Good morning.

1. As I’m from Chicago, some Bears talk, here and here. I thought the first well written.
2. Someone forgot it’s not ants, but white mice.
3. Wealth and birth rate.
4. I’m not sure what the heck that man is doing, but the tag “pic of the day” is not inappropriate.
5. Ms O’Donnell. 
6. A prayer-as-humor?
7. On Tea Parties and here on their likely future.
8. A rejoinder to “It’s hard to believe Republicans would get much support if people were smarter” might be that if people were smarter we wouldn’t require the Democratic nanny state and therefore we’d all be small government Republicans.
9. Verse, for me, though the lens of Google translate.
10. Travels completed (for now).
11. Talking about a somewhat unserious study on cutting government spending, inasmuch as in my brief look for the authors government spending does not include entitlements at all, which makes it quite unserious as a not insignificant piece.
12. Great news, and is this a Geek thing? Epsilon? Our first was “Floid” prior to birth, the “i” instead of “y” a pointer to computer automation and such geekery.
13. On boredom. 
14. Well, recently I noted a father/son exchange quoted, here’s another with a different flavor.

The first ‘perception’ is an observation of the Democrat elites allergic response to the Tea Party populism. The Tea Party gatherings, according to cricket racers accounts (polls), are as much as 40% . Even If you believe that the cricket racer might be shifting the numbers due to partisan bias in method or reporting … consider that even if the numbers of 2/5ths for you are not credible, to report as such, they are likely greater than a quarter. So, what reason is it that the elite on the left both deny the presence of Democrats in this movement and at the same time show considerable hostility towards it and their primary message? It seems likely that a primary reason is about intellectual turf. The Democrat elite self identify as being the party representing the interests of the common man against the big corporate and wealthy business interests in government. Thus when the common man, which is ontologically that which a populous rising contains, arrays itself against the Democrat elite that is a betrayal. In their naive view, populism should be primarily within their ranks, it should be an internal driving constituent driving force within their party. Them commoners are getting uppity. And inasmuch as they align themselves with the “other” party (which they identify as representing those big corporate and the wealthy) then that’s just plain wrong. This is then a likely cause of the Democrat elite’s allergy to the Tea Party, for populism should be within and supportive of them and, of course, should never primarily seek common ground with the other side.

Which brings me to the other consideration, Mr Obama in a recent speech noted that regarding tax increases for the wealthy that this “wasn’t in his (personal) best interest.” This is only half-true and the part that is true is uncharitable in its implicit assumptions. And the only reason for pointing that out, is that in my view, it is a notion shared by many if not most Democrats. First, let’s get the accuracy of this assertion out of the way. It is indeed against Mr Obama’s interest with respect to taxes to raise the taxes on the wealthy as he is one of those. But as a professional politician, inasmuch as he believes raising taxes on the wealthy raises tax income, more money for the government kitty is in Mr Obama’s direct interest. His “business” is government and more tax income directly aids his professional interest.

As for the uncharitable aspect of this observation this is more important. Because it is shared by those who share that opinion. Mr Obama is willing to support a measure which is against his personal best interest because he feels that measure is in the countries best interest, but … (and here’s the sting in the tail) he is unwilling to grant that motivation to those who oppose him, e.g., the Tea Party. The Tea Party gatherings are a populous movement and as such have dozens (or more) motivations for bringing people aboard, but the overriding motivation is cutting government size and spending. There is a direct parallel between those Mr Obama’s  “I support tax increases for the wealthy which is against my personal (short term) interest because it is in the countries best interest” and the Tea Party person who says “I support cutting government spending which is against my personal (short term) interest because it is in the countries best interest.” Democrats ascribe the first magnanimous statement to themselves but are too uncharitable to consider the same magnanimity to the other side. Consider for yourself how often you’ve heard the argument used by Democrats that these folks are “voting against their own interests.” Yep, that’s right. For exactly the same reason y’all do it if you’d have the graciousness to ascribe the same good motives to the other side. 

Good morning.

1. A Protestant prepares to consider Orthodoxy asking “what do they consider the most important” … if he doesn’t come up with a call for repentance as the most important, then he’s missing the forest for the trees (at best).
2. Fossil fuels and climate.
3. Religion and language compared.
4. Chesterton defended.
5. A tale told.
6. A Greek considers tourism.
7. Mr Obama’s boilerplate campaign speech.
8. On hard circumstances.
9. Witness and example.
10. Travel with Dad.
11. Dealing with the ‘extremists’.
12. Well, it seems to me, if the Democrats (or any party) decided to front a similar notion, that would be their death knell.

Good morning.

1. Mr Obama’s new people, here is one and … it looks like I can’t find the link for the second which was about Ms Warren. I haven’t seen liberal/progressive blogs criticizing that appointment. Have you? Because if you don’t that’s a sign of partisanship trumps consistency.
2. Targeted killing.
3. For the Mr Krugman fans (or anti-fans), a first round knockout. 
4. On marriage. 
5. Also on marriage.
6. Institute ala squirrel.
7. Uhm, perhaps he’s talking about dance because school killed the notion of creativity linked with math so completely it doesn’t even enter the picture.
8. Why are the Democrats so against Mr Soros and the like?
9. Silly things said by Delaware pols.
10. On the pundit simplification.
11. Charity.
12. Newsworthy or not?
13. Well, the left has lost all standing with respect to their claim the “we’re behind small business.”
14. Dropping the “weather is not climate” position on AGW.
15. For the Palin fans which continues here.
16. So … will the lunatic fringe come back in fashion?
17. I have to disagree a bit, the Eastern Roman empire used a mix of force and appeasement with some success for centuries before the Crusaders sacked Constantinople. But there has to be a strategy.

Update: link for 17 fixed.

College and university professors seem to be a very social-justice-conscious bunch.  900 of them, from over 150 college campuses, signed a petition urging the US to abandon Israel as an ally because of its human rights abuses, for example.

But Prof. Fred Gottheil decided to try an experiment.

"Would these same 900 sign onto a statement expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians?" he wondered. "I felt it was worth a try."

The results? "Almost non existent," he told Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov. Only 27 of the 675 "self-described social-justice seeking academics" agreed to sign Gottheil’s Statement of Concern – less than 5 percent of the total who had publicly called for the censure of Israel for human rights violations.

Politics trumps social justice for this paragon of the Left; the academic.  I would really like to know how deep this penetrates other areas of the Left.  How about liberal churches that has divested themselves from Israel; do they also actively divest themselves from Islamic countries for the same reasons?

I’ve been on the road this week, and by the time this posts I’ll be heading home.  I haven’t done much blogging as a result, but I have collected a few links.

Remember all the riots, protests and violence when the US military burned Bibles?  Or when Muslims blew the doors off churches, burned Bibles and destroyed every cross they could find?  Yeah, me neither.  Define for me “religion of peace” again?  The actions that the Left calls “Islamophobia” in America don’t hold a candle to what gets done to Christians by Muslims elsewhere, but somehow “Christophobia” hasn’t entered their vernacular yet.

The amount of money the United States now owes is more than all the money in the world.  That’s how bad it is.

Christians protest abortion, the media yawns.  One pro-abortion protestor hits the streets, you get an article with pictures.

Gun owner ship goes up.  Violent crime goes down. If the Left was right about poor economic times causing crime, and that more guns cause more crime, there ought to be more heads exploding on that side of the aisle, if they’re being intellectually honest.

The return of no-money-down mortgages.  Um, that’s what got us into this mess in the first place!

The disappearing homeless.  Well, they’re still there, and likely there are more now that the housing bubble popped.  But the media has gone silent on them.  Guess they’re waiting for a Republican President, like they did before.

And finally, from Chuck Asay, some advice about getting your religion hijacked.  (Click for a larger version.)

Good morning.

1. An economist responds.
2. Noting the problem.
3. Well, it might be because they take religion and politics in a positivist manner, hewing to consequences of matters because the logic dictates as such.
4. The Roma in Russia.
5. Two trees.
6. He has a point, one wonders how a government that subsidizes alternative energy can complain that another country is doing the same.
7. More Tea Party ruminations.
8. A “short horror story.”
9. Talking ancient science.

Good morning.

1. Humility in a pro athlete.
2. A question for the Keynesian stimulus proponents, where’s the bump?
3. A film setting aside Hollywood preconceptions about the Islamic world.
4. Advice for those seeking God.
5. Tax on the high wage earners.
6. Mr Reno on Mr D’Souza.
7. More for the Palin fans.
8. Burning the Koran and legal consequences, continued.
9. Humility.
10. Macro-Economics and the court jester on the Hill. This is in line with a lot of my notions about economics.
11. Some verse, here and here, although I think the only common thread there is that both are samples of poetry. 

In my late-vocations class were were informed that during late antiquity in the Eastern (very Christian influenced) Roman empire there was an operational just war theory. That theory was quite simple and was as follows. 

War is never just. 

Now this is an interesting theory of war to be held by a Empire which was almost continuously at war (mostly for defense) for 800 years or so. This merely points out that the conclusion that war is not just is not equivalent to the claim that war is at times necessary. 

War not being just however, did not mean war was not practice or even should not be practiced. Those engaged in war, because of its inherent injustice, were excluded from Eucharist for a period of five years (if the war was not deemed defensive, in which case it was three years). I think there are some problems with this theory as presented about how the Eastern Roman Empire viewed justice vis a vis war, in that I’m pretty sure that clerical presence was found alongside the army. What was its purpose if these soldiers were all “out of communion” during wartime? 

With two more Tea-Party-approved candidates winning their primary last night, most notably Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, the Tea Party groups are racking up an impressive number of wins over establishment Republicans than anyone ever thought possible.  That an upstart, grassroots effort like this could make such headway in such a short time is something I’ve not seen in my lifetime, as best I can tell.

That the Republican establishment is taking this so poorly is an indication of how much this was needed.  The party has decided that it’s more important to have an "R" after your name than to actually stand up for the party platform and philosophy.  Witness the spendthrift ways of a Republican Congress under a Republican President.  True, they didn’t hold a candle to the precedent-setting debt our current Democrat is sinking us into, but they gave up the mantle of fiscal responsibility when they abused their power.  They stopped being conservative and just wanted to be liked.

Well, we’re reaping the whirlwind that created. 

Instead, the Tea Party says that it isn’t that the Congress needs more politicians of a certain party, but more politicians of a certain responsibility.  They need to stop doing what doesn’t work (aka stimulus), stop ramming massive government takeovers down our throats (aka ObamaCare(tm)), and instead actually represent the people they’re supposed to be representing, and start dismantling this huge behemoth that has become a farce of the limited government model the Constitution permits.

Some say that the O’Donnell win last night mean Republicans won’t take back the Senate.  They’ve somehow made that the goal post and declare if it doesn’t happen that Republicans will somehow have failed.  Nuts to that.  The goal is more responsible government, and it’s not going to come about in a single election cycle.  Sure, O’Donnell may lose in November.  However, the message has been sent to the Republican establishment that conservatives are through pulling the lever for Republicans after hearing so many promises of being responsible, only for them to forget them as soon as they pass through the border of the Beltway.  This is a good message to send, and we’ve got to be in it for the long haul, and not be bothered by folks saying we failed if we don’t meet their expectations.

But here’s the thing.

If these Tea Partiers get to Washington and don’t do what they said they would — if this become more of the same — I half expect a third party to grow up out of this; an official Tea Party.  There is so much frustration at Washington politicians at this point that I can see it happening.  Articulating a vision that holds government to it’s Constitutional boundaries and not over-extending itself, while still meeting its obligations to the people is eminently possible.  It needs to be done, and if Republicans won’t do it, I think — I hope — someone else will

That’s the kind of hope and change I want to see.

Good morning.

1. I think the reflection that there are complexities to this interesting.
2. Advice from a bike thief.
3. Wanna be a monk?
4. Duh.
5. Finding Jesus.
6. Being a jerk and a guy.
7. The third man of the BoB.
8. Small business and taxes.
9. Mr Government will fix all … or not.
10. TARP, thanks or not. More on TARP here.
11. Koran burning and the First Amendment.
12. More Obamacare in our future.
13. For (my) rabid Palin fans.
14. Of Scripture and abominations.

Tax cuts are often discussed in terms of budget impact with phrases like “paying for a tax cut” or as “costing money.” 

In a book I read years ago by a Microsoft engineer about projects development the phrase “idiot bit” was used. The context for that is that when a persons “flips your idiot bit” and you realize they’ve done or said something idiotic the conclusion that that person is not too sharp is a “sticky” conclusion. They may do half-a-dozen things that are insightful and highly innovative … but once you’ve internally labeled that person as “stupid” it takes a lot to reverse that conclusion. Now, anthropologically speaking, this might be in part due to the peculiarities of how perceptions of intelligence is socially valued within the Microsoft (and software) sub-culture … and perhaps as well that this sort of “sticky conclusion” might be generalizable to other sub-cultures and “sticky” conclusions centering around the things they value. 

Usage of the terminology like “paying for tax cuts” and “tax cuts costing money” is a red-flag which, for myself at least, flips a similar “sticky bit.” From a somewhat abstract accounting point of view there is a sort of peculiar logic to that sort of terminology. But usage of that term betrays a level of abstraction and a point of view about taxation and government spending which forgets that taxation is inherently a violence against person or family. Taxation is a necessary evil of government. But to think of less taxes as a “cost” on government is a reversal of what should be the normative point of view, that government and its spending itself is a cost which is paid for by taxes. 

For small government proponents, statements about tax cut as cost “flips” a sticky bit. This means that it is hard to escape categorizing the speaker as a person willfully riding down the road to serfdom and at best a socialist or fascist. 

Ken Ham, staunch Young Earth Creationist, has recently written a blog post highlighting a recent position change taken by the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination (HT: Ron’s Bloviating). Ham takes issue with the AG for revising their earlier held position, sympathetic to a Young Earth position, for that of one which allows for Old Earth belief as well. For the record, I have grown up in the AG denomination and have been partial to the Old Earth Creation model, despite their earlier stance, since I was in elementary school (the 1960s). In A Sad Day for the Assemblies of God Denomination, Ham writes,

The general presbytery of the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination, in session August 9–11, 2010, adopted a revised statement on “The Doctrine of Creation.” Here is an excerpt from the official AG position paper, that opens the door to evolution and millions of years, and the various compromise positions on Genesis held by some in the church (such as gap theory, day age, progressive creation, theistic evolution, etc)

Of particular concern, to Ham, is the statement by the AG,

The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation.

evidently because he connects such reasoning as equivalent to succumbing to the lie told by the serpent in Genesis 3, in which he tempted Eve to doubt God’s Word. By comparing a 1977 statement, from the AG, Ham contrasts a previous belief that a “natural reading” of the Genesis 1 creation account results in an understanding that the account refers to consecutive 24 hour solar days. His concern seems to be that any acceptance of data, from scientific research, that points towards a billions of years old universe, is tantamount to the doubting of God’s Word, which he understands – nay, demands – to state otherwise. Ham writes,

The AG with its August statement is now saying we have to take the fallible ideas of fallible humans and use these in authority over the Word of God.

I applaud Ham’s concern, which is ultimately driven by a desire to keep Christians from falling prey to worldly wisdom, yet I seriously question the dogmatic stance he has taken. He posits that a Young Earth interpretation of the creation accounts, found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, is the only viable interpretation allowed. Such a position has neither a theological, historical, or scientific grounding.

While this blog post is, by no means, an attempt to exhaustively answer the Young Earth / Old Earth debate, I do want to make a few concise points.

In discussing this subject, with Young Earth proponents, I’ve sometimes been told that the Young Earth position is held because “it’s what the Bible says”. The obvious conclusion, from such a position, is that the Old Earth interpretation is NOT what the Bible says. I wonder if Young Earthers, who make such a statement, are really aware of implications of what they’re proposing? Do they really think that some of their fellow Christians are not aware of what they happen to be reading in God’s Word? I also wonder how consistent Young Earthers are with their “natural reading” of “what the Bible says” argument? If they wish to be consistent, then surely they must think that God has wings, that Jesus’ had nails driven through his hands, that it’s the Sun that revolves around the Earth*, that the mustard seed is the smallest plant seed on earth, and that the value of Pi is equal to the integer 3. But, of course, I would imagine that for those references they would argue that the meaning found in text involves intent and context – context which includes culture, language, genre, etc. Try as they might, they cannot get around the fact that the Genesis creation accounts have not been dogmatically held, through Christendom, to mean that God created the cosmos in 6 24 hour solar days, nor that one is mandated to translate the Hebrew text as such. It’s my conclusion that they are incorrect in stating that their interpretation is the “natural reading” of “what the Bible says”.

Another point in which Ham slips up, in my opinion, is his accusation that the belief the universe is billions of years old correlates with a belief in natural process evolution. To his credit, he does not accuse Old Earthers of categorically believing in natural process evolution, but merely states that the Old Earth position “opens the door” to such belief. Still, I take issue with such a proposition, for it demonstrates a lack of understanding of both the Old Earth position as well as the natural process evolutionary position. The Old Earth interpretation attempts to harmonize not only the multiple creation accounts found in the Bible (including and beyond the two major ones found in Genesis), but our understanding of the physical realm as well. If the data points towards a universe billions of years old, and if we can harmonize the data with what we read in the Bible, then it is irrelevant whether or not the natural process evolutionary model also accepts a billions of years old universe. Also, as research continues, the complexity of our natural realm is becoming more evident: from the minute structure of DNA to the makeup of the universe itself. As we discover that advanced life requires this specified complexity, and as we understand that specified complexity is highly improbable, by chance, we begin to understand how improbable our existence is – from a purely natural point of view. Truth is, billions of years is appearing to be not enough time for advanced life to arise through natural means.

It seems to me that many in the Young Earth camp dismiss scientific research too easily. At best, they simply recognize man’s fallibility and apply that fallibility to our interpretation of the natural realm; at worst, they assume some grand conspiracy, in the scientific community, dedicated to the undermining of all religious belief. I will spend zero time discussing the latter option, as I believe it to be nonsense and as I believe that Ham holds to the former option.

I wonder, at what point do I, as a fallible human, disregard the ideas of other fallible humans? Do I refuse to board an airliner simply because it was designed by fallible humans who, obviously, have fallible ideas about aeronautical engineering? Do I take the stairs, when visiting a high-rise building, because the elevator was designed by fallible humans with fallible ideas of structural engineering? How many Young Earthers have ever taken an over-the-counter medication? Since such medication was developed by fallible humans with fallible ideas regarding chemistry, I must conclude that Ken Ham does not take any over-the-counter medication. Speaking of fallible ideas – how about the idea of how we read, and understand, text? I think that we believe, however fallibly, that we are able to see, and then read text, due to the physical action of light photons bouncing off of a page of text, being received and processed by our eyes, through the lens, retina, and optic nerve, with the resulting electrical impulses then being interpreted by our brain. The whole notion of understanding God’s written Word is dependent on a physical process.

You see, the problem with discounting scientific research is that one ends up having to pick and choose which scientific research they will believe in. While we don’t have an exhaustive understanding of the physical realm, we do have some understanding of it and – this is important – our level of understanding grows as we continue to do more research. So, whereas the scientific community in the 1800s thought that the universe had always existed, Albert Einstein threw them on their heads by proposing (with scientific backup), in the early 1900s, that the universe was finite and actually began to exist. It is indeed very interesting that this notion of a beginning was already found in God’s Word.

In the years since Einstein, the ideas of general and special relativity have been refined, through continued experimenting and testing, and as our understanding of cosmology grew. Likewise, in the years since the Wright brothers, we’ve moved from airplanes built out of wood and fabric, capable of carrying only one person, to jet powered airliners which transport hundreds of people thousands of miles at a time. Is there a chance that as we gain a better understanding of the physical realm the ideas of general and special relativity, as well as those of aeronautical engineering, will be overturned? Certainly. As stated earlier, we don’t have a complete understanding of the entire cosmos. However, and this is how the process of progressive understanding works, as continued research builds cumulative support for a particular theory, the more reliable such a theory becomes in explaining the natural realm.

Unfortunately, for the Young Earth camp, they have no credible scientific data which can support a universe of 6,000 – 10,000 years in age. And, to make matters worse, further research in multiple, unrelated disciplines, continues to support an old age for the universe. The Old Earth model is certainly not without paradoxes or weak points, yet one should consider its many strengths before dismissing it out of hand.

Kudos to the Assemblies of God for revising their position on the creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2.

* a natural reading obvious conclusion, if the Earth truly does not move (and a conclusion that the church had to revise due to an eventual better understanding of the physical realm).

Good morning.

1. The conversation on Mr Kain’s simplification of motives for war continues. It seems to me pretty clear that the simplifications have problems in that they don’t match motives for war very well and often the assignment to categories are very strained. The question might then devolve to asking what advantage is gained by this simplification. If none, then its just a pointless pedagogical exercise. 
2. The new 1099 and small businesses. 
3. France and the Great Depression. 
4. Inequality and red pickled fish.
5. “Washington Rules” …. Rules!? Rules does not seem to me the best word for rampant venal stupidity inflicted on others.
6. Case in point.
7. Talking about intellectual honesty.
8. Heh.
9. Tradition done right.
10. Our future, zero tolerance for dissent.
11. Pray for the safe travel.

In response to (what was going to be) a mass burning of Korans, the Massachusetts Bible Society decided to take action.

As people of the Book, we are joined to Islam and Judaism in a special way and as an organization that has sought to put that Book into people’s hands for 201 years, we cannot stand idly by while the sacred text of a sister religion is burned as our beloved Bibles once were.

Lest the culture believe that Rev. Jones’ position represents that of all Christians, MassBible is prepared to take a counter action.  For 201 years we have given the Bible to those without access.  In response to Rev. Jones despicable act, we are prepared to give two Qur’ans for every one that Rev. Jones burns.

(Emphasis theirs.)

The Koran burning was called off, but not this effort.  So a Bible society is financing the purchase of Korans for distribution. 

What?

Given what (I hope) the MBS thinks about the Bible (y’know, that it’s true and gives life and eternal hope and all that), why are they handing out the text of a religion that they are trying to convert people away from?  I think of missionaries in Islamic countries, who fear deportation at best or physical persecution at worst, watching a Bible society working directly against them by spreading the words of the Koran rather than words of Life. 

But that’s not all!  Guess who’s cheering them on?  Duane Shank, senior policy advisor at … (wait for it) … the Sojourners!

While the Quran will no longer be burned, it seems to me that this response followed in the steps of Jesus, showing love and respect where others were showing hatred. It is a strong witness for what Christians should be showing to our neighbors.

By tying the millstone around their neck lovingly and tossing them over the cliff into the sea, we’re showing love and respect.

What?

Is this really what Wallis and the Sojourners hold up as an example to follow?  Why are we pushing them further from Jesus the Messiah?  How, in the name of all that is eternal, is that in any way loving?  A cup of water, a meal, a school in the name of Christ is loving.  Bringing people to a saving knowledge of Jesus is loving.  Supplying them with their own brand of heresy and idolatry is not loving. 

If the Sojourners and the Massachusetts Bible Society really believe that Christianity is true and Islam is false, they have an awful way of showing it.  My respect for both as purveyors of the gospel of Jesus Christ has gone way, way down.