to a higher standard than those who aren’t weaned on the Constitution and the rule of secular law. We’re all the creations of our environment. How do you understand someone from a different environment if you don’t start a dialogue?
On the other hand, why shouldn’t I hold in total contempt so-called Americans who are betraying the very principles this country is based upon and who are comfortable engaging in absurdly exaggerated rhetoric? How do I know right wing conservatives do this? I know because I have Ann Coulter as an example.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
What the Hell is a “Values Voter” Anyway?
Seriously, I see the terms “Values Voter,” “Moral Values,” “Family Values” and “Traditional Values” tossed around, but I’m having trouble understanding what these things are at their core.
By “their core” I don’t mean stands on particular issues. I know where so-called “Values Voters” stand on things such as Abortion Access (Opposed!), Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Opposed!), Gay Marriage (Opposed!) and letting little Georgie play War President (In Favor!?), but these don’t define the core, it’s the core that defines WHY they take the stands they do.
That’s what I’m having a hard time understanding. This is especially true when I look at the history of what we now call “Values Voters.”
People with the same so-called “Traditional Values” supported slavery, opposed women’s suffrage, supported segregation, opposed feminism, opposed rock & roll, opposed males with long hair and opposed, and still oppose to this day, the teaching of evolution.
If we had listened to these morons in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, newspapers would still differentiate between people and “Negroes,” females would still dress like Donna Reed and be stuck in the kitchen all day and most of the technical innovations we take for granted would never have gotten beyond the back of the napkin stage. We’d also be wearing white shirts, ties, sports jackets and still be reading National Geographic for the “hot spots.” In other words we’d be a nation of what we would now consider hopeless nerds.
I remember the 1950’s. They sucked big time. The idea of a simpler, more moral time before the country went to hell is pure fiction. The difference today is that rather than keeping it swept under the rug, the dirty linen is fully exposed for all to see.
Learn this young Padawan, you cannot solve a problem or redress an injustice until you are willing to admit that it exists. What the mid to late 1960’s did for this country, both culturally and in terms of technology, was to force it to face up to the problems endemic in American society.
Television made it impossible not to understand the injustices of segregation, impossible not to understand that women were effectively second class citizens, impossible not to acknowledge that homosexuality existed whether we wanted it to or not and impossible not to understand, at least a little, the horrors of war. I say “a little” because no one that hasn’t been there can really understand the horrors of war.
Being exposed to the dark side basically gave the zeitgeist a swift kick in the butt and propelled it farther forward more quickly than anytime previously in the history of civilization. I tell my daughters and their friends that if they were to be transported back to 1962, they would think they had been stranded on the far side of the moon. The culture shock would probably kill them.
There is no way in hell I want to go back to the American cultural environment of 1961 and neither should anyone else with half a brain and any conception of historical reality.
I suppose, inevitably, there would be a backlash. The funny part about it is the backlash is taking advantage of the same technology that spurred the progressive leap to begin with and has sustained its momentum.
Now, what I’d like to know is what the hell are these people called “Values Voters” thinking? Often they’re voting against their own interests in supporting right wing candidates that cater to “Values Issues.”
Is it they’re afraid the culture of the country is going to change? That’s just a fact of life. It’s going to change, get used to the idea and live with it. I’m sure if I were transported 50 years into the future, I’d think I was on the far side of the moon as well and I probably wouldn’t like all the changes I would see.
Is it they’re afraid Sky Daddy is going to incinerate the country in his wrath? Good grief, if he didn’t incinerate the place over slavery and segregation he sure as hell isn’t going to over a woman controlling her own body or over what two queers do in the privacy of their own bedroom. If he didn’t want us to capitalize on the potential of Embryonic Stem Cells, why did he make them so useful?
So I really just don’t understand. What do these people think is the benefit, to themselves, to others and to society as a whole, of their so-called voting based upon “Moral Values,” “Family Values,” “Traditional Values” or whatever else they would like to call it? I just don’t understand.
Isn’t providing adequate health care for children a “Family Value?” Yet their “Family Values” president vetoed the bill which would have extended health benefits to more children including, I’m certain, a fairly large number of the children of “Values Voters.”
Isn’t providing a stable home situation, with commitments by both partners, a “Family Value?” Yet they force Gay Partners to not have the same legal protections as heterosexual couples by opposing Gay Marriage and often even an equivalent legal state such as Civil Unions.
Isn’t allowing an individual the freedom to make the choices associated with their own health and well being a “Family Value?” Yet they try to dictate the rules for pregnant women.
Isn’t eradicating disease a “Family Value?” Yet they oppose the single most promising new area of medical research since Alexander Fleming tripped over penicillin.
Like I said, what are these people thinking?
By “their core” I don’t mean stands on particular issues. I know where so-called “Values Voters” stand on things such as Abortion Access (Opposed!), Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Opposed!), Gay Marriage (Opposed!) and letting little Georgie play War President (In Favor!?), but these don’t define the core, it’s the core that defines WHY they take the stands they do.
That’s what I’m having a hard time understanding. This is especially true when I look at the history of what we now call “Values Voters.”
People with the same so-called “Traditional Values” supported slavery, opposed women’s suffrage, supported segregation, opposed feminism, opposed rock & roll, opposed males with long hair and opposed, and still oppose to this day, the teaching of evolution.
If we had listened to these morons in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, newspapers would still differentiate between people and “Negroes,” females would still dress like Donna Reed and be stuck in the kitchen all day and most of the technical innovations we take for granted would never have gotten beyond the back of the napkin stage. We’d also be wearing white shirts, ties, sports jackets and still be reading National Geographic for the “hot spots.” In other words we’d be a nation of what we would now consider hopeless nerds.
I remember the 1950’s. They sucked big time. The idea of a simpler, more moral time before the country went to hell is pure fiction. The difference today is that rather than keeping it swept under the rug, the dirty linen is fully exposed for all to see.
Learn this young Padawan, you cannot solve a problem or redress an injustice until you are willing to admit that it exists. What the mid to late 1960’s did for this country, both culturally and in terms of technology, was to force it to face up to the problems endemic in American society.
Television made it impossible not to understand the injustices of segregation, impossible not to understand that women were effectively second class citizens, impossible not to acknowledge that homosexuality existed whether we wanted it to or not and impossible not to understand, at least a little, the horrors of war. I say “a little” because no one that hasn’t been there can really understand the horrors of war.
Being exposed to the dark side basically gave the zeitgeist a swift kick in the butt and propelled it farther forward more quickly than anytime previously in the history of civilization. I tell my daughters and their friends that if they were to be transported back to 1962, they would think they had been stranded on the far side of the moon. The culture shock would probably kill them.
There is no way in hell I want to go back to the American cultural environment of 1961 and neither should anyone else with half a brain and any conception of historical reality.
I suppose, inevitably, there would be a backlash. The funny part about it is the backlash is taking advantage of the same technology that spurred the progressive leap to begin with and has sustained its momentum.
Now, what I’d like to know is what the hell are these people called “Values Voters” thinking? Often they’re voting against their own interests in supporting right wing candidates that cater to “Values Issues.”
Is it they’re afraid the culture of the country is going to change? That’s just a fact of life. It’s going to change, get used to the idea and live with it. I’m sure if I were transported 50 years into the future, I’d think I was on the far side of the moon as well and I probably wouldn’t like all the changes I would see.
Is it they’re afraid Sky Daddy is going to incinerate the country in his wrath? Good grief, if he didn’t incinerate the place over slavery and segregation he sure as hell isn’t going to over a woman controlling her own body or over what two queers do in the privacy of their own bedroom. If he didn’t want us to capitalize on the potential of Embryonic Stem Cells, why did he make them so useful?
So I really just don’t understand. What do these people think is the benefit, to themselves, to others and to society as a whole, of their so-called voting based upon “Moral Values,” “Family Values,” “Traditional Values” or whatever else they would like to call it? I just don’t understand.
Isn’t providing adequate health care for children a “Family Value?” Yet their “Family Values” president vetoed the bill which would have extended health benefits to more children including, I’m certain, a fairly large number of the children of “Values Voters.”
Isn’t providing a stable home situation, with commitments by both partners, a “Family Value?” Yet they force Gay Partners to not have the same legal protections as heterosexual couples by opposing Gay Marriage and often even an equivalent legal state such as Civil Unions.
Isn’t allowing an individual the freedom to make the choices associated with their own health and well being a “Family Value?” Yet they try to dictate the rules for pregnant women.
Isn’t eradicating disease a “Family Value?” Yet they oppose the single most promising new area of medical research since Alexander Fleming tripped over penicillin.
Like I said, what are these people thinking?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Dumbledore was Gay?
J.K. Rowling stunned the world the other day when she revealed at Carnegie Hall in New York City that she always thought of the character Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series as being Gay.
According to the AP, the announcement was initially greeted with gasps and then applause. Remember, this is New York we’re talking about, quite possibly the world’s most cosmopolitan city.
All I can say is oh my goodness, who would have thunk it? Hey, what about old Snape, he didn’t have a feminine romantic interest and sort of always hung around Dumbledore. Do you suppose Snape and Dumbledore were chummier than we were led to believe?
And then what about McGonnagall and that divination professor Sybill Trelawney, there’s a match made in heaven if ever I saw one. I mean, after all, we’ve all heard about English boarding schools.
Ok, ok, enough with the joking around. It’s just that in a world going bat crazy something as silly as this brightens up the day. Dumbledore was Gay. Imagine that.
Boy, if the Right Wing Christian fruitcakes had problems with Harry Potter before they’re really going to go ape now. Oh wait a minute, can they go ape if they don’t believe we’re descended from apes? Oh yeah, that’s right, reality exists regardless of whether or not you believe in it.
According to the AP, the announcement was initially greeted with gasps and then applause. Remember, this is New York we’re talking about, quite possibly the world’s most cosmopolitan city.
All I can say is oh my goodness, who would have thunk it? Hey, what about old Snape, he didn’t have a feminine romantic interest and sort of always hung around Dumbledore. Do you suppose Snape and Dumbledore were chummier than we were led to believe?
And then what about McGonnagall and that divination professor Sybill Trelawney, there’s a match made in heaven if ever I saw one. I mean, after all, we’ve all heard about English boarding schools.
Ok, ok, enough with the joking around. It’s just that in a world going bat crazy something as silly as this brightens up the day. Dumbledore was Gay. Imagine that.
Boy, if the Right Wing Christian fruitcakes had problems with Harry Potter before they’re really going to go ape now. Oh wait a minute, can they go ape if they don’t believe we’re descended from apes? Oh yeah, that’s right, reality exists regardless of whether or not you believe in it.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Some Thoughts on National Health Insurance
This is not a simple topic and I’m more than a little concerned about the electorate coming to a rationale conclusion about it due to the tendency of the American Public to want everything explained in sound bytes of 30 seconds or less.
This lack of patience or the unwillingness to invest the time and effort necessary to understand complex subjects makes it relatively easy for people with an axe to grind masquerading as pundits to pitch nonsense.
I don’t know if Hillary Clinton’s plan is good or bad. I think it’s a start and something that should be studied by knowledgeable individuals. I do have some personal points for consideration however.
If everyone doesn’t have Health Insurance, people aren’t simply denied care, because that’s illegal. What will happen is that a sudden serious illness of someone without insurance will either (a) wipe out the life savings of that individual’s family, (b) drive the hospital at which the care was provided into dept or (c) be paid for by the rest of us through our taxes.
Health Insurance, like Automobile Insurance, is there to head off disaster not only for yourself, but for others as well.
Don’t expect it to be cheap either. Health Insurance is expensive. My wife and I enjoy Health Insurance where we work as part of our employment benefits packages. Her plan is better than mine. I’ve seen mine deteriorate over time due to rising costs. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still in very good shape compared to most people, but things have deteriorated.
I’ve also had the pleasure of paying for COBRA, the extension of Health Insurance to a dependent who’s no longer covered and that’s really not cheap. You could go broke paying for that.
Everyone needs access to a minimum level of Health Insurance and yes, it should be mandatory to protect the Health Care System and the rest of us.
That doesn’t mean I’m not skeptical of government health care, I am. I’ve read the articles about a lack of dentists in the U.K. so some people are pulling their own teeth and two week wait times in Canada for angioplasty. I don’t know how true these stories are, but it’s easy to imagine a health bureaucracy emerging that is so bogged down in red tape that people can’t get the attention they need when they need it.
If I wake up with a toothache, I call my dentist and I’ll be in his office within a few hours and the pain will be gone a half hour or so after that. When I had my heart incident two years ago, I went to the hospital in the early afternoon; was diagnosed by a cardiac specialist; the necessary doctors and nurses were called in, because it was their day off, and the offending artery cleared out all before 5 PM. This despite the fact that the condition didn’t appear to be life threatening because my body was already generating new blood veins to get around the blockage. I’m not sure I would have made as quick a recovery if I had to wait two weeks.
On the downside, the hospital I received that care at has declared bankruptcy due to an unmanageable dept and will be closing within a month. Granted, this was due to bad management rather than treating large numbers of patients without insurance, because in my neck of the woods there aren’t all that many folks without insurance, but its still unconscionable that Bush can ask for $46 billion for the war in Iraq yet a major hospital closes, because of a relatively measly $100 million, without either the state or federal government lifting a finger to prevent it
I’d much rather see some of my tax dollars go toward subsidizing health care and health care facilities than going to Black Water or Halliburton. While I’m not sure Hillary has all the answers, I think she’s right that the answers need to be found.
This lack of patience or the unwillingness to invest the time and effort necessary to understand complex subjects makes it relatively easy for people with an axe to grind masquerading as pundits to pitch nonsense.
I don’t know if Hillary Clinton’s plan is good or bad. I think it’s a start and something that should be studied by knowledgeable individuals. I do have some personal points for consideration however.
If everyone doesn’t have Health Insurance, people aren’t simply denied care, because that’s illegal. What will happen is that a sudden serious illness of someone without insurance will either (a) wipe out the life savings of that individual’s family, (b) drive the hospital at which the care was provided into dept or (c) be paid for by the rest of us through our taxes.
Health Insurance, like Automobile Insurance, is there to head off disaster not only for yourself, but for others as well.
Don’t expect it to be cheap either. Health Insurance is expensive. My wife and I enjoy Health Insurance where we work as part of our employment benefits packages. Her plan is better than mine. I’ve seen mine deteriorate over time due to rising costs. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still in very good shape compared to most people, but things have deteriorated.
I’ve also had the pleasure of paying for COBRA, the extension of Health Insurance to a dependent who’s no longer covered and that’s really not cheap. You could go broke paying for that.
Everyone needs access to a minimum level of Health Insurance and yes, it should be mandatory to protect the Health Care System and the rest of us.
That doesn’t mean I’m not skeptical of government health care, I am. I’ve read the articles about a lack of dentists in the U.K. so some people are pulling their own teeth and two week wait times in Canada for angioplasty. I don’t know how true these stories are, but it’s easy to imagine a health bureaucracy emerging that is so bogged down in red tape that people can’t get the attention they need when they need it.
If I wake up with a toothache, I call my dentist and I’ll be in his office within a few hours and the pain will be gone a half hour or so after that. When I had my heart incident two years ago, I went to the hospital in the early afternoon; was diagnosed by a cardiac specialist; the necessary doctors and nurses were called in, because it was their day off, and the offending artery cleared out all before 5 PM. This despite the fact that the condition didn’t appear to be life threatening because my body was already generating new blood veins to get around the blockage. I’m not sure I would have made as quick a recovery if I had to wait two weeks.
On the downside, the hospital I received that care at has declared bankruptcy due to an unmanageable dept and will be closing within a month. Granted, this was due to bad management rather than treating large numbers of patients without insurance, because in my neck of the woods there aren’t all that many folks without insurance, but its still unconscionable that Bush can ask for $46 billion for the war in Iraq yet a major hospital closes, because of a relatively measly $100 million, without either the state or federal government lifting a finger to prevent it
I’d much rather see some of my tax dollars go toward subsidizing health care and health care facilities than going to Black Water or Halliburton. While I’m not sure Hillary has all the answers, I think she’s right that the answers need to be found.
Friday, October 19, 2007
How Historical is the Hebrew Bible?
I keep running into people that are either convinced that the Hebrew Bible has been demonstrated to be 100% historically accurate or has been proven to be all pure mythology.
Actually the truth probably lies somewhere in between and there is a whole lot of disagreement over exactly where to put the boundary, or even if there is a boundary.
The True Believers accept every word as God’s own truth. I think we can ignore that position and contemporary scholarship pretty much does ignore it. Still, like any other endeavor that requires interpretation, there are wildly varying positions. After reading a considerable amount on the topic, including books and essays from so-called “minimalist” scholars as well as some espousing more traditional views, I have come to some soft conclusions. I say “soft” because I don’t find the evidence on the table as conclusive as some would like to have me believe.
Obviously I don’t accept the Bible as 100% historically accurate. That being the case one has to divide the Bible into timeframes. I choose the following timeframes: Genesis, Exodus and the Story of Moses, Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan, Judges, The Combined Kingdom, The Kings of Israel and Judah as told about in Kings I & II and Chronicles I & II and The Post Kings Exile.
Genesis I consider to be purely mythological and more moral allegory than history. This doesn’t mean that some of the stories aren’t based upon real people, or the composites of real people, or that some of the stories aren’t based upon real events. It’s just unlikely that what we have here is anything more than the folklore of a Canaanite tribe. I think it’s pretty safe to say that there was no universal flood and Noah didn’t get two each of the several million animal species on the ark. I’m less certain about some of the other stories being completely mythological.
I sort of lean toward Exodus and the Story of Moses being myth rather than history as well. I say this primarily because I have been convinced by the scholarship of minimalist archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. I accept the fact that I may have been convinced because of my anti-religious bias, but there’s not much I can do about that other than acknowledge it.
I say I lean because I have a basic problem with the figure of Moses. I find the personality of Moses a little too flawed for me to believe that it’s pure fiction. The Story of Moses does have elements of Lord Raglan’s Hero Scale and, at least according to one compilation, scores 20 on the scale of 22. But it’s not unusual for historical personages to take on the attributes of “The Hero” as time passes, especially in an oral culture.
So if the figure of Moses isn’t pure fiction, how can the story of the Exodus be pure fiction?
That brings us to Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan. On this topic the Documentary Hypotheses and the scholarship of folks like Richard E. Friedman kick in and add to the weight of evidence presented by Finkelstein and Silberman. As a result, I feel fairly confident that this is pure fiction and no, I don’t think it’s a contradiction to have doubts about Moses and the Exodus being fiction while accepting Joshua to be pure myth.
I put Judges in the same category as Genesis. Possibly based upon real or composite people and real events but so distorted over time as to be more folklore than history. There may have been a real Gideon but his story is most likely a consolidation of many men and events. I doubt there was ever a real Jephthah. I think that story is pure moral allegory.
That brings us to The Combined Kingdom of David and Solomon. Finkelstein speculates that the Omride dynasty of the Northern Kingdom might be the basis of the supposed opulence of David’s Kingdom as it seems unlikely that the sparse Southern Kingdom of Judah could have been the source of such riches.
Personally I’m not at all that sure on this one. I think there is enough evidence to say that a Davidic line of kings existed in Judah. As to whether the riches of the Omride kings were assigned to these southern monarchs through historical revisionism based upon religious prejudice is open to question.
Once we move beyond The Combined Kingdom I think it’s safe to say that the Bible becomes more history than folklore or mythology. That doesn’t mean it’s 100% accurate, but I have little doubt that Ahab was King of Israel and that he married the Canaanite Jezebel. I think we can pretty much dismiss the confrontations with Elijah however as little more than wishful thinking on the part of the southern kingdom’s priesthood.
Similarly I have little doubt that Hezekiah and Josiah were real historical personages that carried out great religious reforms while being cheered on all the time by Isaiah and Jeremiah respectively. We may well owe the book of Deuteronomy to Josiah as well as, if you accept the Documentary Hypothesis as basically accurate, the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. The only question is whether Joshua was duped by Hilkiah and the priesthood, was instrumental in the generation of the books or whether the truth lies somewhere in between.
I tend to romanticize Josiah so I like to think he was the driving force. But, then again, marching out to confront an Egyptian army was a pretty dumb move, and he paid a fatal price for that mistake, so who knows?
Like I said before, with reasonable evidence I could be persuaded otherwise on a number of these positions. It might even be fairly easy since I’m not emotionally attached to any of them.
Clearly I could be wrong, but the very fact that there is a range of positions, each with its own interpretation of the known facts, makes it clear than the truth of the situation has not been definitively demonstrated by anyone and that’s the key point. No one really knows.
Actually the truth probably lies somewhere in between and there is a whole lot of disagreement over exactly where to put the boundary, or even if there is a boundary.
The True Believers accept every word as God’s own truth. I think we can ignore that position and contemporary scholarship pretty much does ignore it. Still, like any other endeavor that requires interpretation, there are wildly varying positions. After reading a considerable amount on the topic, including books and essays from so-called “minimalist” scholars as well as some espousing more traditional views, I have come to some soft conclusions. I say “soft” because I don’t find the evidence on the table as conclusive as some would like to have me believe.
Obviously I don’t accept the Bible as 100% historically accurate. That being the case one has to divide the Bible into timeframes. I choose the following timeframes: Genesis, Exodus and the Story of Moses, Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan, Judges, The Combined Kingdom, The Kings of Israel and Judah as told about in Kings I & II and Chronicles I & II and The Post Kings Exile.
Genesis I consider to be purely mythological and more moral allegory than history. This doesn’t mean that some of the stories aren’t based upon real people, or the composites of real people, or that some of the stories aren’t based upon real events. It’s just unlikely that what we have here is anything more than the folklore of a Canaanite tribe. I think it’s pretty safe to say that there was no universal flood and Noah didn’t get two each of the several million animal species on the ark. I’m less certain about some of the other stories being completely mythological.
I sort of lean toward Exodus and the Story of Moses being myth rather than history as well. I say this primarily because I have been convinced by the scholarship of minimalist archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. I accept the fact that I may have been convinced because of my anti-religious bias, but there’s not much I can do about that other than acknowledge it.
I say I lean because I have a basic problem with the figure of Moses. I find the personality of Moses a little too flawed for me to believe that it’s pure fiction. The Story of Moses does have elements of Lord Raglan’s Hero Scale and, at least according to one compilation, scores 20 on the scale of 22. But it’s not unusual for historical personages to take on the attributes of “The Hero” as time passes, especially in an oral culture.
So if the figure of Moses isn’t pure fiction, how can the story of the Exodus be pure fiction?
That brings us to Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan. On this topic the Documentary Hypotheses and the scholarship of folks like Richard E. Friedman kick in and add to the weight of evidence presented by Finkelstein and Silberman. As a result, I feel fairly confident that this is pure fiction and no, I don’t think it’s a contradiction to have doubts about Moses and the Exodus being fiction while accepting Joshua to be pure myth.
I put Judges in the same category as Genesis. Possibly based upon real or composite people and real events but so distorted over time as to be more folklore than history. There may have been a real Gideon but his story is most likely a consolidation of many men and events. I doubt there was ever a real Jephthah. I think that story is pure moral allegory.
That brings us to The Combined Kingdom of David and Solomon. Finkelstein speculates that the Omride dynasty of the Northern Kingdom might be the basis of the supposed opulence of David’s Kingdom as it seems unlikely that the sparse Southern Kingdom of Judah could have been the source of such riches.
Personally I’m not at all that sure on this one. I think there is enough evidence to say that a Davidic line of kings existed in Judah. As to whether the riches of the Omride kings were assigned to these southern monarchs through historical revisionism based upon religious prejudice is open to question.
Once we move beyond The Combined Kingdom I think it’s safe to say that the Bible becomes more history than folklore or mythology. That doesn’t mean it’s 100% accurate, but I have little doubt that Ahab was King of Israel and that he married the Canaanite Jezebel. I think we can pretty much dismiss the confrontations with Elijah however as little more than wishful thinking on the part of the southern kingdom’s priesthood.
Similarly I have little doubt that Hezekiah and Josiah were real historical personages that carried out great religious reforms while being cheered on all the time by Isaiah and Jeremiah respectively. We may well owe the book of Deuteronomy to Josiah as well as, if you accept the Documentary Hypothesis as basically accurate, the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. The only question is whether Joshua was duped by Hilkiah and the priesthood, was instrumental in the generation of the books or whether the truth lies somewhere in between.
I tend to romanticize Josiah so I like to think he was the driving force. But, then again, marching out to confront an Egyptian army was a pretty dumb move, and he paid a fatal price for that mistake, so who knows?
Like I said before, with reasonable evidence I could be persuaded otherwise on a number of these positions. It might even be fairly easy since I’m not emotionally attached to any of them.
Clearly I could be wrong, but the very fact that there is a range of positions, each with its own interpretation of the known facts, makes it clear than the truth of the situation has not been definitively demonstrated by anyone and that’s the key point. No one really knows.
Executions on Hold
The Stays of Execution in Virginia, by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Georgia by the Georgia Supreme Court, added to the current holds in place in a host of other states including California, Florida and Texas, effectively bring executions through Lethal Injection to a halt until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Baze v. Rees, a case from Kentucky which claims that Lethal Injection is cruel and unusual punishment.
This of course means that all executions in the U.S. are effectively brought to a halt as just about all executions (153 of the 155 in the last three years) in the U.S. are through Lethal Injection.
So what are the Supremes going to decide?
They could decide that Lethal Injection is not cruel and unusual punishment and is therefore perfectly constitutional. That would reopen the floodgates and effectively shut the door on further claims to this effect until new scientific evidence is found. A decision of this stripe would be a disaster and, as far as I can see, totally unjustified.
They could come to a very narrow decision that the Lethal Injection procedures in Kentucky have problems which need to be rectified but that Lethal Injection in general is allowed. This would trigger an explosion of law suits claiming issues in other states similar to the issues in Kentucky. This strikes me as a wildly impractical decision so I suspect that it’s rather unlikely.
They could decide that Lethal Injection, as currently practiced, is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore illegal, but that the Death Penalty is, in general, constitutional. This would effectively end the Death Penalty in most states until alternative methods could be defined. I suspect that most states outside the South, and even a few within the South, wouldn’t bother and would either leave the Death Penalty suspended indefinitely, such as is the current case in New York, or formally abolish it. Of course, every new method defined, or any of the old ones such as electrocution, hanging or the firing squad, reinstituted or brought into greater use, would be immediately challenged.
Or they could decide that the Death Penalty, given its failure as a deterrent, ineffectiveness and wildly varying application across the country, is itself cruel and unusual punishment. Yes this is possible even given the conservative nature of the current court because the conservative position on this question is a bit murky. Many Conservatives are against the Death Penalty and most religions condemn the Death Penalty as much as they condemn Abortion Access.
The Catholic Church in particular is anti-Death Penalty and, if I remember correctly, five of the Supremes are Catholics. Not that they would let their personal beliefs impact their decision (*cough, cough*).
So, what do I think is most likely? I haven’t got a clue. Predicting U.S. Supreme Court decisions is tricky even for those who understand the law and the process well and I’ll admit that I don’t.
Obviously I hope that they will strike down the Death Penalty completely but I would settle for declaring Lethal Injection cruel and unusual punishment.
The good news is, that whatever they decide, it won’t be until next year some time so at least for the moment executions should cease.
This of course means that all executions in the U.S. are effectively brought to a halt as just about all executions (153 of the 155 in the last three years) in the U.S. are through Lethal Injection.
So what are the Supremes going to decide?
They could decide that Lethal Injection is not cruel and unusual punishment and is therefore perfectly constitutional. That would reopen the floodgates and effectively shut the door on further claims to this effect until new scientific evidence is found. A decision of this stripe would be a disaster and, as far as I can see, totally unjustified.
They could come to a very narrow decision that the Lethal Injection procedures in Kentucky have problems which need to be rectified but that Lethal Injection in general is allowed. This would trigger an explosion of law suits claiming issues in other states similar to the issues in Kentucky. This strikes me as a wildly impractical decision so I suspect that it’s rather unlikely.
They could decide that Lethal Injection, as currently practiced, is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore illegal, but that the Death Penalty is, in general, constitutional. This would effectively end the Death Penalty in most states until alternative methods could be defined. I suspect that most states outside the South, and even a few within the South, wouldn’t bother and would either leave the Death Penalty suspended indefinitely, such as is the current case in New York, or formally abolish it. Of course, every new method defined, or any of the old ones such as electrocution, hanging or the firing squad, reinstituted or brought into greater use, would be immediately challenged.
Or they could decide that the Death Penalty, given its failure as a deterrent, ineffectiveness and wildly varying application across the country, is itself cruel and unusual punishment. Yes this is possible even given the conservative nature of the current court because the conservative position on this question is a bit murky. Many Conservatives are against the Death Penalty and most religions condemn the Death Penalty as much as they condemn Abortion Access.
The Catholic Church in particular is anti-Death Penalty and, if I remember correctly, five of the Supremes are Catholics. Not that they would let their personal beliefs impact their decision (*cough, cough*).
So, what do I think is most likely? I haven’t got a clue. Predicting U.S. Supreme Court decisions is tricky even for those who understand the law and the process well and I’ll admit that I don’t.
Obviously I hope that they will strike down the Death Penalty completely but I would settle for declaring Lethal Injection cruel and unusual punishment.
The good news is, that whatever they decide, it won’t be until next year some time so at least for the moment executions should cease.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
FBI Crime Stats for 2006
The FBI has released its latest Unified Crime Report for 2006. Surely this report will demonstrate how religion has influenced society for the better. The report must show that the Bible Thumping South is a land of peace and tranquility while the atheistic, secular Northeast wallows in crime and depravity.
Let’s look at the numbers shall we? My, my, there must be something wrong here. This report says that the HIGHEST violent crime rate is in the Christian South at 547.5 incidents per 100,000 population while the lowest is in the secular Northeast at 391.9 incidents per 100,000 population. My, my, how can this be?
Actually, there’s no surprise here. These results are consistent with past FBI reports as well as consistent with other studies that indicate that the more religious a society is, the more dysfunctional it tends to be.
An article in the “Journal of Religion and Society” entitled “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look” published last year states:
“Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.”
Now whether that’s a direct result of religion, an outgrowth of the fact that both religiosity and crime tend to be associated with less educated or lower intelligence populations or that the United States just tends to be more dysfunctional than other democracies for other reasons totally unrelated to religion is unclear. I mean, you have to be pretty damned dysfunctional to elect George W. Bush, not once, BUT TWICE!
Anyway, back to the crime report. As stated earlier the South had the highest violent crime rate at 547.5, the West was next at 473.5, followed by the Midwest at 419.1 and the Northeast had the lowest violent crime rate at 391.9.
Nationally the violent crime rate went up by about 1% from 469.0 in 2005 to 473.5 in 2006. The rate also increased in the South, the West and the Midwest with the West having the highest increase at about 1.5%. The violent crime rate in the Northeast actually went down by 0.5%.
The South, despite having by far the highest execution rate in the country, also had the highest murder rate at 6.8; the West was next at 5.6, followed by the Midwest at 5.0. The Northeast had the lowest murder rate at 4.5.
Nationally the murder rate went up by 0.8% from 5.6 to 5.7. It also went up in all regions of the country except the West where it went down 2.2% from 5.8 to 5.6. The South had the highest increase in murder rate. It increased by 2.1% in the South from 6.6 to 6.8.
As far as individual states are concerned, South Carolina had the highest violent crime rate at 765.5, followed by Tennessee at 760.2 and Nevada at 741.6. The state with the lowest violent crime rate was Maine at 115.5, followed by North Dakota at 127.9 and Vermont at 136.6.
Louisiana had the highest murder rate at a whopping 12.4. Maryland was next at 9.7 followed by Nevada at 9.0. The state with the lowest murder rate was New Hampshire at 1.0, followed by South Dakota at 1.2 and North Dakota at 1.3.
Don’t believe everything you see on TV or in the movies. New York was ranked 21st in violent crime with a rate of 441.6 and 26th in murder rate with a rate of 4.9. California was ranked 14th in violent crime with a rate of 532.5 and 12th in murder rate with a rate of 6.8. Texas, despite 405 executions since 1976, was still ranked 18th in murder rate with a rate of 5.9. New Jersey, home of the Sopranos, was ranked 26th in violent crime with a rate of 351.6 and 24th in murder rate with a rate of 4.9.
New York City, demonized from many a pulpit as a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah sunk in sin, crime and depravity, had a violent crime rate of 637.9 and a murder rate of 7.2. Nine states including South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana and Florida, had violent crime rates higher than New York City. Eight states, including Louisiana, Maryland, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas had higher murder rates than New York City.
Los Angeles, on the other hand, was a bit worse. Its violent crime rate was 786.9 and its murder rate was 12.3.
Of course both New York and Los Angeles are the Garden of Eden when compared to Detroit which had a violent crime rate of 2,420.1 and a murder rate of 47.2.
In terms of property crime, the South was again the worst region with a rate of 3,780.8 property crime incidents per 100,000 population. The West was next with a rate of 3,534.4, followed by the Midwest with a rate of 3,271.2. The Northeast had the least property crime with a rate of 2,268.6.
The worst state in property crime rate was Arizona with a rate of 4,627.9, followed by Washington with a rate of 4,480.0 and then South Carolina with a rate of 4,242.3. Remind me to stay FAR away from South Carolina.
The state with the least property crime was South Dakota with a rate of 1,619.6, followed by New Hampshire with a rate of 1,874.1 and then North Dakota with a rate of 2,000.3.
The state in which you were most likely to get your car ripped off was Nevada with a motor vehicle theft rate of 1,080.4, followed by Arizona with a rate of 889.5 and then Washington with a rate of 717.6. The state where your car was the safest was South Dakota with a rate of 91.8, followed by Vermont with a rate of 93.9 and then Maine with a rate of 101.4.
Oh well, another year and another round of crime stats from the bureau. The South, despite its supposed focus on “moral values” continues to lead the country in murder and violent crime as well as executions. Must be all that not believing in evolution that’s causing the trouble.
Let’s look at the numbers shall we? My, my, there must be something wrong here. This report says that the HIGHEST violent crime rate is in the Christian South at 547.5 incidents per 100,000 population while the lowest is in the secular Northeast at 391.9 incidents per 100,000 population. My, my, how can this be?
Actually, there’s no surprise here. These results are consistent with past FBI reports as well as consistent with other studies that indicate that the more religious a society is, the more dysfunctional it tends to be.
An article in the “Journal of Religion and Society” entitled “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look” published last year states:
“Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.”
Now whether that’s a direct result of religion, an outgrowth of the fact that both religiosity and crime tend to be associated with less educated or lower intelligence populations or that the United States just tends to be more dysfunctional than other democracies for other reasons totally unrelated to religion is unclear. I mean, you have to be pretty damned dysfunctional to elect George W. Bush, not once, BUT TWICE!
Anyway, back to the crime report. As stated earlier the South had the highest violent crime rate at 547.5, the West was next at 473.5, followed by the Midwest at 419.1 and the Northeast had the lowest violent crime rate at 391.9.
Nationally the violent crime rate went up by about 1% from 469.0 in 2005 to 473.5 in 2006. The rate also increased in the South, the West and the Midwest with the West having the highest increase at about 1.5%. The violent crime rate in the Northeast actually went down by 0.5%.
The South, despite having by far the highest execution rate in the country, also had the highest murder rate at 6.8; the West was next at 5.6, followed by the Midwest at 5.0. The Northeast had the lowest murder rate at 4.5.
Nationally the murder rate went up by 0.8% from 5.6 to 5.7. It also went up in all regions of the country except the West where it went down 2.2% from 5.8 to 5.6. The South had the highest increase in murder rate. It increased by 2.1% in the South from 6.6 to 6.8.
As far as individual states are concerned, South Carolina had the highest violent crime rate at 765.5, followed by Tennessee at 760.2 and Nevada at 741.6. The state with the lowest violent crime rate was Maine at 115.5, followed by North Dakota at 127.9 and Vermont at 136.6.
Louisiana had the highest murder rate at a whopping 12.4. Maryland was next at 9.7 followed by Nevada at 9.0. The state with the lowest murder rate was New Hampshire at 1.0, followed by South Dakota at 1.2 and North Dakota at 1.3.
Don’t believe everything you see on TV or in the movies. New York was ranked 21st in violent crime with a rate of 441.6 and 26th in murder rate with a rate of 4.9. California was ranked 14th in violent crime with a rate of 532.5 and 12th in murder rate with a rate of 6.8. Texas, despite 405 executions since 1976, was still ranked 18th in murder rate with a rate of 5.9. New Jersey, home of the Sopranos, was ranked 26th in violent crime with a rate of 351.6 and 24th in murder rate with a rate of 4.9.
New York City, demonized from many a pulpit as a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah sunk in sin, crime and depravity, had a violent crime rate of 637.9 and a murder rate of 7.2. Nine states including South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana and Florida, had violent crime rates higher than New York City. Eight states, including Louisiana, Maryland, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas had higher murder rates than New York City.
Los Angeles, on the other hand, was a bit worse. Its violent crime rate was 786.9 and its murder rate was 12.3.
Of course both New York and Los Angeles are the Garden of Eden when compared to Detroit which had a violent crime rate of 2,420.1 and a murder rate of 47.2.
In terms of property crime, the South was again the worst region with a rate of 3,780.8 property crime incidents per 100,000 population. The West was next with a rate of 3,534.4, followed by the Midwest with a rate of 3,271.2. The Northeast had the least property crime with a rate of 2,268.6.
The worst state in property crime rate was Arizona with a rate of 4,627.9, followed by Washington with a rate of 4,480.0 and then South Carolina with a rate of 4,242.3. Remind me to stay FAR away from South Carolina.
The state with the least property crime was South Dakota with a rate of 1,619.6, followed by New Hampshire with a rate of 1,874.1 and then North Dakota with a rate of 2,000.3.
The state in which you were most likely to get your car ripped off was Nevada with a motor vehicle theft rate of 1,080.4, followed by Arizona with a rate of 889.5 and then Washington with a rate of 717.6. The state where your car was the safest was South Dakota with a rate of 91.8, followed by Vermont with a rate of 93.9 and then Maine with a rate of 101.4.
Oh well, another year and another round of crime stats from the bureau. The South, despite its supposed focus on “moral values” continues to lead the country in murder and violent crime as well as executions. Must be all that not believing in evolution that’s causing the trouble.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Immanuel Kant Revisited
Dinesh D’Souza, author of a book to be out this week called “What’s so Great About Christianity” has an opinion piece on Yahoo entitled “What Atheists Kant Refute.”
In it D’Souza summarizes Kant’s arguments in “Critique of Pure Reason” that it is impossible for humanity and science to unmask the whole of reality due to the unlimited magnitude of reality and man’s limited sensory apparatus.
This, D’Souza claims, demonstrates that “it is in no way unreasonable to believe things on faith that simply cannot be adjudicated by reason.”
D’Souza goes on to say that when atheists dismiss the teachings of religion based upon a lack of evidence “they are asking for experiential evidence in a domain that is entirely beyond the reach of the senses. In this domain, Kant argues, the absence of such evidence cannot be used as the evidence for absence.”
The fundamental consequence of Kant’s argument, which D’Souza doesn’t mention, is that since we can only have knowledge of things within our range of experience then we can have no knowledge of God because God is beyond experience.
If God is beyond experience, then he’s also beyond our ability to determine if he exists or not which is why I’m an agnostic rather than an atheist. In my opinion atheists have arrived at a conclusion just as theists have.
Now let’s be a little careful about God versus religion. Like all religious adherents, D’Souza tends to equate the two but they are in fact very different things. Kant’s argument also refutes religion because all religions claim knowledge of that which is beyond knowledge. They claim knowledge of the nature of God!
Be that as it may, was Kant right? Maybe, but then again, maybe not, first let’s be a little careful about our definitions of reality. Kant makes several assumptions which are not necessarily true.
The first assumption is that the magnitude of reality is unlimited. Says who? I’ll admit that reality is GODAWFUL BIG but I’m not quite ready to concede that it isn’t finite.
The second assumption is that humanity would be limited by the sensory apparatus that it was born with. Clearly this is no longer true. Using sensors and other devices we can now detect events at the subatomic and inter-galactic levels. In the future, using more advanced sensors and hyper-fast computers, humanity will be able to detect, and therefore experience via proxy, all sorts of stuff that we can’t experience now. Perhaps even stuff that we can't even conceive of now.
Let's not fall into a "God of the Gaps" kind of fallacy here. Simply because we haven't detected it yet, doesn't mean it's beyond detection.
The third assumption is that something exists in reality beyond the material plane and beyond the capacity of humanities senses or sensor devices to experience.
Materialism claims this isn’t true and non-materialism, into which I will lump religion as well as those who believe in a wide range or paranormal or psychic phenomena, claim that reality does in fact extend beyond the material plane and therefore includes things that are non-detectable and non-measurable by human or artificial senses.
This gets us back to the question of can the absence of evidence be interpreted to mean evidence of absence? Well, in this particular case no it can’t. It fails the third prong of the Negative Evidence Principle test which asks whether evidence should have been found. If this part of “reality” is beyond human or sensor detection then the answer to this question has to be no.
But again, let’s be very careful. Kant’s argument simply opens the door for the postulation of things beyond the experiential senses. One still has to have a justification for the likelihood of the truth of the postulation. Otherwise one would have to accept the reasonableness of the postulation of the existence of everything from invisible pink unicorns to a plethora of non-measurable forces which randomly affect the material plane but which cannot be detected as the cause of that effect.
Obviously, that’s utterly ridiculous.
Kant’s justification for the postulation of the existence of God is that without God it isn’t possible to make sense out of science or morality.
Why the hell not?
Science is simply the process by which man applies his available sensory equipment to understanding those portions of reality that are within his immediate detection. Whether this portion represents a small or large percentage of the totality of reality is irrelevant. Science is simply the process by which man measures that which he can measure. The fact that there may be things beyond experience doesn’t imply that what is within experience can’t be consistent and discoverable.
This is all that science attempts to do. Detect and measure that which is within the experiential plane. WHY things are within the experiential plane may well fall into that area of reality that Kant claims is beyond human comprehension.
The idea that one needs God to make sense out morality has been addressed and refuted numerous times. Only under Divine Command Theory is God necessary for morality. Other moral systems, such as Ethical Relativism, Deontology and Utilitarianism, have no need of Him (Her? It?).
So I don’t think Kant’s argument is as friendly to religion as D’Souza would like it to be. Granted it spanks atheists a bit by rejecting the idea that the concept of God can be dismissed simply due to the lack of empirical evidence, but it also gives the lie to religions which claim to know the nature of God because, as a corollary of Kant’s argument, God is by definition beyond human experience.
Like I said before, that’s why I’m an agnostic.
In it D’Souza summarizes Kant’s arguments in “Critique of Pure Reason” that it is impossible for humanity and science to unmask the whole of reality due to the unlimited magnitude of reality and man’s limited sensory apparatus.
This, D’Souza claims, demonstrates that “it is in no way unreasonable to believe things on faith that simply cannot be adjudicated by reason.”
D’Souza goes on to say that when atheists dismiss the teachings of religion based upon a lack of evidence “they are asking for experiential evidence in a domain that is entirely beyond the reach of the senses. In this domain, Kant argues, the absence of such evidence cannot be used as the evidence for absence.”
The fundamental consequence of Kant’s argument, which D’Souza doesn’t mention, is that since we can only have knowledge of things within our range of experience then we can have no knowledge of God because God is beyond experience.
If God is beyond experience, then he’s also beyond our ability to determine if he exists or not which is why I’m an agnostic rather than an atheist. In my opinion atheists have arrived at a conclusion just as theists have.
Now let’s be a little careful about God versus religion. Like all religious adherents, D’Souza tends to equate the two but they are in fact very different things. Kant’s argument also refutes religion because all religions claim knowledge of that which is beyond knowledge. They claim knowledge of the nature of God!
Be that as it may, was Kant right? Maybe, but then again, maybe not, first let’s be a little careful about our definitions of reality. Kant makes several assumptions which are not necessarily true.
The first assumption is that the magnitude of reality is unlimited. Says who? I’ll admit that reality is GODAWFUL BIG but I’m not quite ready to concede that it isn’t finite.
The second assumption is that humanity would be limited by the sensory apparatus that it was born with. Clearly this is no longer true. Using sensors and other devices we can now detect events at the subatomic and inter-galactic levels. In the future, using more advanced sensors and hyper-fast computers, humanity will be able to detect, and therefore experience via proxy, all sorts of stuff that we can’t experience now. Perhaps even stuff that we can't even conceive of now.
Let's not fall into a "God of the Gaps" kind of fallacy here. Simply because we haven't detected it yet, doesn't mean it's beyond detection.
The third assumption is that something exists in reality beyond the material plane and beyond the capacity of humanities senses or sensor devices to experience.
Materialism claims this isn’t true and non-materialism, into which I will lump religion as well as those who believe in a wide range or paranormal or psychic phenomena, claim that reality does in fact extend beyond the material plane and therefore includes things that are non-detectable and non-measurable by human or artificial senses.
This gets us back to the question of can the absence of evidence be interpreted to mean evidence of absence? Well, in this particular case no it can’t. It fails the third prong of the Negative Evidence Principle test which asks whether evidence should have been found. If this part of “reality” is beyond human or sensor detection then the answer to this question has to be no.
But again, let’s be very careful. Kant’s argument simply opens the door for the postulation of things beyond the experiential senses. One still has to have a justification for the likelihood of the truth of the postulation. Otherwise one would have to accept the reasonableness of the postulation of the existence of everything from invisible pink unicorns to a plethora of non-measurable forces which randomly affect the material plane but which cannot be detected as the cause of that effect.
Obviously, that’s utterly ridiculous.
Kant’s justification for the postulation of the existence of God is that without God it isn’t possible to make sense out of science or morality.
Why the hell not?
Science is simply the process by which man applies his available sensory equipment to understanding those portions of reality that are within his immediate detection. Whether this portion represents a small or large percentage of the totality of reality is irrelevant. Science is simply the process by which man measures that which he can measure. The fact that there may be things beyond experience doesn’t imply that what is within experience can’t be consistent and discoverable.
This is all that science attempts to do. Detect and measure that which is within the experiential plane. WHY things are within the experiential plane may well fall into that area of reality that Kant claims is beyond human comprehension.
The idea that one needs God to make sense out morality has been addressed and refuted numerous times. Only under Divine Command Theory is God necessary for morality. Other moral systems, such as Ethical Relativism, Deontology and Utilitarianism, have no need of Him (Her? It?).
So I don’t think Kant’s argument is as friendly to religion as D’Souza would like it to be. Granted it spanks atheists a bit by rejecting the idea that the concept of God can be dismissed simply due to the lack of empirical evidence, but it also gives the lie to religions which claim to know the nature of God because, as a corollary of Kant’s argument, God is by definition beyond human experience.
Like I said before, that’s why I’m an agnostic.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
You Go Girl!
I just heard that Kathy Griffin, in accepting her Emmy Award for the show “My Life on the D-List” sort of dissed ol’ JC. What she said was:
“Now, look, a lot of people come up here and they thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. He didn't help me a bit. If it was up to him, Cesar Millan would be up here with that damn dog. So all I can say is suck it Jesus, this award is my God now.”
I love it. It’s important that those of us that aren’t religion bound are willing to make it known when it’s appropriate to do so. Was it appropriate here? Well, like Kathy points out, those who claim to be Christians don’t have a problem with thanking God, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the Archangels and assorted saints and apostles under similar circumstances so why not?
Apparently Tennessee’s Miracle Theater disagrees. They’re so upset with Griffin that they’re got a campaign to collect one million signatures on a petition which states:
"The name of Jesus Christ should not be mocked, nor should those who love Him be slandered for their beliefs. It is time for people of faith around the country to stand firm against religious slander, bias, and bigotry of all types including Christianity."
Sounds a lot like the Muslim extremists that wanted the guy that did the cartoons of Muhammad chastised doesn’t it?
Here we go with the whole respect thing again. Look folks, we think your ideas are silly. We’ll agree not to go out of our way to mock, ridicule or criticize them as long you agree to stop throwing them into our faces every chance you get. I don’t see you protesting the absurdity of a hip-hop singer thanking Jesus for his Grammy Award so why are you criticizing Griffin for pointing out that JC had nothing to do with her award?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can publicly praise and thank Jesus then others can publicly disavow him. Griffin wasn’t mocking Jesus or Christianity as much as she was mocking Christians for thanking Jesus for everything from touchdowns to finding lost car keys.
I might also point out to you folks that “slander” means untrue. Labeling everything you don’t like as “slander” begs the question of whether it’s accurate or not.
I do have two questions though. Who the hell is Cesar Millan and what’s all this about a dog?
“Now, look, a lot of people come up here and they thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. He didn't help me a bit. If it was up to him, Cesar Millan would be up here with that damn dog. So all I can say is suck it Jesus, this award is my God now.”
I love it. It’s important that those of us that aren’t religion bound are willing to make it known when it’s appropriate to do so. Was it appropriate here? Well, like Kathy points out, those who claim to be Christians don’t have a problem with thanking God, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the Archangels and assorted saints and apostles under similar circumstances so why not?
Apparently Tennessee’s Miracle Theater disagrees. They’re so upset with Griffin that they’re got a campaign to collect one million signatures on a petition which states:
"The name of Jesus Christ should not be mocked, nor should those who love Him be slandered for their beliefs. It is time for people of faith around the country to stand firm against religious slander, bias, and bigotry of all types including Christianity."
Sounds a lot like the Muslim extremists that wanted the guy that did the cartoons of Muhammad chastised doesn’t it?
Here we go with the whole respect thing again. Look folks, we think your ideas are silly. We’ll agree not to go out of our way to mock, ridicule or criticize them as long you agree to stop throwing them into our faces every chance you get. I don’t see you protesting the absurdity of a hip-hop singer thanking Jesus for his Grammy Award so why are you criticizing Griffin for pointing out that JC had nothing to do with her award?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can publicly praise and thank Jesus then others can publicly disavow him. Griffin wasn’t mocking Jesus or Christianity as much as she was mocking Christians for thanking Jesus for everything from touchdowns to finding lost car keys.
I might also point out to you folks that “slander” means untrue. Labeling everything you don’t like as “slander” begs the question of whether it’s accurate or not.
I do have two questions though. Who the hell is Cesar Millan and what’s all this about a dog?
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
More Lies and Deception
If I were asked to sum up what first led me to suspect that Christianity was more lie than truth it would have to be the fact that its adherents so readily use lies and deception in an attempt to achieve their goals.
The latest example comes in a N.Y. Times article from September 27th which reports the complaints of a number of scientists that they were misled when interviewed for an upcoming movie.
They were told that the movie was to be called “Crossroads” and was to deal with the intersection of religion and science. Instead, they have now discovered, the movie is to be entitled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” to be released by a different producer and based upon the premises that (a) Intelligent Design is a viable alternative to evolution and (b) academics have been expelled, denied tenure, or suffered other penalties because they believe they see signs of intelligent design in living organisms.
According to the Times the film, in its trailer, claims that it presents “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.”
The Times also reports that the film’s website claims that this is due to a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nations laboratories and classrooms. The key here of course are the words “publicly-funded.” This particular choice of words is almost guaranteed to get the under 90 IQ, Trailer Park crowd in an uproar once it’s been explained to them what the phrase means.
Now, I think a debate as to whether or not scientists or university teachers are penalized for pushing ideas or hypotheses that don’t conform to accepted scientific positions is a perfectly valid topic for discussion. Making a movie which investigates this possibility is certainly within the scope of things a documentary film maker might want to explore.
However, what is not acceptable is lying to people about what you’re doing. The Times reported that some of the scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, said they would never have agreed to the interviews if they knew the true premise of the film. Others, such as P.Z. Myers of the University of Minnesota, said they would have agreed to the interview anyway but would have aggressively attacked the premise of the movie.
The problem of course is that these people were purposely misled as to that premise. You can also be certain that the film, which won’t be “available for preview” until a month before its scheduled release, will be edited just right to make whatever point they want to make. You can also be certain they figure a month won’t be enough time to do anything when someone finds out that what they said has been grossly misrepresented.
If you are privy to God’s Truth, why do you need deception? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, let’s stack everybody’s “Truths” on the table of science and education, shine the light of reason upon them and see which “Truths” whither and which “Truths” flourish.
If we just had the courage to do that we could reduce religion to a minor sidebar in society. How do I know that? I know that because the adherents of religion constantly find it necessary to lie and deceive.
The latest example comes in a N.Y. Times article from September 27th which reports the complaints of a number of scientists that they were misled when interviewed for an upcoming movie.
They were told that the movie was to be called “Crossroads” and was to deal with the intersection of religion and science. Instead, they have now discovered, the movie is to be entitled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” to be released by a different producer and based upon the premises that (a) Intelligent Design is a viable alternative to evolution and (b) academics have been expelled, denied tenure, or suffered other penalties because they believe they see signs of intelligent design in living organisms.
According to the Times the film, in its trailer, claims that it presents “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.”
The Times also reports that the film’s website claims that this is due to a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nations laboratories and classrooms. The key here of course are the words “publicly-funded.” This particular choice of words is almost guaranteed to get the under 90 IQ, Trailer Park crowd in an uproar once it’s been explained to them what the phrase means.
Now, I think a debate as to whether or not scientists or university teachers are penalized for pushing ideas or hypotheses that don’t conform to accepted scientific positions is a perfectly valid topic for discussion. Making a movie which investigates this possibility is certainly within the scope of things a documentary film maker might want to explore.
However, what is not acceptable is lying to people about what you’re doing. The Times reported that some of the scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, said they would never have agreed to the interviews if they knew the true premise of the film. Others, such as P.Z. Myers of the University of Minnesota, said they would have agreed to the interview anyway but would have aggressively attacked the premise of the movie.
The problem of course is that these people were purposely misled as to that premise. You can also be certain that the film, which won’t be “available for preview” until a month before its scheduled release, will be edited just right to make whatever point they want to make. You can also be certain they figure a month won’t be enough time to do anything when someone finds out that what they said has been grossly misrepresented.
If you are privy to God’s Truth, why do you need deception? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, let’s stack everybody’s “Truths” on the table of science and education, shine the light of reason upon them and see which “Truths” whither and which “Truths” flourish.
If we just had the courage to do that we could reduce religion to a minor sidebar in society. How do I know that? I know that because the adherents of religion constantly find it necessary to lie and deceive.
Monday, October 08, 2007
The Jena Six, Michael Vick and the Plans for a New Lincoln Penny
The Urban Legends Reference Site, www.snopes.com, is a great web site. In addition to a catalogue of information on classic Urban Legends their “What’s New” page addresses things traveling the internet related to today’s headlines.
I swing by regularly and on this visit I was particularly struck by articles related to these three topics.
The Jena Six article was in response to an e-mail claiming that the American Red Cross provided bottles of water to the marchers protesting the severe charges brought against the six black defendants. The writer of the e-mail was clearly indignant that the Red Cross was expending supplies intended for disaster relief, and expressed the opinion that the protestors should have planned better, and brought their own supplies.
Snopes, verified that the Red Cross did in fact provide water and first aid, but then went on to explain that they did so at the request of the State of Louisiana, which had declared a state of emergency in the parish where Jena is located, and that the Red Cross has asked for reimbursement from Louisiana.
Let’s talk about the Jena Six, the Red Cross support in Jena and the Red Cross in general. I’m convinced that Jim Crow is alive and well in the American South and it’s going to take constant vigilance to prevent his revival. That being said, I think that folks could have chosen a better hook to hang their caps on than this one. Granted the original charges of attempted murder were ridiculous but we are talking aggravated assault, six against one, and a victim that appears to have been chosen by random and to have had nothing to do with the noose hanging incident several months previously.
As far as the Red Cross support at the march, I can understand the Red Cross wanting to help, but I question the wisdom of its decision to become involved with what amounted to a political demonstration. But, then again, I’ve come to question the wisdom of the Red Cross in a number of cases based upon multiple reports that during the Katrina crisis, help was refused because it wasn’t coming from religious organizations that the Red Cross had “agreements” with.
The e-mail writer says that based upon the Jena incident he will no longer contribute to the Red Cross. I no longer contribute either. I prefer to donate to more secular organizations.
The Michael Vick article centered around an “Open Letter to the Atlanta NAACP” which criticized its director, Dr. R.L. White, for supporting Michael Vick.
As reported by Snopes, White expressed an opinion to Newsweek that Vick was being more closely scrutinized because he was a celebrity and because he was black. In statements to the press, White urged the NFL, the Atlanta Falcons and Vick’s commercial sponsors not to drop him.
I partially agree with White. I don’t think Vick is catching more hell than the average dog torturing moron because he’s black, but I do think he is because he’s a high profile NFL athlete. Let’s face it, with fame and visibility comes some responsibility as well. Superstar athletes are viewed as role models and, like it or not, they need to consider that.
Could you ever imagine players like Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb or Brett Favre doing something as dumb as what Michael Vick did? But, if they did, do you seriously think that they wouldn’t catch just as much hell?
The NFL understand this, the Atlanta Falcons understand this and Dr. White of the NAACP needs to understand this as well. The commercial sponsors look at it a little differently. What they understand is that if they don’t dump Vick, lots and lots of their customers, both black and white, will probably dump them.
This brings us to the Lincoln Penny. In 2009 the U.S. Mint plans a series of pennies with scenes from Lincoln’s life on the reverse of the coin instead of the current Lincoln Memorial. Preliminary views of some of the scenes under consideration have gotten the under 90 IQ, trailer park living, religious fruitcakes in an uproar because none of them show the motto “In God We Trust.” That’s because the motto is on the FRONT of the Lincoln Penny which isn’t changing (DUH).
But what caught my particular attention is the text published by Snopes that was traveling around the internet complaining about the missing motto which said (all caps apparently part of the e-mail):
“THIS IS WHAT OUR NEW PENNIES WILL LOOK LIKE. THANKS TO THE ACLU AND OTHER SIMILAR GROUPS THE WORDS 'IN GOD WE TRUST' HAVE BEEN REMOVED. WHEN ARE WE AS AMERICANS, GOING TO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND STOP BOWING DOWN TO THOSE THAT TAKE OUR BELIEFS AND RIGHTS AWAY FROM US? IF WE DON'T ACT SOON THEY WILL HAVE THE WORD "GOD" COMPLETELY ELIMINATED FROM OUR LANGUGE. THEY'VE ALREADY STOPPED SCHOOL PRAYER, PRAYER AT SPORTING EVENTS AND NOW FROM OUR CURRENCY. WHAT'S NEXT? WILL THEY OUTLAW PRAYER IN CHURCH? WILL THEY OUTLAW THE SELL OF BIBLES? TIME TO SPEAK UP BEFORE THE BELIEFS OF A FEW BECOME THE LAW.”
Let’s tip-toe through the ignorance shall we?
“THE WORDS "IN GOD WE TRUST" HAVE BEEN REMOVED” – As previously stated, this isn’t true. They’re simply on the other side of the coin.
“…STOP BOWING DOWN TO THOSE THAT TAKE OUR BELIEFS AND RIGHTS AWAY FROM US…” – Well, clearly, since you’re writing this e-mail, no one has managed to take away your “BELIEFS.” Actually, I’m not sure someone can forcibly take away your beliefs. Someone might convince you to change your beliefs, but it’s unlikely a court order or gun to your head could take them away. The fact is you can no more chose what you believe than you can choose whether you’re right handed or left handed.
As for the idea of rights, since when is it a right to have your opinion codified into laws, or coins or buildings? I might accept the argument that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the motto “In God we Trust,” and therefore it belongs on the coins, but it’s not your right to force what you believe upon the rest of us.
“…THEY WILL HAVE THE WORD "GOD" COMPLETELY ELIMINATED FROM OUR LANGUGE” – What an interesting concept, shades of 1984. Do you suppose the bozo that wrote the e-mail even knows what 1984 is? I suspect one couldn’t do this for the same reasons one couldn’t forcibly remove another’s beliefs. Human beings are just too downright ornery to allow stuff like that to happen.
“THEY'VE ALREADY STOPPED SCHOOL PRAYER…” – Actually, that’s not true. What they’ve stopped is prayer sanctioned or organized by the school because the school, as an agent of the government, must, according to the U.S. Constitution, be neutral when it comes to one religion with respect to another religion, one sect with respect to another sect and religion with respect to no religion. Students are free to pray whenever they want. There was always lots of prayer in my high school, especially just before physics tests.
The “they” in this case, by the way, just happens to be the Supreme Court of the United States and not the ACLU or some other nefarious organization.
“(THEY'VE ALREADY STOPPED) PRAYER AT SPORTING EVENTS.” – Again, not true. At public school sporting events what has been stopped is, again, prayer sanctioned or organized by the school for the same reasons as noted above. I’m not aware of any law or rule that prevents prayer at say, NFL Games or private College Games. As a matter of fact, most players pray before the game or at least make the sign of the cross. Hey, haven’t you heard of a “Hail Mary Pass?”
Again the “they” was the U.S. Supreme court and the plaintiffs the Catholic and Mormon parents of students attending school sporting events and not some clandestine atheist alliance.
“WILL THEY OUTLAW PRAYER IN CHURCH? WILL THEY OUTLAW THE SELL OF BIBLES?” – I think that should have been “SALE” rather than “SELL” and I have to say I doubt we’re heading down this fallacious slippery slope. I assume the author is using this as an appeal to exaggeration as either would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Although, given the level of intelligence demonstrated by people that continually send money to television evangelists, some people, including the author, might actually believe these are possibilities.
It never ceases to amaze me that preventing religion from inundating those of us who believe its dogma and rituals are absurd is viewed by the religious as a curtailment of THEIR RIGHTS! I guess they figure they have the right to practice their religion anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances and the rest of us have to, if not participate, then at least stand by patiently, and respectfully, until they’re done.
You will excuse me, but not on my time and not with my tax dollars.
I swing by regularly and on this visit I was particularly struck by articles related to these three topics.
The Jena Six article was in response to an e-mail claiming that the American Red Cross provided bottles of water to the marchers protesting the severe charges brought against the six black defendants. The writer of the e-mail was clearly indignant that the Red Cross was expending supplies intended for disaster relief, and expressed the opinion that the protestors should have planned better, and brought their own supplies.
Snopes, verified that the Red Cross did in fact provide water and first aid, but then went on to explain that they did so at the request of the State of Louisiana, which had declared a state of emergency in the parish where Jena is located, and that the Red Cross has asked for reimbursement from Louisiana.
Let’s talk about the Jena Six, the Red Cross support in Jena and the Red Cross in general. I’m convinced that Jim Crow is alive and well in the American South and it’s going to take constant vigilance to prevent his revival. That being said, I think that folks could have chosen a better hook to hang their caps on than this one. Granted the original charges of attempted murder were ridiculous but we are talking aggravated assault, six against one, and a victim that appears to have been chosen by random and to have had nothing to do with the noose hanging incident several months previously.
As far as the Red Cross support at the march, I can understand the Red Cross wanting to help, but I question the wisdom of its decision to become involved with what amounted to a political demonstration. But, then again, I’ve come to question the wisdom of the Red Cross in a number of cases based upon multiple reports that during the Katrina crisis, help was refused because it wasn’t coming from religious organizations that the Red Cross had “agreements” with.
The e-mail writer says that based upon the Jena incident he will no longer contribute to the Red Cross. I no longer contribute either. I prefer to donate to more secular organizations.
The Michael Vick article centered around an “Open Letter to the Atlanta NAACP” which criticized its director, Dr. R.L. White, for supporting Michael Vick.
As reported by Snopes, White expressed an opinion to Newsweek that Vick was being more closely scrutinized because he was a celebrity and because he was black. In statements to the press, White urged the NFL, the Atlanta Falcons and Vick’s commercial sponsors not to drop him.
I partially agree with White. I don’t think Vick is catching more hell than the average dog torturing moron because he’s black, but I do think he is because he’s a high profile NFL athlete. Let’s face it, with fame and visibility comes some responsibility as well. Superstar athletes are viewed as role models and, like it or not, they need to consider that.
Could you ever imagine players like Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb or Brett Favre doing something as dumb as what Michael Vick did? But, if they did, do you seriously think that they wouldn’t catch just as much hell?
The NFL understand this, the Atlanta Falcons understand this and Dr. White of the NAACP needs to understand this as well. The commercial sponsors look at it a little differently. What they understand is that if they don’t dump Vick, lots and lots of their customers, both black and white, will probably dump them.
This brings us to the Lincoln Penny. In 2009 the U.S. Mint plans a series of pennies with scenes from Lincoln’s life on the reverse of the coin instead of the current Lincoln Memorial. Preliminary views of some of the scenes under consideration have gotten the under 90 IQ, trailer park living, religious fruitcakes in an uproar because none of them show the motto “In God We Trust.” That’s because the motto is on the FRONT of the Lincoln Penny which isn’t changing (DUH).
But what caught my particular attention is the text published by Snopes that was traveling around the internet complaining about the missing motto which said (all caps apparently part of the e-mail):
“THIS IS WHAT OUR NEW PENNIES WILL LOOK LIKE. THANKS TO THE ACLU AND OTHER SIMILAR GROUPS THE WORDS 'IN GOD WE TRUST' HAVE BEEN REMOVED. WHEN ARE WE AS AMERICANS, GOING TO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND STOP BOWING DOWN TO THOSE THAT TAKE OUR BELIEFS AND RIGHTS AWAY FROM US? IF WE DON'T ACT SOON THEY WILL HAVE THE WORD "GOD" COMPLETELY ELIMINATED FROM OUR LANGUGE. THEY'VE ALREADY STOPPED SCHOOL PRAYER, PRAYER AT SPORTING EVENTS AND NOW FROM OUR CURRENCY. WHAT'S NEXT? WILL THEY OUTLAW PRAYER IN CHURCH? WILL THEY OUTLAW THE SELL OF BIBLES? TIME TO SPEAK UP BEFORE THE BELIEFS OF A FEW BECOME THE LAW.”
Let’s tip-toe through the ignorance shall we?
“THE WORDS "IN GOD WE TRUST" HAVE BEEN REMOVED” – As previously stated, this isn’t true. They’re simply on the other side of the coin.
“…STOP BOWING DOWN TO THOSE THAT TAKE OUR BELIEFS AND RIGHTS AWAY FROM US…” – Well, clearly, since you’re writing this e-mail, no one has managed to take away your “BELIEFS.” Actually, I’m not sure someone can forcibly take away your beliefs. Someone might convince you to change your beliefs, but it’s unlikely a court order or gun to your head could take them away. The fact is you can no more chose what you believe than you can choose whether you’re right handed or left handed.
As for the idea of rights, since when is it a right to have your opinion codified into laws, or coins or buildings? I might accept the argument that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the motto “In God we Trust,” and therefore it belongs on the coins, but it’s not your right to force what you believe upon the rest of us.
“…THEY WILL HAVE THE WORD "GOD" COMPLETELY ELIMINATED FROM OUR LANGUGE” – What an interesting concept, shades of 1984. Do you suppose the bozo that wrote the e-mail even knows what 1984 is? I suspect one couldn’t do this for the same reasons one couldn’t forcibly remove another’s beliefs. Human beings are just too downright ornery to allow stuff like that to happen.
“THEY'VE ALREADY STOPPED SCHOOL PRAYER…” – Actually, that’s not true. What they’ve stopped is prayer sanctioned or organized by the school because the school, as an agent of the government, must, according to the U.S. Constitution, be neutral when it comes to one religion with respect to another religion, one sect with respect to another sect and religion with respect to no religion. Students are free to pray whenever they want. There was always lots of prayer in my high school, especially just before physics tests.
The “they” in this case, by the way, just happens to be the Supreme Court of the United States and not the ACLU or some other nefarious organization.
“(THEY'VE ALREADY STOPPED) PRAYER AT SPORTING EVENTS.” – Again, not true. At public school sporting events what has been stopped is, again, prayer sanctioned or organized by the school for the same reasons as noted above. I’m not aware of any law or rule that prevents prayer at say, NFL Games or private College Games. As a matter of fact, most players pray before the game or at least make the sign of the cross. Hey, haven’t you heard of a “Hail Mary Pass?”
Again the “they” was the U.S. Supreme court and the plaintiffs the Catholic and Mormon parents of students attending school sporting events and not some clandestine atheist alliance.
“WILL THEY OUTLAW PRAYER IN CHURCH? WILL THEY OUTLAW THE SELL OF BIBLES?” – I think that should have been “SALE” rather than “SELL” and I have to say I doubt we’re heading down this fallacious slippery slope. I assume the author is using this as an appeal to exaggeration as either would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Although, given the level of intelligence demonstrated by people that continually send money to television evangelists, some people, including the author, might actually believe these are possibilities.
It never ceases to amaze me that preventing religion from inundating those of us who believe its dogma and rituals are absurd is viewed by the religious as a curtailment of THEIR RIGHTS! I guess they figure they have the right to practice their religion anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances and the rest of us have to, if not participate, then at least stand by patiently, and respectfully, until they’re done.
You will excuse me, but not on my time and not with my tax dollars.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Mitt Romney’s Mormonism
As the campaign proceeds folks are beginning to wonder when Romney is going to give his “Yes, I’m a Mormon, but its ok” speech like John Kennedy gave a “Yes, I’m a Catholic, but its ok” speech in 1960.
However I think the situation here is a little different. The primary concern back in 1960 was that somehow Kennedy’s faith would force him to follow direction from the Vatican. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that Romney is going to take orders from Salt Lake City.
I honestly believe that in this particular case we’re talking about a more fundamental issue. Can someone consider a candidate’s personal beliefs when choosing whether or not he should vote for that candidate?
Conservative author and radio host Hugh Hewitt claims that this would amount to unashamed bigotry and warns Evangelicals uncomfortable with Romney that if purely theological challenges become acceptable, then their theology could be challenged next.
I have to disagree with Hewitt. As much as I find Christian concepts such as the Virgin Birth, the Trinity and miracles absurd, I’m forced to admit that there is no empirical evidence that says they’re wrong. We can argue all day about it, but in the end it’s simply my opinion against yours.
The Mormon beliefs associated with the history of North America and the claim that a tribe of Israel colonized the continent is another matter all together. Apologists are fond of saying that “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” but, as an engineer, I can tell you that’s simply not true.
The Negative Evidence Principle (NEP) guides conclusions based upon lack of evidence and consists of three points.
Point #1 – Have you diligently searched for evidence?
Point #2 – Have you found any?
Point #3 – Should you have found any?
If the answers to the three points are Yes, No and Yes, then concluding that a proposition is FALSE is quite rational. This is the logic that has been used by archaeologists to conclude that the Hebrews Exodus from Egypt, as described in the Bible, is a myth.
So let’s consider the three points. The New World Archaeological Foundation, under the auspices of Brigham Young University, was established to do the archaeology and demonstrate once and for all the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Despite initial high hopes, and significant scientific success in general, they never found one shred of evidence to back Joseph Smith’s tale. Neither has any other New World archaeological dig found any evidence that there were pre-Columbian peoples in North America that had knowledge of Old World languages, ore smelting technologies and Old World domesticated animals such as horses and cattle as claimed in the Book of Mormon.
Granted that some people, usually Mormons, claim that evidence has been found but it just hasn’t been accepted by mainstream scientists. Precisely, as far as I’m concern evidence that isn’t accepted by objective evaluation is no evidence at all. It’s wishful thinking.
That brings us to Point #3, should evidence have been found? This is usually the hottest point of debate when you use the NEP. In this particular case, as expected, there is again some disagreement. The Book of Mormon asserts that in the final battle at the hill Cumorah, 250,000 Nephite soldiers fell. Such a catastrophic conflict would dwarf the greatest battles of Ancient History and require a civilization comparable in size to such archaeologically prominent civilizations as Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and even Ancient Rome!
Hell, people should be literally tripping over Nephite, Jaredite and Lamanite stuff. So where is all the prominent archaeology? Where are the ruins such as can be found in the Mediterranean? Where are the metal artifacts? Where are the remains of the domesticated animals?
They ain’t nowhere that’s where because the story is pure fiction. Note That I’m saying this not out of prejudice but purely based upon my interpretation of the evidence (or rather the lack of evidence). Then there’s the DNA testing that’s been done that indicates NO relationship between any North American peoples and the Semitic peoples of the Middle East.
Mormon apologists spin this stuff like Christian apologists spin issues with Bible absurdities and contradictions. Is it possible that they’re right and either evidence has in fact been found, even though it’s not accepted, or tomorrow someone might discover a Nephite city in the jungles of Guatemala? Of course it’s possible. It’s also possible that tomorrow someone might discover a Jurassic bunny rabbit. But is it probably? I think the answer to that question has to be a resounding no.
So, what to do about a man who believes something is true in the face of seemingly, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence that it is false? Do I want such a man as president of the United States? Do I simply shrug and say, well, it’s only my opinion that the evidence demonstrates the Book of Mormon is fiction, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion? I have to answer both those questions absolutely not. If I can’t make decisions based upon my rational interpretation of the facts, what do I make them based upon?
Before I would consider Romney an acceptable candidate someone would have to convince me that the evidence against the Book of Mormon is not as overwhelming as I think it is.
However I think the situation here is a little different. The primary concern back in 1960 was that somehow Kennedy’s faith would force him to follow direction from the Vatican. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that Romney is going to take orders from Salt Lake City.
I honestly believe that in this particular case we’re talking about a more fundamental issue. Can someone consider a candidate’s personal beliefs when choosing whether or not he should vote for that candidate?
Conservative author and radio host Hugh Hewitt claims that this would amount to unashamed bigotry and warns Evangelicals uncomfortable with Romney that if purely theological challenges become acceptable, then their theology could be challenged next.
I have to disagree with Hewitt. As much as I find Christian concepts such as the Virgin Birth, the Trinity and miracles absurd, I’m forced to admit that there is no empirical evidence that says they’re wrong. We can argue all day about it, but in the end it’s simply my opinion against yours.
The Mormon beliefs associated with the history of North America and the claim that a tribe of Israel colonized the continent is another matter all together. Apologists are fond of saying that “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” but, as an engineer, I can tell you that’s simply not true.
The Negative Evidence Principle (NEP) guides conclusions based upon lack of evidence and consists of three points.
Point #1 – Have you diligently searched for evidence?
Point #2 – Have you found any?
Point #3 – Should you have found any?
If the answers to the three points are Yes, No and Yes, then concluding that a proposition is FALSE is quite rational. This is the logic that has been used by archaeologists to conclude that the Hebrews Exodus from Egypt, as described in the Bible, is a myth.
So let’s consider the three points. The New World Archaeological Foundation, under the auspices of Brigham Young University, was established to do the archaeology and demonstrate once and for all the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Despite initial high hopes, and significant scientific success in general, they never found one shred of evidence to back Joseph Smith’s tale. Neither has any other New World archaeological dig found any evidence that there were pre-Columbian peoples in North America that had knowledge of Old World languages, ore smelting technologies and Old World domesticated animals such as horses and cattle as claimed in the Book of Mormon.
Granted that some people, usually Mormons, claim that evidence has been found but it just hasn’t been accepted by mainstream scientists. Precisely, as far as I’m concern evidence that isn’t accepted by objective evaluation is no evidence at all. It’s wishful thinking.
That brings us to Point #3, should evidence have been found? This is usually the hottest point of debate when you use the NEP. In this particular case, as expected, there is again some disagreement. The Book of Mormon asserts that in the final battle at the hill Cumorah, 250,000 Nephite soldiers fell. Such a catastrophic conflict would dwarf the greatest battles of Ancient History and require a civilization comparable in size to such archaeologically prominent civilizations as Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and even Ancient Rome!
Hell, people should be literally tripping over Nephite, Jaredite and Lamanite stuff. So where is all the prominent archaeology? Where are the ruins such as can be found in the Mediterranean? Where are the metal artifacts? Where are the remains of the domesticated animals?
They ain’t nowhere that’s where because the story is pure fiction. Note That I’m saying this not out of prejudice but purely based upon my interpretation of the evidence (or rather the lack of evidence). Then there’s the DNA testing that’s been done that indicates NO relationship between any North American peoples and the Semitic peoples of the Middle East.
Mormon apologists spin this stuff like Christian apologists spin issues with Bible absurdities and contradictions. Is it possible that they’re right and either evidence has in fact been found, even though it’s not accepted, or tomorrow someone might discover a Nephite city in the jungles of Guatemala? Of course it’s possible. It’s also possible that tomorrow someone might discover a Jurassic bunny rabbit. But is it probably? I think the answer to that question has to be a resounding no.
So, what to do about a man who believes something is true in the face of seemingly, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence that it is false? Do I want such a man as president of the United States? Do I simply shrug and say, well, it’s only my opinion that the evidence demonstrates the Book of Mormon is fiction, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion? I have to answer both those questions absolutely not. If I can’t make decisions based upon my rational interpretation of the facts, what do I make them based upon?
Before I would consider Romney an acceptable candidate someone would have to convince me that the evidence against the Book of Mormon is not as overwhelming as I think it is.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
John McCann and a Christian Nation
Oh John. The latest fiasco comes during an interview with Beliefnet where John actually said that the Constitution established the United States as a Christian Nation.
I’d like to ask John what Constitution he’s reading? From that statement he clearly hasn’t read the right one or his reading comprehension is so dismal he shouldn’t be planning anything more intellectual than story time at the zoo. You would think that a man who has, on numerous occasions, pledged to defend something would at least take the trouble to comprehend what he's protecting.
Of course, then again, John is just going along with the crowd. In a recent poll conducted by the First Amendment Center 55% of Americans agreed with McCann that the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation.
Even worse, 58% said that teachers should be able to lead prayers and, even worse, only 56% agree that freedom of religion applies to all groups regardless of how “extreme” their views might be.
Does it bother you that American soldiers are dying in Iraq trying to help establish a secular democracy but many of the folks at home don't understand what that means? If it doesn't, it should.
I think I’d like to ask these folks a few questions.
Question #1 - What in the Constitution leads you to believe it establishes a Christian Nation?
Religion is mentioned only once in the body of the Constitution and Christianity not at all. It's mentioned in Article 6 which PROHIBITS any religious test as a qualification for holding office. Religion is also mentioned in the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Question #2 – Who would decide which prayers were ok?
Suppose your little darling’s teacher was a Muslim or a Wiccan? Would you be happy having junior praying to Mecca or chanting praise to the Lord and the Lady? Then of course Catholics might choose to lead the class in a Hail Mary or two and no, I'm not talking about football.
Question #3 – Who gets to decide what’s “extreme?”
Allow me to remind everyone what James Madison said “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”
Get it? Don’t assume that your brand of Christianity wouldn’t be declared “extreme” by another more dominant brand.
I keep tripping over evidence that education in this country is in an absolutely horrible state. I guess we can add to the problems of Science Illiteracy and Biblical Illiteracy the problem of Constitutional Illiteracy. Maybe there should be a required class somewhere along the line called "Stuff you REALLY should know?" We could include finding the country on a globe too. Hey, by using a globe we could also teach aspiring hosts of "The View" that the world isn't flat.
By the way, when I say required I mean you keep taking it until you can pass a test which demonstrates that you have acquired enough knowledge not to make people who are actually educated nauseous over your ignorance.
I’d like to ask John what Constitution he’s reading? From that statement he clearly hasn’t read the right one or his reading comprehension is so dismal he shouldn’t be planning anything more intellectual than story time at the zoo. You would think that a man who has, on numerous occasions, pledged to defend something would at least take the trouble to comprehend what he's protecting.
Of course, then again, John is just going along with the crowd. In a recent poll conducted by the First Amendment Center 55% of Americans agreed with McCann that the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation.
Even worse, 58% said that teachers should be able to lead prayers and, even worse, only 56% agree that freedom of religion applies to all groups regardless of how “extreme” their views might be.
Does it bother you that American soldiers are dying in Iraq trying to help establish a secular democracy but many of the folks at home don't understand what that means? If it doesn't, it should.
I think I’d like to ask these folks a few questions.
Question #1 - What in the Constitution leads you to believe it establishes a Christian Nation?
Religion is mentioned only once in the body of the Constitution and Christianity not at all. It's mentioned in Article 6 which PROHIBITS any religious test as a qualification for holding office. Religion is also mentioned in the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Question #2 – Who would decide which prayers were ok?
Suppose your little darling’s teacher was a Muslim or a Wiccan? Would you be happy having junior praying to Mecca or chanting praise to the Lord and the Lady? Then of course Catholics might choose to lead the class in a Hail Mary or two and no, I'm not talking about football.
Question #3 – Who gets to decide what’s “extreme?”
Allow me to remind everyone what James Madison said “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”
Get it? Don’t assume that your brand of Christianity wouldn’t be declared “extreme” by another more dominant brand.
I keep tripping over evidence that education in this country is in an absolutely horrible state. I guess we can add to the problems of Science Illiteracy and Biblical Illiteracy the problem of Constitutional Illiteracy. Maybe there should be a required class somewhere along the line called "Stuff you REALLY should know?" We could include finding the country on a globe too. Hey, by using a globe we could also teach aspiring hosts of "The View" that the world isn't flat.
By the way, when I say required I mean you keep taking it until you can pass a test which demonstrates that you have acquired enough knowledge not to make people who are actually educated nauseous over your ignorance.
Monday, October 01, 2007
On the Supremes Docket
The Supreme Court has announced the cases that it will review and, sometimes more illuminating, those it won’t review. To make things even more interesting, there are a few cases that have neither been rejected nor accepted. They’re sort of sitting on the fence I guess and may, or may not, be decided this session.
The interesting cases that have been accepted include:
Boumediene v. Bush – This is one of two Gitmo detainee cases that the Supremes will address together. Basically the question is whether the Gitmo detainees are under the protection of the U.S. Constitution. The Bush administration says that because they’re foreign enemy combatants held outside the U.S., they aren’t.
I say if we’re not prepared to extend the same legal protections to our enemies that we reserve for ourselves, then how are we better than they are?
Baze v. Rees – This case challenges the lethal injection procedures in the state of Kentucky claiming that they are cruel and unusual punishment.
We know that the death penalty is arbitrary as hell and anything that arbitrary is by definition cruel and unusual.
Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita – This case challenges laws that require voters to present a valid photo ID in order to be able to cast a ballot.
So, if you don’t have a valid driver’s license or a passport you can’t vote? Where’d that rule come from?
Medellin v. Texas – This case revolves around a Mexican national on death row, but the question here is really whether or not the President can set aside a state law that conflicts with an international treaty. Bush says yes and Texas is telling its prodigal village idiot to go pound salt.
I’m not all that sure on this one, but I’m suspicious of anything that expands the power of the presidency.
Snyder v. Louisiana – Tell me if you’ve heard this one before. A black man on death row for killing his wife in Louisiana is claiming he didn’t get a fair trial because the prosecution dismissed all of the potential black jurors and compared him to O.J. Simpson.
It sounds to me like the guy got railroaded by a typical case of southern justice. Who says Jim Crow is dead?
On the fence and which may be decided are:
District of Columbia v. Heller – Washington D.C. used to have a ban on hand guns but that ban was declared in violation of the 2nd Amendment. This case asks the Supremes to review that decision.
Hmmmm, 2nd Amendment cases confuse me. I think we need to keep guns off the street but I also understand why the 2nd Amendment was written. (Note: The phrase "off the street" was a bad choice of words as this case is about having guns for home defense.)
Kennedy v. Louisiana – The question is whether someone can be executed for child rape. A Louisiana man is on death row for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
Hell, go ahead and stick him in the general population of the prison. The bastard won’t last 8 hours.
Two cases which the court declined to hear and therefore essentially ratified the lower court rulings were:
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Dinallo – The state of New York has a law requiring religious based social service agencies that offer prescription benefits to its employees, to include birth control prescriptions as part of that benefit.
By declining the case the Supremes have essentially declared the New York law, as well as similar laws in 22 other states, to not be a violation of freedom of religion as claimed.
Faith Center Church v. Glover – The library system in the San Francisco Bay area makes its meeting rooms available for educational or community services however they felt that allowing an Evangelical Christian group to worship there was a bit over the line. The lower court agreed that allowing religious services at the library would amount to having taxpayers subsidize religion.
Of course the Christian group can’t understand why everyone doesn’t recognize the virtue of allowing Christian religious services in the public buildings of a “Christian Nation” (*cough, cough*). As for me, I'm happy whenever religion gets reminded that this is a secular democracy.
I wonder what the framers of the Constitution would think of some of these cases?
The interesting cases that have been accepted include:
Boumediene v. Bush – This is one of two Gitmo detainee cases that the Supremes will address together. Basically the question is whether the Gitmo detainees are under the protection of the U.S. Constitution. The Bush administration says that because they’re foreign enemy combatants held outside the U.S., they aren’t.
I say if we’re not prepared to extend the same legal protections to our enemies that we reserve for ourselves, then how are we better than they are?
Baze v. Rees – This case challenges the lethal injection procedures in the state of Kentucky claiming that they are cruel and unusual punishment.
We know that the death penalty is arbitrary as hell and anything that arbitrary is by definition cruel and unusual.
Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita – This case challenges laws that require voters to present a valid photo ID in order to be able to cast a ballot.
So, if you don’t have a valid driver’s license or a passport you can’t vote? Where’d that rule come from?
Medellin v. Texas – This case revolves around a Mexican national on death row, but the question here is really whether or not the President can set aside a state law that conflicts with an international treaty. Bush says yes and Texas is telling its prodigal village idiot to go pound salt.
I’m not all that sure on this one, but I’m suspicious of anything that expands the power of the presidency.
Snyder v. Louisiana – Tell me if you’ve heard this one before. A black man on death row for killing his wife in Louisiana is claiming he didn’t get a fair trial because the prosecution dismissed all of the potential black jurors and compared him to O.J. Simpson.
It sounds to me like the guy got railroaded by a typical case of southern justice. Who says Jim Crow is dead?
On the fence and which may be decided are:
District of Columbia v. Heller – Washington D.C. used to have a ban on hand guns but that ban was declared in violation of the 2nd Amendment. This case asks the Supremes to review that decision.
Hmmmm, 2nd Amendment cases confuse me. I think we need to keep guns off the street but I also understand why the 2nd Amendment was written. (Note: The phrase "off the street" was a bad choice of words as this case is about having guns for home defense.)
Kennedy v. Louisiana – The question is whether someone can be executed for child rape. A Louisiana man is on death row for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
Hell, go ahead and stick him in the general population of the prison. The bastard won’t last 8 hours.
Two cases which the court declined to hear and therefore essentially ratified the lower court rulings were:
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Dinallo – The state of New York has a law requiring religious based social service agencies that offer prescription benefits to its employees, to include birth control prescriptions as part of that benefit.
By declining the case the Supremes have essentially declared the New York law, as well as similar laws in 22 other states, to not be a violation of freedom of religion as claimed.
Faith Center Church v. Glover – The library system in the San Francisco Bay area makes its meeting rooms available for educational or community services however they felt that allowing an Evangelical Christian group to worship there was a bit over the line. The lower court agreed that allowing religious services at the library would amount to having taxpayers subsidize religion.
Of course the Christian group can’t understand why everyone doesn’t recognize the virtue of allowing Christian religious services in the public buildings of a “Christian Nation” (*cough, cough*). As for me, I'm happy whenever religion gets reminded that this is a secular democracy.
I wonder what the framers of the Constitution would think of some of these cases?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
A Brush with the American Legal System
I got sued. Number 3 Daughter, while driving my cherished Grand Cherokee, did something dumb and had a fender bender in a mall parking lot. I figured I was in trouble when the lady in the other car opted to go the hospital “just in case.”
Everything was quiet for three years and then the dreaded registered letters arrived with the news of a law suit being filed against my daughter, because she was driving the car, and your’s truly because it was my insurance policy and my car.
After cursing long and loudly I dumped the whole thing in the lap of my insurance company. This wasn’t the first time this had happened to me. I had gotten sued over a dumb left turn Number 1 Daughter had executed which had resulted in a far more serious accident. I mean, this one should be easy right? It was just a parking lot fender bender. WRONG!
About 10 months later we were sitting in an office taking depositions. The lawyer I got assigned from my insurance company was a West Point graduate named Dennis, a nice guy and a pretty good lawyer. The first case had never gotten this far and I sort of figured again that I was in big trouble when I saw that the opposing lawyer had photographs of the accident scene! I was immediately reminded of Alice’s Restaurant.
The deposition revealed that the lady whose car my daughter had chosen to bump into was what I can only describe as a medical marvel. This lady had more stuff wrong with her than religious fundamentalists have hang-ups. She knew more doctors than the capacity of Giant’s Stadium. The very day after the accident she had her foot operated on. Plus, she had several degenerative diseases.
What she was claiming was that the accident caused her to bang her head on the window and hurt her neck. Given her medical history I was flabbergasted she didn’t simply disintegrate. My lawyer and the insurance adjuster suspected that she was blaming the accident for a pre-existing condition. The fact that they were having trouble getting medical records sort of strengthened that suspicion. I just wanted the whole thing to go away.
Incredibly, sometime last December I got a letter that a trial date had been scheduled for June. That didn’t happen because of the aforementioned difficulty in obtaining medical records and the trial date was moved to September 17, 2007.
Now, I don’t know anything about court mechanics other than what you see on Law and Order is pretty much nonsense. I’ve never been on a jury because defense attorneys don’t seem to trust me for some reason and I’m usually the first guy they boot. As the fateful date approach I searched longingly for either a phone call or a letter telling me that the case had been settled and I was off the hook. Labor Day came and went so I decided I'd better call Dennis and find out what the hell was going on.
I managed to make contact on September 6th. After finding out that the trial was still on, but it wouldn’t be unusual for it to be settled the Friday before, I asked where exactly my daughter and I were supposed to be on the 17th and when. To this Dennis replied that we probably wouldn’t be needed on the 17th since it was only the first day. The first day? THE FIRST DAY!
Yup, apparently the medical marvel and her lawyer were seriously demanding the value of the insurance policy in compensation because they were claiming a permanent neck injury.
Note two things about the previous statement. The first is that we are talking about a boom-boom that both parties agree was at about 5 miles per hour and, more interestingly, we’re not talking about a specific amount, but the maximum on my insurance policy. That maximum happened to be $250,000. More about this maximum stuff later.
Clearly the problem was that my insurance company, who Dennis worked for full time, had no incentive to settle for their maximum liability. I got a call on September 11th from the office paralegal that the judge may have a conflict and the trial may be postponed.
By now things were starting to get scrunched and I’m trying to figure if I should think about re-arranging my business schedule and my daughter is trying to figure out if she would be able to accept some free lance work that might come her way during the week of the trial. Since you can’t really predict what’s going to happen, you get sort of paralyzed.
By Thursday the 13th I was starting to get really annoyed at everyone involved, the medical marvel, Dennis, the judge and even the para legal, but I couldn’t locate Dennis. Finally we touched base about 10 o’clock that night. Dennis had been unavailable because his father had to have an emergency bypass operation that day, but he had managed to gather some new information.
First, they had finally gotten all of the medical records by literally camping a private investigator at a doctor’s office. Second, as expected, the records showed some iffy stuff. Third, for the first time the insurance adjuster and the opposing attorney were talking directly and fourth, the judge was up for re-election and didn’t appear too interested in anything other than campaigning. What this all meant was that everything was pretty much still up in the air.
Friday and the weekend came and went with no news. Finally, on Monday the 17th, I got a call from Dennis that the case had been settled. Dennis said when he found out he had called every number he had for me including work, home, and my daughter’s cell. Like I said, Dennis is a nice guy.
They settled for $125,000. That’s a pretty big hunk of change but supposedly neck injuries average $200,000 to $250,000. Of course this is assuming she really had a neck injury caused by the accident.
A lot of things about this experience bother me. First of all is the length of time involved. It was three years from the accident to the notice of a law suit and then another two years to arrive at a trial date. When the accident occured my daughter was entering her senior year in High School. When it was settled she was a college graduate working free lance while searching for a permanent job.
The second is the implication that the suit was for the maximum on the policy. What would have happened if I only had $100,000 in liability? Would they have tried to get the additional $150,000 in the original claim from me? Clearly that would have been a harder sell to a jury then trying to collect from a perceived fat cat insurance company so I suspect the answer is they would have settled for the $100,000.
Then let’s talk about the $125,000. At least 33% of that goes to the lawyer after deducting for expenses. Dennis told me that the doctor they had lined up to testify was well known around the courtroom and didn’t come cheap. Even though he didn’t have to testify I sure they had to pay for consultations and so on and so forth. How much? $5,000 to $10,000 perhaps? If we assume only $5,000 in expenses to keep the arithmetic nice and even, that means $40,000 for the lawyer and $80,000 for the medical marvel. Too bad judgments from personal injury claims aren’t taxable.
Personally, I think the claim was nonsense. I base this conclusion upon the answers I heard, and the body language I saw, at the deposition. I’m not saying the lady doesn’t have neck or shoulder problems, she may even honestly believe that the accident was the cause, but in my opinion there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they're related to the fender bender in the mall parking lot. I think Dennis and the insurance adjuster agree with me, but it just wasn’t worth the risk of letting this go to a jury because juries are too unpredictable.
If the statement “juries are too unpredictable” doesn’t bother you, it should. The only good news out of this whole affair is that Dennis’ dad came through the bypass surgery with flying colors and is well on the way to recovery.
Everything was quiet for three years and then the dreaded registered letters arrived with the news of a law suit being filed against my daughter, because she was driving the car, and your’s truly because it was my insurance policy and my car.
After cursing long and loudly I dumped the whole thing in the lap of my insurance company. This wasn’t the first time this had happened to me. I had gotten sued over a dumb left turn Number 1 Daughter had executed which had resulted in a far more serious accident. I mean, this one should be easy right? It was just a parking lot fender bender. WRONG!
About 10 months later we were sitting in an office taking depositions. The lawyer I got assigned from my insurance company was a West Point graduate named Dennis, a nice guy and a pretty good lawyer. The first case had never gotten this far and I sort of figured again that I was in big trouble when I saw that the opposing lawyer had photographs of the accident scene! I was immediately reminded of Alice’s Restaurant.
The deposition revealed that the lady whose car my daughter had chosen to bump into was what I can only describe as a medical marvel. This lady had more stuff wrong with her than religious fundamentalists have hang-ups. She knew more doctors than the capacity of Giant’s Stadium. The very day after the accident she had her foot operated on. Plus, she had several degenerative diseases.
What she was claiming was that the accident caused her to bang her head on the window and hurt her neck. Given her medical history I was flabbergasted she didn’t simply disintegrate. My lawyer and the insurance adjuster suspected that she was blaming the accident for a pre-existing condition. The fact that they were having trouble getting medical records sort of strengthened that suspicion. I just wanted the whole thing to go away.
Incredibly, sometime last December I got a letter that a trial date had been scheduled for June. That didn’t happen because of the aforementioned difficulty in obtaining medical records and the trial date was moved to September 17, 2007.
Now, I don’t know anything about court mechanics other than what you see on Law and Order is pretty much nonsense. I’ve never been on a jury because defense attorneys don’t seem to trust me for some reason and I’m usually the first guy they boot. As the fateful date approach I searched longingly for either a phone call or a letter telling me that the case had been settled and I was off the hook. Labor Day came and went so I decided I'd better call Dennis and find out what the hell was going on.
I managed to make contact on September 6th. After finding out that the trial was still on, but it wouldn’t be unusual for it to be settled the Friday before, I asked where exactly my daughter and I were supposed to be on the 17th and when. To this Dennis replied that we probably wouldn’t be needed on the 17th since it was only the first day. The first day? THE FIRST DAY!
Yup, apparently the medical marvel and her lawyer were seriously demanding the value of the insurance policy in compensation because they were claiming a permanent neck injury.
Note two things about the previous statement. The first is that we are talking about a boom-boom that both parties agree was at about 5 miles per hour and, more interestingly, we’re not talking about a specific amount, but the maximum on my insurance policy. That maximum happened to be $250,000. More about this maximum stuff later.
Clearly the problem was that my insurance company, who Dennis worked for full time, had no incentive to settle for their maximum liability. I got a call on September 11th from the office paralegal that the judge may have a conflict and the trial may be postponed.
By now things were starting to get scrunched and I’m trying to figure if I should think about re-arranging my business schedule and my daughter is trying to figure out if she would be able to accept some free lance work that might come her way during the week of the trial. Since you can’t really predict what’s going to happen, you get sort of paralyzed.
By Thursday the 13th I was starting to get really annoyed at everyone involved, the medical marvel, Dennis, the judge and even the para legal, but I couldn’t locate Dennis. Finally we touched base about 10 o’clock that night. Dennis had been unavailable because his father had to have an emergency bypass operation that day, but he had managed to gather some new information.
First, they had finally gotten all of the medical records by literally camping a private investigator at a doctor’s office. Second, as expected, the records showed some iffy stuff. Third, for the first time the insurance adjuster and the opposing attorney were talking directly and fourth, the judge was up for re-election and didn’t appear too interested in anything other than campaigning. What this all meant was that everything was pretty much still up in the air.
Friday and the weekend came and went with no news. Finally, on Monday the 17th, I got a call from Dennis that the case had been settled. Dennis said when he found out he had called every number he had for me including work, home, and my daughter’s cell. Like I said, Dennis is a nice guy.
They settled for $125,000. That’s a pretty big hunk of change but supposedly neck injuries average $200,000 to $250,000. Of course this is assuming she really had a neck injury caused by the accident.
A lot of things about this experience bother me. First of all is the length of time involved. It was three years from the accident to the notice of a law suit and then another two years to arrive at a trial date. When the accident occured my daughter was entering her senior year in High School. When it was settled she was a college graduate working free lance while searching for a permanent job.
The second is the implication that the suit was for the maximum on the policy. What would have happened if I only had $100,000 in liability? Would they have tried to get the additional $150,000 in the original claim from me? Clearly that would have been a harder sell to a jury then trying to collect from a perceived fat cat insurance company so I suspect the answer is they would have settled for the $100,000.
Then let’s talk about the $125,000. At least 33% of that goes to the lawyer after deducting for expenses. Dennis told me that the doctor they had lined up to testify was well known around the courtroom and didn’t come cheap. Even though he didn’t have to testify I sure they had to pay for consultations and so on and so forth. How much? $5,000 to $10,000 perhaps? If we assume only $5,000 in expenses to keep the arithmetic nice and even, that means $40,000 for the lawyer and $80,000 for the medical marvel. Too bad judgments from personal injury claims aren’t taxable.
Personally, I think the claim was nonsense. I base this conclusion upon the answers I heard, and the body language I saw, at the deposition. I’m not saying the lady doesn’t have neck or shoulder problems, she may even honestly believe that the accident was the cause, but in my opinion there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they're related to the fender bender in the mall parking lot. I think Dennis and the insurance adjuster agree with me, but it just wasn’t worth the risk of letting this go to a jury because juries are too unpredictable.
If the statement “juries are too unpredictable” doesn’t bother you, it should. The only good news out of this whole affair is that Dennis’ dad came through the bypass surgery with flying colors and is well on the way to recovery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
