Stones Cry Out

I hope everyone had an enjoyable Memorial day (at least those in the (US not in retail)).

1. The test approaches, fun with groups.
2. Guns, technology, and considerations of unintended consequences.
3. Up and coming blog post materiel.
4. A cunning plan … if there ever was one such.
5. Terror makes its next move on the strategic board.
6. An unfortunate glitch for the argument that the reason for abortion is lack of contraception.
7. An expert looks at the Zimmerman/Martin kerfuffle and evidence and suggests that Mr Zimmerman will be exonerated.
8. Well, the US figured out pretty darn quickly that a loose Confederacy of States wouldn’t work well, the EU is finding out why the hard way.
9. Death and the gulag in 2012.
10. Lean logistics in the 1860s.
11. Our foreign policy and hard choices not made (extemporizing is not the hard choice).
12. My opponent is an idiot is a yet another rhetorical fallacy. Or is it worse? The operating assumption that disagreements in our world stem from incomplete knowledge is very flawed.
13. Is outrage. And my local defender of regulation-is-a-good-thing should be chastened.

For Memorial Day.

1. From one of the best conservative prose poets.
2. A flyer.
3. Meta-links.
4. A poster.
5. A photo.
6. This photo I found the most striking.

Good morning.

1. Of Party and Church … and of course the rejoinder to the bumper sticker is “of course not, he’s a Monarchist” (Christ is Lord and King).
2. Speaking of bumper stickers.
3. A counter for the “its the social trend/majority” SSM argument.
4. Realtime displays of live data.
5. Cricket race support for the basis of my question on OWS posted earlier.
6. For the numbers fans out there.
7. Call a spade a spade, please.
8. Art imitates art … last night as this was the final day of school, our family watched our weekend movie night film, which was War of the Arrows … which I recommend if you like action films.
9. Homeless but not mindless, in fact quite clever.
10. A home project.
11. A side effect of faith? But, this effect is not helpful.

Well, I’ve got a long drive this morning … so it’ll have to be quick.

1. Some synchronicity noted: Such as when “you are” and “u” “r” convolve which is not unrelated to this.
2. All-you-can eat (two thoughts … all-you-can-eat does (and should not) mean eat-all-you-can … it’s not healthy and that in turn is the answer to the posters question). But this in turn is not unrelated to this.
3. For those unconvinced that the NYTimes isn’t batting for just one side in the elections.
4. Political authority and real authority are not the same thing.
5. If you consider where grant money comes from … would this spell the end of the journal? And is that a bad thing?
6. Democrats firmly behind big corn conglomerates. Money well spent apparently.
7. The election and the South this is on the same point.
8. Some suggestions for graduation improvements.
9. Apparently liberals (a) de-bias issues at the high court uniformly, i.e., when the case is one they want in front of the court and (b) are unaware that cases that come before the court arise not from the court vetting laws that Congress passes, but depend instead on people filing suit who are not members of the same court.
10. 2 more million of the forgotten-if-not-Jewish victims of WWII genocide.

One person can’t comment on every idea, or every person expressing an idea, which sometimes causes others (who’s particular axe to grind wasn’t touched on by a particular blogger) to say that someone is "strangely silent" on the matter. Sometimes that charge is warranted, especially when the target has been vociferously vocal on the subject in general.

I recently participated in a blog comment thread noting that the same Democrats and pundits, who have been extremely vocal about a supposed Republican "war on women", have been silent on the actual war on women that goes on worldwide, usually in Islamic countries. As I’ve said many times, for the Left, it’s always political. Principle, when it shows up, usually takes a back seat.

Today, however, I want to publicly state that a particular opinion, expressed by a Baptist pastor, is most certainly not what I believe, and am totally against this expression even though I suspect my opinion on the overarching topic is the same as this pastor. I can’t catch every situation like this, but this particular expression has gone viral and needs to be addressed.

A North Carolina pastor’s supposedly vehement anti-gay sermon is making its way around the blogosphere. According to a YouTube description, the man depicted in the clip is named Charles L. Worley and he is the faith leader at Providence Road Baptist Church in the town of Maiden. In his address, the faith leader discussed, among other themes, “a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers.”

In the two-minute video, which appears to be a portion taken from a longer sermon, Worley condemns Obama’s recent endorsement of gay marriage, and makes a shocking statement about homosexuals — that they should be placed inside of an electrified pen until they die off. Call his words mere hyperbole or pure hate — at the least, taken in the minimal context they’re presented in, they are stunning.

“Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there,” he said in the sermon, which was allegedly filmed on May 13. “Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out…and you know what, in a few years, they’ll die out…do you know why? They can’t reproduce!”

While both Pastor Worley and I likely have the same view of homosexuality (i.e. that God considers such acts a sin), this is awful, mean-spirited, and unbecoming of a Pastor, let alone a Christian. I find it completely against the idea that we should love the sinner, even if we hate the sin. How does this build up the kingdom of God?

It doesn’t, and should be condemned. I do condemn it.

Protest movements as evidenced most recently by the Occupy movement basically amount to soft terrorism. That is to say soft in the sense that it is terrorism with muted, understated violence. Instead of blowing up bus stops, eateries, and commuter throughways, they clog them up, pollute them, and fill them with the smell of human effluence unwashed bodies and worse. An even milder yet more understated violence is approaching inexorably toward us in the US … that being the soft nuisance that pretends to be an election season, in which our information channels instead of our commuter ways and shops will be filled with the annoyance of politicians grabbing for our attention.

What puzzles me in this matter is the mystery of why anybody thinks this works. It beggars my imagination how somebody thinks that annoying people will generate sympathy for their cause. This goes for all three of these types of terrorism, from the hard terror of bombs and the homicidal mania that constitutes the al-Qaeda and Palestinian flavors of terror to push polling, TV ads, and blind phone calls.

Is it all just a gamble? Is the gamble that their actions have two parts … that they will innervate and garner support amongst those that are sympathetic more than they will annoy and turn away those that are either uncommitted or against their cause. Because, from where I sit all these movements certainly do the latter. For myself, I’ll admit I have no dog in the Middle East Israel/Palestine disagreements but the Palestinian violence certainly is a convincing argument against the justice and rationality of the Palestinian cause. Likewise, I’m would be sympathetic to the notion that jobs and employment and getting ahead is going to be harder for my children than it was for me. But the OWS movement has certainly soured any sympathy for supporting any of those knuckleheads in any material fashion. Is there any evidence that these methods work? That they don’t do the obvious, that is turn more people against you than not?

There are a species of novels celebrating the anti-hero. Are people so used to this sort of thing that they figure we’ll root for, support, vote for, and otherwise follow you if you anti-advertise?

Good morning.

1. An interesting question at the end.
2. Somebody from South Carolina needs to get his facts straight. Taking a failing company and holding it for 8 years trying to give it a chance, is not corporate “rape.” Blaming someone for the eventual failure, which occurs two years after you leave … if the former is rape, what is this mis-characterization? Blood slander?
3. So. Constitutional or just wrong?
4. Why are people so adverse to noting that there are physiological differences between peoples that can have an impact on physical and mental performance.
5. I wonder if this Bishop would be allergic to this Akathist service?
6. Is the question here that you cannot base your meta-ethics on religion? Visit Mount Athos.
7. Tragedy of the commons (ToC), if government was the solution to ToC then why do Communist countries have a worse problem with that than not.
8. Free will.
9. Oh, that’s just silly … nobody’s going to kill the President … Biden is his insurance plan. No assassin in his right mind wants that nitwit to have real power.
10. Mr Obama goes after straw men on the campaign trail. If that were his only reason, then it wouldn’t make sense. If the predicate is false, of course the statement is true. Alas, it is also meaningless.
11. Lunch for the Klingon.

Chris Matthews, a Catholic Democrat, isn’t sure, at least about the bishops, and neither was Sister Simone Campbell, executive director at the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby. While discussing the requirements that the Catholic Church must provide insurance for contraception (against its teachings), Matthews asked if the bishops were all aligned with a certain political party, based on their views on this.

MATTHEWS: Do you think they’re all Republican, the bishops?

CAMPBELL: I don’t know if they’re all Republican, but it sure seems that they’re speaking from the, the playbook, sort of possibly as surrogates for the Republican Party, I don’t know. But they certainly are engaged in politics that seem much more aligned with the Right.

Noel Sheppard, covering this for NewsBusters, comes up with the numbers regarding Catholics and political party.

Catholics in this country historically have been solidly Democratic, although this has waned in recent years.

As EWTN News reported in February, a 2011 Pew study found 48 percent of Catholics surveyed said they were Democrat or Democrat-leaning compared to 43 percent claiming to be Republican or Republican-leaning.

As such, it seems absurd to think all Catholic bishops are Republican.

So no, the Pope isn’t necessarily Republican, but he is Catholic. Matthews ought to know that. But for the Left, everything is political. Even religion.

Good morning.

1. How to anger the ordinary man. Tell him his taxes are paying for propaganda to sell policies he doesn’t support.
2. Inter state becomes Intra state.
3. For those still following the Zimmerman/Martin kerfuffle.
4. The Bain attack theme and holding the Democrat party line.
5. “Two tiered” class pricing.
6. The diversity mania and higher ed.
7. Gay in the business world.
8. The don’t make the connections because you don’t have to make good arguments in the echo chamber.
9. Well, for those who think “nonlegal arguments” suffice against the Mandate Constitutional challenge, a slam dunk rebuttal of those notions.
10. Capital shifts.

From CNS News, the gauntlet has been thrown down.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, and 42 other Catholic dioceses and organizations around the country announced on Monday that they are suing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for violating their freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The dioceses and organizations, in different combinations, are filing 12 different lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.

The suits focus on the regulation that Sebelius announced last August and finalized in January that requires virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions.

The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and that Catholics should not be involved in them. Thus, the regulation would require faithful Catholics and Catholic organizations to act against their consciences and violate the teachings of their faith.

Earlier, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had called the regulation an "unprecedented attack on religious liberty" and asked the Obama administration to rescind it.

“We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress–and we’ll keep at it–but there’s still no fix," Cardinal Dolan, who is also president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement released by the conference this morning.

Good morning.

1. Wind and the photograph. Blaarrrrgggh.
2. Our government, standing firmly against free trade.
3. “Strategy needs enemies” … uhm, a strategy is a broad plan and a goal. I think enemies are not required for either.
4. The problem isn’t that Hobbes and Locke lead to unfortunate conclusions, it’s that their premises were wrong (read some Bertrand de Jouvenel … try On Power as a starter).
5. Born in Kenya … why the lie?
6. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. (and yes a few weeks ago, we watched The Shining for our Family Movie Night). This week we watched Say Anything.
7. Economics and the cloud.
8. Horses asses in space.
9. Kierkegaard on confession. Oh, and Brandon has links too!
10. The war on poverty.
11. Flaunting IQ.
12. A $64 fine?
13. Another book to read.
14. And one more.

Mitt Romney, a real community organizer.

Record-breaking attendance at Canada’s March for Life. Over 19,000 people participated. Support is growing.

Around the world, Obama has become something of a disappointment. He talked a good game, but was a bit short on follow-through.

However, the President has certainly had his share of ‘firsts’ while in office. Doug Ross enumerates 3 dozen of them.

If you personally know thieves that otherwise live their lives with "goodness and holiness", does that mean thieving is, therefore, condoned? This press release from the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, DC seems to suggest that.

RIP OWS. We hardly knew you (and I think you hardly knew yourself).

After being voted down unanimously in the House, Obama’s budget is unanimously voted down in the Senate. One word: Leadership.

An admission that environmentalists sat on their hands during the BP oil spill because Obama was in the White House. Again, for the Left, it’s always political. Principle always gets the back seat.

And finally, what’s next to "evolve"? (Click for a larger version.)

Good morning.

1. Grist for the solipsist.
2. Well there you go, the “best case (straw man) argument against gay marriage is unsustainable.” Who’d have thought that straw man arguments were so weak.
3. Why the “H” sound in Greek is just a diacritical mark at the start of the word.
4. The real question is why liberals self label as the “reality based party”.
5. A first question here … try this experiment. Go to a gym with a heavy bag. Start punching. See how much and how hard you have to punch … until you get a quarter inch cut on your knuckles. Then consider that bag was man and the damage you just did to it. Now … requite for me how you can figure the laceration on his hands were trivial.
6. Don’t try this at home.
7. Headscarves.
8. Well, you are correct, you are not supposed to say that. Uhm, so don’t.
9. Almost solipsism. Let’s see, what might “agnostic about the existence of the world” mean? Solipsism would be the akin to “atheism over existence” what then is agnosticism?
10. Mr Scalzi started this, I’d have thought “Feminist Philospher’s” would see the problem, but they didn’t. Here’s a hint … the problem is equating winning/success with money and power and not with happiness.
11. “I don’t know” is often followed by “but I can google.”
12. “What I said” … in contrast with our President who has the advantage of having said the opposite as well.
13. I’m unclear on why the disgust. Isn’t that just a chance for testing and witness?
14. The quicksand’s viscosity just lowered for Ms Warren, see here and here.
15. Dating with a bucket of sand with fleas.
16. A song to finish.

At long last …

1. Texting without sight a method … while driving?
2. Of practicing and preaching.
3. So it it witless flaunting of due process or with cognizance?
4. Of ancient arithmetics and modern computers.
5. My name, sinking into obscurity?
6. Well, it may or may not be indicative of Mr Romney’s future prospects, but it certainly says a lot about Mr Obama’s credibility where budget talks are concerned, batting 0 for 600+.
7. I’m skeptical.
8. More micro economics of ranching.
9. Evil?
10. Mercantilism in the White House.
11. Not the Giligan’s Island tour.

Rarely do you get a pair of situations so similar at the same point in time that allows you to compare and contrast the policies used to deal with it. But we have one with California and New Jersey.

In his January 2011 inaugural address, California Gov. Jerry Brown declared it a "time to honestly assess our financial condition and make the tough choices." Plainly the choices weren’t tough enough: Mr. Brown has just announced that he faces a state budget deficit of $16 billion—nearly twice the $9.2 billion he predicted in January. In Sacramento Monday, he coupled a new round of spending cuts with a call for some hefty new tax hikes.

In his own inaugural address back in January 2010, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also spoke of making tough choices for the people of his state. For his first full budget, Mr. Christie faced a deficit of $10.7 billion—one-third of projected revenues. Not only did Mr. Christie close that deficit without raising taxes, he is now plumping for a 10% across-the-board tax cut.

It’s not just looks that make Mr. Brown Laurel to Mr. Christie’s Hardy. It’s also their political choices.

Each had a huge deficit going in, but New Jersey is coming out of this looking far, far better than California.

Hard economic times bring their own lessons. Though few have been spared the ravages of the last recession and the sluggish recovery, those in states where taxes are light, government lives within its means, and the climate is friendly to investment have learned the value of the arrangement they have. They are not likely to give it up.

Meanwhile, leaders in some struggling states have taken notice. They know the road to fiscal hell is paved with progressive intentions. The question regarding the sensible ones is whether they have the will and wherewithal to impose the reforms they know their states need on the interest groups whose political and economic clout is so closely tied with the public purse.

The same goes for the next presidential election.

Alasadair MacIntyre in his book Whose Justice Whose Rationality demonstrates using ancient political divisions to illustrate how, when meta-ethical differences between groups arise conversation between those groups is difficult. Well, perhaps “difficult” is putting it mildly. We see this today as it unfolds in conversations between those in different sides of the political aisle. Highly paid commenter Boonton on this blog noted recently that the only good arguments concerning SSM are on the pro-SSM side, there are no arguments and only avoidance of the same seen from the right. My response was that the left side of the aisle perceives it this way because they insist on a “small playground”, only debating this issue in the context of their particular meta-ethical context and refusing to step outside. And yes, by analogy, if you assume flat 2-dimensional Euclidean geometry there is no good way to dispute that the the interior angle of a triangle sum to pi. But all geometries are not 2-d Euclidean, in fact the world we live is not. So what follows will be an attempt to bridge that divide, to give a glimpse to the left the basics of the marriage debate as seen from the right. Be warned however, in crossing this bridge there are always hermenuetical difficulties, when speaking across meta-ethical and foundational divisions the same words can be viewed from different context and what is said can easily be misunderstood. That is to say, bear with me … and this gets a little longer than the usual essay … so the rest is below the fold…

Read the rest of this entry