joyfulchristian

Test

2007-01-21T13:38:00.000-06:00

Just stopping by.

Moving On

2003-09-04T22:40:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm in the process of moving over to TypePad. From now on, I'll be posting at http://joyfulchristian.blogs.com/.

Things that make you go hmm...

2003-09-04T12:35:00.000-05:00

I ordered Babylon 5: Season 2 a couple of days ago. I live in Oklahoma. The package was shipped from Anaheim, California. I just checked the UPS tracking and discovered that the package is currently in Ontario. Go figure.

Update - Steve e-mailed me to let me know that there is an Ontario, California, which also happens to be a major UPS hub. That certainly makes more sense.

The Age-Old Problem

2003-09-04T12:24:00.000-05:00

I found this question posted by Guy at a new blog called Damascus Road:

What would happen if we, who call ourselves socially conservative, collectively said that we were no longer going to support those in our party who refused to listen to us? What if we put our collective feet down and said absolutely no more? Would it cause a split amongst conservatives? Would it result in the election of more liberals?......I don't pretend to have the answer to any of these questions; but, they are certainly questions that we, as social conservatives, should seriously consider before stepping into the voting booth.

I fully understand the reasons for his frustration. I don't pretend to know what the long-term results would be if conservative Republicans refused to vote for liberal Republicans. In the short-term, I think that there's very little doubt that the Dems would start winning elections. There are really two questions here. The first is, "Would a massive protest at the ballot box that resulted in Democratic victories convince Republicans to move back to the right?" The second question is, "If this would actually work, would it be worth the short-term sacrifice to achieve this long-term gain?"

Decrying stupdity

2003-09-04T09:50:00.000-05:00

No, George Bush is not equivalent to Hitler, says Jonah Goldberg, and no amount of screaming can make it so:

I hate blue cheese. I mean I hate it. To me, it tastes like death or Al Sharpton's socks after they've been under the fridge for a year. But no matter how much I hate it, no matter how much I loathe its texture and smell and taste, it's still only blue or, if you must, "bleu" cheese. Even if you tripled my hatred for it, it would still just be a musky fromage from the land of cheese, long speeches, and short-lived loyalties. It would not, through the mysterious alchemy of hatred and bile, become poison. Sure, I could call it Sarin or Anthrax but that would not make it so. Because, you see, hating an object doesn't change an object. Only the most arrogant and solipsistic fool would argue or convince himself that his hatred of something increases the importance of that thing.
And that's how I think of all these people who e-mail me insistent that George Bush is a Nazi. They believe they are so important, so noble, their hatred and fear must be rooted things of Great Consequence. It's just so prosaic to hate Republicans. I am better than that. So, Republicans must be Nazis. They must be a threat to the whole world and to the sanctity of everything I hold dear because anything less would not be worth my time. George Bush can't simply be someone I disagree with. No, his popularity must be an indication of mass hysteria, of Nuremberg-style devotion to evil.
So desperate are these people to live in interesting times and play the hero, that they are willing — eager — to topple every significant moral and historical category so they can role play as the Heroes who Would Not Stay Silent. That would be fine if these losers were playing some multisided dice game in their basements. But they're not. There's a war going on and these guys are acting like we're the real enemy. That's not just shameful and stupid, it's unhelpful.

Read the whole thing.

As a reminder

2003-09-04T09:29:00.000-05:00

Burma is still holding political dissident Aung San Suu Kyi in "protective custody". In this case, they're protecting themselves from anything she might have to say. They arrested her and, according to Amnesty International, about 100 other people back in May. The U.S. embassy says they've received information that she's on a hunger strike, but that's difficult to confirm.

There are a couple of things that really concern me. The first is that while news organizations were all over this the first few days after she disappeared, this is the first story I've seen on the issue in the last 6 weeks or so. Sure, I've been out of commission during part of that time, but you'd think this would rate higher. Why has the news media not been playing this up more?

The other really bizarre part of this story comes from this quote:

Rangoon's foreign ministry issued a statement calling the hunger strike claim "groundless," a denial repeated by an official at the Burmese Embassy in Canberra, Australia Thursday.
Rangoon's ambassador to Britain has also reportedly denied the report, according to the Thailand-based Burma newspaper, Irrawaddy.
"How could anybody know that she's on hunger strike when you don't even know where she is?" ambassador Kyaw Win was quoted as telling the BBC.

The government is holding a political prisoner without charges for several months, they haven't allowed any international organization to see her in weeks, and now there are rumors that she's on a hunger strike. Yet, somehow, the government thinks it will make them look better to also point out that she's being held at a secret location. ??????????????

This is a bad situation. Someone needs to do something and that's only likely to happen if the press makes a big enough stink. Given that, why has the press been relatively silent on the issue? Is it just that no one can find a way to blame this on Bush? Does no one care becaause Burma isn'ta "sexy" enough part of the world? Is it because her people aren't being "persecuted by the EVIL JEWS^TM. I don't have a clue, but regardless, the lack of journalistic interest doesn't sit well with me.

Update-For full disclosure, I've got to admit that I'm pretty upset with myself for letting this one slide as of late.

Sad Day

2003-09-04T09:13:00.000-05:00

Eric Estrada has removed himself from consideration as an appellate judge.'

Correction - I got an e-mail from Ron who pointed out that it was Miguel, not Eric, Estrada who withdrew his name from consideration. That was a pretty pathetic mistake on my part. Sorry.

Interesting

2003-09-04T08:45:00.000-05:00

Joshua Claybourn poins out that he didn't see any death-penalty opponents at the Paul Hill execution and wonders why that is?

Admitting your wrong

2003-09-03T22:43:00.000-05:00

That's one of the best things about the blogosphere.

And how, exactly, is he planning to pay for that?

2003-09-03T18:19:00.000-05:00

I just saw a Howard Dean add in which he pledges that if he's elected President, ever American is going to have health insurance. I shutter to think where he's going to find the money for that plan.

I actually think this is an easy call

2003-09-03T18:02:00.000-05:00

Mark Byron says he doesn't know where the need for juries to order the death penalty came from. Actually, this seems pretty straight forward t me. The Sixth Amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Sixth clearly demands a jury for criminal trials. I don't think that demand ends once the guilty verdict has been reached, especially when you consider the demand for due process. Of course, if you use my logic, imprisonments aren't allowed under the Constitution either. I've not read the SCOTUS opinion, but I don't think it's an unreasonable decision in principle.

Oops. Dr. Byron pointed out to me that I was looking at the Fifth, not the Sixth. I don't know what I was thinking.

Libraries in Cuba

2003-09-03T13:38:00.000-05:00

The Kansas City Star has in intriguing story about a Cuban refugee who was forced to flee the country after trying to start an independent library.

Here was, to me, the sad part:

Cuban authorities, not surprisingly, saw Colas' efforts on the island as a counterrevolutionary ploy that enjoyed covert U.S. backing.
Roughly 15 independent libraries were shut down and their inventory confiscated during a broad-based crackdown on dissidents last March. The directors of each library were given long prison terms, including Colas' successor in Las Tunas.
"The independent libraries have ... demonstrated they are receiving money to subvert the institutional order of Cuba," said Eliades Acosta, Cuba's director of national libraries. The Bush administration denies Cuba's allegations of U.S. involvement.(Emphasis added.)

What? Why, exactly, did our government deny involvement? Either our government has actually refused to help these brave people, or it doesn't want to be associated with them. In either case, I'm ashamed. Ideas are one of the most powerful things in the world. Our government should be helping these people and it shouldn't make any apologies for doing so.

"Deaning Down"

2003-09-03T12:57:00.000-05:00

CK Rairden explains what's wrong with the Democratic Party:

The left has long sought to “dumb down” America understanding that the more ignorant America becomes the less resistance liberals will meet as they push their agenda. Their plan has failed as liberals continue to lose elections one after the other. So now a new strategy has emerged--no longer satisfied with the failed results of attempting to “dumb down” America, Howard Dean has had early success of rallying the angry malcontents on the far left in what I have dubbed as the ‘Deaning down’ of the Democrat Party.
A classic example emerged as Massachusetts Senator John F(rench) Kerry finally got around to announcing his candidacy for the Democrat nomination for president on Tuesday. Newsweek analyst Howard Fineman made it very clear what the left believes it will take to win the nomination and recapture the White House. Anger. Appearing on the Today Show with Katie Couric, Fineman bluntly stated why Kerry is faltering amongst the left, “He has to get focused and he has to get angry.”
And that is the epitome of what Howard Dean has brought to his splintered party, resentment and anger. Misplaced anger, but nonetheless for the fringe left--focused anger.
--The anger must not be focused on the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11.
--The anger must not be focused on the terrorists who are attacking American soldiers in Iraq.
--The anger must not be focused on any foreign body or nation that desires to see Americans killed and America dismantled.
The ‘Deaning down’ of America requires anger focused on President George W. Bush and any American who dares support the President. This new “Deaned down” strategy requires resentment towards any hard working American who wants to see America kept safe and is willing to make the sacrifices and continue the will and power necessary to keep the American homeland secure by supporting the President.

Read the rest.

Inciteful

2003-09-03T12:36:00.000-05:00

Theosebes explains what's wrong with killing abortion doctors.

Claybourn rounds up stupidity

2003-09-03T12:12:00.001-05:00

Just read.

They won't listen ...

2003-09-03T12:12:00.000-05:00

...they never do.

David Frum has some advice for CNN.

Brave

2003-09-03T11:44:00.000-05:00

David Heddle takes on a couple of really difficult passages. His conclusions seem to be generally reasonable. I'd try to add my thoughts, but I'd doubt it would do any good; I've got to admit that try as I might, I really don't understand either passage very well.

Johnny Depp shoots his mouth off

2003-09-03T11:16:00.000-05:00

Oh, isn't this cute:

BERLIN (Reuters) - Hollywood star Johnny Depp (news) said on Wednesday the United States was a stupid, aggressive puppy and he would not live there until the political climate changed.
[...]
"America is dumb, it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive," he said.
"My daughter is four, my boy is one. I'd like them to see America as a toy, a broken toy. Investigate it a little, check it out, get this feeling and then get out," said the star of the off-beat films "Edward Scissorhands" and "Dead Man."
Depp slammed George W. Bush's administration for its criticism of French opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq (news - web sites).
"I was ecstatic they re-named 'French Fries' as 'Freedom Fries'. Grown men and women in positions of power in the U.S. government showing themselves as idiots," he told Stern.

Well, he would know, wouldn't he? Still, this seems to be at least one celebrity who's keeping his word and staying out of the country.

Update - Rachel Lucas adds her two cents in her own indubitable style.

Wolfy on Iraq

2003-09-03T11:05:00.000-05:00

Kevin Patrick links to this interesting article about the purpose of American troops in Iraq and fighting terror written by Wolfowitz.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...

2003-09-03T10:58:00.000-05:00

While people continue to carp about how world opinion is against our actions in Iraq, Poland, leading a 17 nation force, has taken control of south-central Iraq.

AHH!

2003-09-02T19:19:00.000-05:00

I hate slow news days. Just thougth I'd share. I suppose I could actually go looking for interesting news that didn't show up in my usual rounds, but I didn't get to sleep until after 5 this morning. (Yeah, that was fun.) More later.

Missed this one

2003-09-02T12:30:00.000-05:00

While I was trying to suppress my wonderfully horrible headaches, I missed this post by Philip Murphy about the continuing inability of Europeans to understand American thinking.

I won't deny that I am totally incapable of understanding the prevailing political thought in most European countries; in fact, it often appears to me that they are living in a fantasy land. As Murphy points out, the reverse is also true; Europeans don't get us either.

The difference is that most Europeans, at least the ones who make the most noise, seem quite confident that they understand American political thought and therefore know conclusively that we are wrong. On the other hand, most Americans simply don't seem to care what the Europeans think at all.

The result, I think, is that the rift between America and the (non-English speaking) rest of The West, will continue to widen.

I needed a good laugh

2003-09-02T12:20:00.000-05:00

Tacitus obliged me.

North Korea announces six-way talks with self

2003-09-02T12:05:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure this one actually qualifies as satire.

Poll results

2003-09-02T12:03:00.000-05:00

Frank J. has posted some of his poll results. I've got a problem with the Iron Man v. Green Lantern pie eating contest; he forgot to take into account the month when Marvel and DC published comics for the Amalgamated Universe. That month Iron Man and Green Lantern were merged into the new hero "Iron Lantern." Wouldn't that screw the whole thing up?

Yes, I have no life.

The French have a problem

2003-09-02T11:52:00.000-05:00

... but Misha's solution seems a tad extreme. Maybe.

Glad he filled us in

2003-09-02T11:50:00.000-05:00

[sarcasm]Hey, did you know John Kerry served in Vietnam?[/sarcasm]

Politics 101

2003-09-02T11:44:00.000-05:00

But of course, you already knew this rule, didn't you?

Stop Immigration!

2003-09-02T11:42:00.000-05:00

It's for THE CHILDREN ^TM!

Rich Lowry argues that runaway immigration seriously damages the interest of low income wage earners.

Heddle is, unsurprisingly, talking about Calvinism again

2003-09-02T11:34:00.000-05:00

Specifically, he's talking about the doctrine of Total Depravity:

Today I just want to point out quickly (what many others have already pointed out) that in fact there is just one point of Calvinism: Total Depravity. From that one doctrine, all the other four are natural consequences.

I think there can be little doubt that Total Depravity is the cornerstone around which Calvinism is built. If you remove that doctrine, Calvinism doesn't really make a lot of sense.

However, I can't agree with David about the nature of depravity however. Any one who tries to argue that we are not all depraved and, therefore, all sinners, has got to throw out tons of scripture. Try as I might though, anytime I examine the scriptures that Calvinists put forward as justifying their doctrine of Total Depravity, I just can't see it. I don't want to examine them at this time; I just want to state that I am simply incapable of seeing what they see when looking at the same passages. I don't even know why this might be, but I do know that many times a Calvinist has put forward a few scriptures to me on this topic and not even tried to explain why they believed those verses supported their doctrine. This was not, I might add, because they were using poor debate techniques; rather they clearly believed that the verses stated their position so clearly that no explanation was needed whatever.

This has been the point of endless frustration to me. In fact, any time somebody I respect points out evidence to support a position I hold and I simply cannot see what they see, I am terribly frustrated. The reason for this is that I know that we are unlikely to ever agree on the topic. Disagreement is unlikely in these cases, not because we are having a disagreement about logic, but about fact. If I believed the same facts they do, their conclusions would be perfectly reasonable; since I don't see the same facts that they do, it is highly unlikely that we will ever agree about the conclusions that those facts are based on. ¹

David also had this to say about God's sovereignty:

Interestingly, the other four points do not have to be merely accepted as consequences of Total Depravity. They can be postulated as stand alone doctrines and then independently supported in scripture. To me, this is one of the great comforts of the doctrines of grace and sovereignty. If the bible proclaims Total Depravity, then our only hope is Unconditional Election (predestination). Anything else and all man are damned. Lo and behold, that is what the scriptures teach. And if scripture teaches Unconditional Election, them it had better teach Irresistible Grace otherwise the whole system collapses on itself since, without Irresistible Grace, man can thwart God's plan, rendering Him sovereign no more.
(Emphasis omitted.)

This is one of the major problems I have with Calvinism. It seems, to me at least, that Calvinist do not give God's sovereignty nearly enough credit. My view of God's omnipotence is, I would say, more robust. I believe that scripture irrefutably teaches both the Free Will of man and the total omnipotence of God. Therefore, I believe God allows man to have absolute control over his actions, but He has structured the universe in such a way that He will always know which decision the man would make at any given time. In this way, God's will always be done through man's absolute Free Will. (I've previously referred to this concept as Temporal Engineering.)

I have another problem with Calvinism which is more general and not reserved solely for that system of doctrine. The problem is that it is, in fact, a system. David has frequently referred to me as an Arminian; I am not. It may be true that many of my views line up with the Arminian system of doctrine, but I no more subscribe to Arminianism than I do to Calvinism.

The reason for this is that I reject, on principle, the whole notion of systematic theology. When I read scripture, I find a great number of apparent paradoxes. So many, in fact, that if I did not believe that there was clear and convincing evidence of The resurrection, I would probably have rejected Christianity outright. Because I do believe in The Resurrection, I accept the doctrinal teachings in scripture to be true. Once I accept them as true, I also accept the idea that these apparent paradoxes must not, in fact, be contradictions even though they appear to be. I believe this to be true even if I can find no convincing reconciliation of these different doctrines.

If I were to attempt to fit these apparent contradictions into any system of theology, I would be forced to accept one or the other of the paradoxical doctrines in order to make my system flow in a rational manner. Because I believe them both to be true, I find this unacceptable. Instead, I evaluate each doctrine based on the scriptures that teach it independently of any other doctrine.

I should clarify that it is my belief that I do this not because I believe that these doctrines are truly contradictory, but because I believe the minds of mankind are too puny to resolve the conflict. When the end of time comes and we live in full communion with God, we will understand the resolution of the conflict.

It's not that I don't believe that scripture lays out a systematic theology; I just don't believe Fallen Man is capable of understanding the system.

¹C.S. Lewis made a similar point about morality. I believe it was in his discussion about universal morality in The Abolition of Man, but I'm to lazy to look up the exact passage at the moment. Lewis argued that mankind had always had a relatively constant morality throughout time; he believed that the only thing that changed was the emphasis certain societies placed on individual parts of that morality. His critics often pointed out that we no longer burn witches at the stake. Isn't that, they argued, a change in morality?

Lewis's response was that it was not a difference in morality at all; it was a difference in fact. We don't burn witches, he argued, because we don't believe there is such a thing. (At least not in the sense that the people in Salem used that word.) He pointed out that if you believed that someone had sold their soul to the devil in order to gain unholy powers which they used to torment others, and further believed that the only way to save these peoples' souls was to purify their bodies through fire, then it is perfectly sensible to burn such people at the stake. We don't burn such people because we do not believe any, or at least most, of these "facts" to be true.

Aggh

2003-08-27T14:57:00.000-05:00

I couldn't get to sleep last night. On top of that, my headache is much worse than normal today. There may be some posting this evening, but I'm not making any promises.

Sorry for the light posting today

2003-08-26T20:28:00.000-05:00

I've been looking for stuff to talk about, I just can't seem to find anything. Maybe more later.

Are we willing?

2003-08-26T13:09:00.000-05:00

Irwin Stelzer thinks he knows how to fix the electric grid:

We will never eliminate the possibility of human error or equipment failure. But we can reduce both the frequency of such events and their consequences. All we have to do is surrender some due process protections, replace local with federal control of where transmission towers and lines may be sited, and add several billions to our electric bills.

I really don't know what to say to this.

Our Airline Screening is Still a Joke

2003-08-26T12:50:00.000-05:00

That's the basic gist of this column by Rachel Ehrenfeld. Here's one of her illustrations:

It takes an expert like Isaac Yeffet, the former El Al airline-security chief, to highlight the depth of U.S. airport-security problems. Recently, while traveling in the U.S., Yeffet was randomly chosen for special screening. After the security agent had swept his body with a hand-held metal-detecting wand and declared him "clean," Yeffet pulled a cell phone from his pocket — to the agent's amazement. A second screening also detected nothing. At this point, Yeffet suggested that, if the screener were to turn the device on, he might be able to detect suspicious objects. Needless to say, the agent was unsettled, but Yeffet was even more upset. "How many similar incidents happen every day in our airports?" he asks.

Unfortunately, this joke isn't very funny.

After you

2003-08-25T20:08:00.000-05:00

When I heard about Lugar's idea to dispatch troops to control the violence in Israel, my initial thought was, "Why not just get out of the Israeli's way?" But before I even got a chance to post my thoughts, John Hawkins posted pretty much what I was thinking.

Well, this is good news

2003-08-25T18:56:00.000-05:00

Lucent has just won a big contract to restore phone service in Baghdad. I hope they hurry. Our goal is to create a modern democratic country in Iraq. If that's going to happen, the Iraqis are going to have to have a modern communications network.

What a shock

2003-08-25T18:47:00.000-05:00

Fidel Castro isn't very happy with us. (Still.) At the moment, he's concerned with the U.S. governments television and radio broadcasts directed at his country.

President Fidel Castro predicted that a new U.S. government attempt to use a satellite to broadcast news and talk shows hosted by exile leaders will fail.
Cuba calls the broadcasts by TV Marti an attempt by the U.S. government and Cuban exiles to impose their political views.

He says we're trying to "impose [our] political views" by putting them broadcasting them on television? This must be some new definition of the word "impose" that I was not previously aware of.

Of course, redefining twisted redefinitions of words is one of the hallmarks of a communist government.

Let's just ignore the law!

2003-08-25T18:40:00.000-05:00

Bryan Preston has the scoop.

Oh happy-happy joy-joy

2003-08-25T18:32:00.000-05:00

There's good news, and there's bad news. The good news is we may know where Iraq's WMDs are. That's also the bad news.

U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have finally been located.
Unfortunately, getting to them will be nearly impossible for the United States and its allies, because the containers with the strategic materials are not in Iraq.
Instead they are located in Lebanon's heavily-fortified Bekaa Valley, swarming with Iranian and Syrian forces, and Hizbullah and ex-Iraqi agents, Geostrategy-Direct.com will report in Wednesday's new weekly edition.

Isn't that lovely? Now here's the part that really hacks me off:

U.S. intelligence first identified a stream of tractor-trailer trucks moving from Iraq to Syria to Lebaon in January 2003. The significance of this sighting did not register on the CIA at the time. (Emphasis added.)

EXCUSE ME!!! How could they not have thought of this at the time? How did that happen? Wouldn't you think that would be the obvious conclusion?

What on earth is wrong with these people?

Until science marches on

2003-08-25T18:26:00.000-05:00

In the hope that DNA research will eventually reach the point that they can be properly identified, all the unidentified remains are going to be placed in Ground Zero memorial.

I don't know if this is a good idea or not. On the one hand, preserving the remains gives the hope of more complete closure at some point in the future, but on the other this seems like an awfully morbid move. I just don't know.

Even Moore Trouble

2003-08-25T18:15:00.000-05:00

Another day, another lawsuit.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Supporters asked a federal court Monday to block the removal of a Ten Commandments monument (search) from the Alabama Judicial Building while the judge who put the marker there said he's up against those who "are offended at looking at God's words."

People, people, please stop now. It's time to end this while everyone still has some semblance of dignity left. Check that, it's too late for that. Regardless, the issues been decided. It's time to stop beating a dead horse.

Moore thoughts

2003-08-25T18:01:00.000-05:00

Jared at Exultate Justi has some thoughts on Justice Moore worth reading. Here's his conclusion:

The bottom line is this: I agree with Justice Moore that there is no legitimate reason to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from the gounds of a governmental building. Our nation's foundations are utterly religious, and it is patently ridiculous to assert that the Framers ever intended to found a government free from any religious influence or reference. However, when the courts rule in such a way as to subvert our beliefs or opinions, we have been provided with a means of remonstrance - the ballot. I would prefer to see those who are currently flailing away on the side of Justice Moore's protest spend their energies on efforts to elect leaders who share their beliefs, and will nominate judges who do, as well. We, as conservative Christians would be far more well-served by fighting the efforts of the Left to submarine President Bush's judicial nominations than we are by aligning ourselves with an effort that so apparently carries the odor of a publicity stunt.

The Bad Guys

2003-08-25T12:52:00.000-05:00

John Hawkins has posted his questionaire results on the 20 worst figures of the 20th Century.

When I saw the list, I realized that I had forgotten to vote for the Rosenbergs. Also, I chose not to vote for bin Laden because while he is a horrible man, he was really only small time during the 20th Century.

Waste of time

2003-08-25T12:04:00.000-05:00

I've heard several people say that those fighting to keep the 10 Commandments monument in that Alabama courthouse are fighting the wrong battle and wasting resourcs. (I've even said it myself.) Now, John Derbyshire argues that liberals have also chosen the wrong battle.

Faster Please

2003-08-25T11:45:00.000-05:00

Only this time Ledeen isn't talking about Iran. This time he's calling for American spy masters and diplomats to open their eyes faster. Like, before it's too late.

Reading Ledeen isn't likely to make an optimist out of you.

The Devil Made Me Do It

2003-08-25T11:37:00.000-05:00

Not!

That's just one of many misconceptions people have about Satan. Satan tempts us, but he can't actually force us to sin. David Heddle has a very interesting essay about angels and Satan in which he addresses many misconceptions.

One of the things he points out is that while man has most often portrayed Satan as being in a battle with God for our souls, that this is not accurate. The truth, Heddle says, is that Satan wants to diminish God's glory. He doesn't really care about our souls per se; our souls are just the means Satan uses to attack God's glory.

I think this is an important point, but it's not one I'd really thought about before. It did get me thinking though. What, I wonder, makes us believe that Satan is after us when the truth is that Satan only cares about us in as much as our souls are a means of attacking God's glory? Is it possible that this misconception is part of a subtle attack by Satan against God's glory? Is he puffing us up? Is he trying to convince us that we are more important than we really are? Is this pride in our own importance something we've done all on our own, or is it just one more avenue of attack by Satan?

I don't know, but it's something worth considering.

What could 50 governors possibly agree on?

2003-08-24T23:48:00.000-05:00

You'll never guess!

Police Academy XXXII

2003-08-24T23:32:00.000-05:00

Well, not quite, but the New York Times is reporting that the US government is setting up a police academy for Iraqi recruits in Hungary. It's probably a good idea.

I did notice one thing about this story. It's the next to last sentence:

He said said that although he would be returning to the United States, he expected to be engaged for some time in helping his successors.

[sarcasm]And I thought the primary difference between "Big Media" and blogs was the editing staff.[/sarcasm]

Wow

2003-08-24T23:02:00.000-05:00

... and like wow! (Via Cold Fury and LGF)

It will never happen, but WOW!

Sad

2003-08-24T21:33:00.000-05:00

An autistic boy died during a prayer service. I just have no way of knowing what to make of this.

Wanna be mad?

2003-08-24T18:20:00.000-05:00

This column might do it.

Moore trouble in Alabama

2003-08-24T18:12:00.000-05:00

For those who are both politically and religiously conservative, the brouhaha in Alabama is likely to produce a variety of conflicting emotions. David Limbaugh seems to have navigated the various danger pretty well. His conclusion is worth repeating:

The federal courts have greatly eroded states rights and religious freedoms through renegade decisions in the most cynical tradition of judicial activism. So while our federal law is certainly entitled to supremacy, at what point do citizens stand up and say that federal courts have claimed supremacy in areas over which they were never given authority? What can be done about their obscene misinterpretations of the Constitution?
Congress could selectively limit the Court's jurisdiction. And, we should fight for constitutionalist federal judges with the courage to preserve our religious liberties. In the meantime, we should honor the Court's rulings.

Sound advice

2003-08-24T17:19:00.000-05:00

Jack Rich has this to say to the people of Virginia:

My advice to my former state-mates, now that I've moved out: Watch out, here comes some misery in the form of higher taxes, likely all gussied up with some pretty labels having no bearing on the truth. That truth being, state governments, like most other governments, just love to separate you from your money and call it progress.

Indeed. ¹

¹The use of the phrase "Indeed" should not be construed to mean that I am taking sides in the Blog War.^TM

You know what makes me mad?

2003-08-24T16:51:00.000-05:00

Finding a story like this on Google News. How intelligent do you have to be to know that a web site called "Jihad Unspun" isn't a legitimate news outlet?

Now here's something that warms the heart

2003-08-24T16:46:00.000-05:00

I just found a story about baptisms in Iraq.

I hadn't thought of this

2003-08-24T16:32:00.000-05:00

Here's a story about how modern forensic science is causing some problems for Iraqis.

I'm a little unhappy

2003-08-24T09:55:00.000-05:00

As you've probably noticed, I've put up the news box from the GeorgeWBush.com site. I've got to say that I'm a little unhappy with it at the moment. The current top headline says, "Oregon supports President Bush." However, if you follow the link, you find a speech by President Bush in Oregon. He does thank people for their fundraising support and mentions record-breaking numbers. He also thanks a lot of people for their support. However, I don't find anything that supports the statement made in the headline.

When I saw the link, I assumed I was going to see poll numbers or some other kind of evidence that a majority of people in Oregon supported President Bush's re-election. I found nothing of the kind. I'm very annoyed at the moment. If this keeps up, I may have to take it back down.

Update - I should note that I've received an e-mail from the web site addressing this issue. I think they're taking care of things adequately for the moment. In retrospect I realize that this post was probably a bit of an over-reaction. I have no current plans to drop the news feed.

Oh, those missing stories

2003-08-24T09:38:00.000-05:00

Dale Amon reminds us of some terrorism related stories that seemed to have slipped through the cracks.

It's a sad day for baseball

2003-08-24T09:28:00.000-05:00

Bobby Bonds has died.

A novel stupid idea

2003-08-24T00:02:00.000-05:00

So not enough people voting in your elections? What should you do? Let non-citizens vote of course! His Royal Imperial Highness has the goods.

I never have understood this

2003-08-23T23:19:00.000-05:00

Well someone please tell me why so much of the world accepts as an article of faith that it's the US's responsibility to end the warfare in Israel.

And now, a word from someone on the ground

2003-08-23T22:33:00.000-05:00

I'm always worried when I click on a Guardian link, but this article by Latif Rashid, an Iraqi Kurd, seems quite reasonable.

Oh, isnt' that sweet?

2003-08-23T22:29:00.000-05:00

They're friends again!

More on Equal Time

2003-08-23T22:23:00.000-05:00

If you're looking for a more detailed look at how the Equal Time rules affect the Florida election, I think you'll find this Michael Dorf column worthwhile.

But of course

2003-08-23T22:12:00.000-05:00

Those of us who enjoy Eugene Volokh's writing in the blogosphere, shouldn't be surprised to find that he has other fans as well.

Just say no

2003-08-23T22:08:00.000-05:00

... to appeasement. Here's a slightly humorous, but very pointed post on that subject by Bjørn Stærk.

Just War

2003-08-23T21:22:00.000-05:00

Jack Rich has an interesting look at Just War theory as it relates to nuclear weapons. He concludes that under some circumstances, the US would be justified to use nuclear devices against terrorists.

The Rumsfeld Strangler

2003-08-23T21:00:00.000-05:00

Frank J has put out what is probably his best "In My World" yet.

Sometimes you've just got to laugh

2003-08-23T20:37:00.000-05:00

You've got to watch this.

Sense in our time

2003-08-23T20:02:00.000-05:00

I'd have trouble arguing with this letter to the editor.

Another great idea

2003-08-23T19:55:00.000-05:00

As if the "peace process" wasn't in enough trouble, we now have this:

Arafat asks Europe to help save peace process

Yeah, that will help.

The advantages of being hated

2003-08-23T19:30:00.000-05:00

David Carr has a great piece about Bush taking advantage of being hated.

I'm not going to pull any quotes because it's all good. I suggest you read Carr's piece before reading the rest of this post.

If I understand Carr's premise, he's basically saying, "Hey, they already think you're Satan. You might as well do what you want to do. I think it's a great point.

For as long as I can remember, conservatives have been afraid to say and do what they really think. The reason for this seemed to be that they wanted everyone to think they were nice and kissed puppies. Therefore, every time a liberal accuses a conservative of doing anything mean, rude, or insensitive, the conservative drops everything and panders like crazy to try to convince the liberal that he's really a nice guy.

One of the many flaws with this approach is that history shows that you'll never be able to convince a liberal that you're a nice guy. Most modern liberals only know two sins: insensitivity and conservatism. ¹ That's it. And those two are generally considered to be synonyms. Consequently, there is almost no chance of convincing liberals you don't drink puppies for breakfast. (Unless, of course, you become a liberal.)

If you plan on being a conservative in America, you just need to get used to the fact that a certain percentage of the population believes you're Satan. The only way to change that is to abandon your beliefs and adopt theirs. There is nothing you can do to change this.

Consequently, you might as well do what you think is right and ignore the people who want to burn you in effigy. (And especially those who would prefer to leave "in effigy" out of that sentence.) It probably won't change anything. It really doesn't matter if the people who think you're Satan decide you're really Satan-squared. Those who don't think you're Satan are going to make their decision based on whether or not they think you did the right thing. The best way to please those people is to do what you believe is the right thing.

¹Some liberals have come to acknowledge being a Christian as the third sin.

Just Say NO!

2003-08-23T18:40:00.000-05:00

... to equal time. So says Martin Devon. He's upset that CBS cut a parody of Arnold Schwarzenegger from Craig Kilborn's show.

Apparently we've reached a point where the hassle of litigation is so onerous, and the law is so unclear that a network would rather cut a funny political bit then risk legal hassles. I find this appalling.
The supreme court has ruled that all sorts of dubious and obscene material (ask Larry Flynt) is protected by the first amendment just to ensure that there is no "chilling effect" on free speech. Well, these supposedly goo-goo campaign laws are clearly having a chilling effect on political satire, and political speech is at the heart of the first amendment. The equal time law should be ruled unconstitutional.

I've always found the equal time law to be morally and legally dubious. I wouldn't shed any tears if it was struck down.

That must have been a shock

2003-08-23T09:01:00.000-05:00

Imagine being in a Texas hospital recovering from surgery, only to find out that you're also apparently being held hostage in Iraq.

And how would we even notice

2003-08-23T08:56:00.000-05:00

That was my Dad's response to this headline:

Palestinian Officials Say Crackdown Against Militants on Hold

Yeah, I'd say it's on hold. It's been on hold since about 1993. As soon as the PA was given the responsibility to prevent terrorists, they've taken a, "We'll get around to it someday," approach.

Palestinian officials say they have put on hold plans to crack down on militants after Israeli forces killed a Hamas leader in response to a suicide bombing in Jerusalem earlier this week.
Palestinian security officials say Thursday's targetted killing of Abu Shanab took place just as they were about to launch a campaign to arrest militants and confiscate weapons. They say the effort was aimed at disarming Hamas and Islamic Jihad - the two groups who claimed responsibility for the Jerusalem attack that killed 20 people.

Funny, I would think it would be easier, not harder, to disarm people Hamas now. I mean it's not like they're going to sweet-talk them out of their guns. If you're going to have to take their weapons by force anyway, while they're distracted would be a good time.

Of course, if you actually have no plans to disarm them, this is as good an excuse as any.

The mysteries of rank

2003-08-22T23:28:00.000-05:00

Sgt. Mom has an entertaining essay on the wonders of the hidden rank.

The mysteries of rank

2003-08-22T22:28:00.000-05:00

Sgt. Mom has an entertaining essay on the wonders of the hidden rank.

Glad we got that out of the way

2003-08-22T18:05:00.000-05:00

For those of you waiting breathless to find out what The New York Times has to say about the California recall, Martin Devon has a roundup. Since I don't live in California and don't much care what people at the Times have to say, Martin's summary is good enough for me.

Waste of Resources

2003-08-22T18:00:00.000-05:00

If I'm reading Josh Claybourn correctly, that's what he thinks the 10 Commandments monument battle is.

The 10 Commandments debacle currently going on in Alabama is an unfortunate example of Christians fighting the wrong battles. Does Judge Moore and his supporters think that by keeping the commandments in place they're converting people to Christianity? Do they think someone will see their rallies and ponder, "Wow, now that I know our country's founders were Christian, maybe I should be too"? Having the 10 Commandments at a courthouse will convert few people, if any at all. The rallies, fighting, and protests will likely turn off more people than it will convince.

I think he's right about that. Getting in people's faces and yelling is rarely an effective way of convincing them to see your point of view.

And the award for understatement of the week ...

2003-08-21T23:02:00.000-05:00

"Tattered"

That was polite.

Excellent

2003-08-21T22:10:00.000-05:00

Angela Phelps has an excellent article on the price of freedom.

Oh my

2003-08-21T21:24:00.000-05:00

Last month I stayed at a DoubleTree Club Suites in Jersey City. I wasn't all that happy with my service. It wasn't this bad though. (Download may be required. Link via Donald Sensing.)

Can't touch this

2003-08-21T20:58:00.000-05:00

Now that's a truck. (Link via Dave Barry.)

Yeah, that may have been part of the problem

2003-08-21T20:39:00.000-05:00

Perhaps the UN should be more careful about who they hire.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 21 — American investigators looking into the suicide bombing of the United Nations compound on Tuesday are focusing on the possibility that the attackers were assisted by Iraqi security guards who worked there, a senior American official here said today.
The official said all of the guards at the compound were agents of the Iraqi secret services, to whom they reported on United Nations activities before the war. The United Nations continued to employ them after the war was over, the official said.
The official said that when investigators began questioning the guards, two of them asserted that they were entitled to "diplomatic immunity" and refused to cooperate. Diplomats working in foreign countries are often entitled to immunity from prosecution by local authorities, but the official said the two guards could make no such claim.
Investigators are continuing to question the guards, the official said.

Of course, I'm sure it's still America's fault.

Here we go again

2003-08-21T19:47:00.000-05:00

I think the road map is getting torn to shreds:

Hamas Fires Rockets into Israel
Hamas militants have fired three rockets into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip after vowing harsh retaliation for Thursday's assassination of a senior Hamas leader by Israel.
The Israeli army said two of the rockets fell harmlessly into a field, but the third damaged a house in the town of Sderot. No injuries are reported.

I know what we'd do if terrorist fired rockets at American houses. I don't know why we continue to restrain the Israelis.

Oh lovely

2003-08-21T19:41:00.000-05:00

After arresting numerous dissidents over the last few months, Casto's government now claims that one of the few remaining dissident leaders is actually a government spy.

In a fresh blow to Cuban dissidents reeling from a year of mass arrests and jailings, Fidel Castro's regime has announced that one of the last opposition leaders still at liberty is a police spy.
Elizardo Sanchez, a leading source of information for overseas human rights groups, angrily rejected the allegation that he has been a government informant for six years.
"I deny it absolutely," said Mr Sanchez at his home in Havana. "I have confronted this regime for 35 years and my own history denies this frame-up."

I really don't know enough about any of this to comment intelligently. However, I will say that this seems a little suspicious. After all, if you had an effective undercover operative in place, why suddenly expose him? Of course, I don't know for sure, but it does seem a little odd.

Oh, this is a good plan

2003-08-21T19:23:00.000-05:00

Yeah, this ought to work:

Powell asks Arafat to help stop killing
Washington turned to Yasser Arafat yesterday, a man it had sought to marginalise and sideline for months, to help the so-called Middle East road-map after the Jerusalem bus bombing and Israel's killing of a senior Hamas leader threatened to wreck the peace plan.
Months after the United States demanded that the Palestinians elect a Prime Minister in an effort to reduce the authority of Mr Arafat, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, asked him yesterday to help stop the cycle of violence.

At this rate, why don't we just skip the middleman and fund the bombing ourselves.

Ok, maybe that was overly snarky. But seriously, anyone who still, at this late date, believes that Arafat has any desire to stop the violence has some pretty serious delusions.

Oh my!

2003-08-21T17:28:00.000-05:00

I found this at Right Wing News:

The reparations lawsuits are of course completely ridiculous. But, you want to know what would make them even sillier? Imagine if white people were suing blacks because their ancestors carried away some farming tools when they were freed from slavery. Well, here's something that's just as laughable as that...

Sorry, but you'll have to follow the link to find out what's that ridiculous.

Jury of One's Peers

2003-08-21T16:43:00.000-05:00

Eugene Volokh has an interesting look at the meaning of this phrase.

Questions that need answering

2003-08-21T16:34:00.000-05:00

Timothy Lynch has a list of questions that he wants John Ashcroft to answer about the PATRIOT Act. I think he's got some good points.

Can't argue with that

2003-08-21T16:22:00.000-05:00

Tacitus has quite a bit to say about the UN and Iraq. I don't really have an opinion about his larger point, but the last paragraph makes a very good point.

On the subject of the bombing of the UN compound, let me also say that a great deal of the rhetoric coming from the blogospheric right -- mostly from self-described "anti-idiotarians," which is a self-nullifying label if there ever was one -- was a pathetic disgrace. If your first reaction was to crow about it, or to whip up a monologue on the irony of it all, you have my pity. I spent part of my day yesterday drafting condolence letters to the families of the dead; let me assure you that whatever the glaring flaws of the United Nations, those folks there were doing more for a free Iraq than you and I hunched behind our terminals stuffing our faces with Cheetos. So quit with that crap.

He's right; whatever you may think of the UN in general, the UN people on the ground in Iraq went there because they want to help the Iraqi people. Even if you think their methods were misguided, they were there to do what they could to aid people who have been oppressed for decades. They risked their lives to do good and they ended up getting killed for it. That's not funny, or ironic, or "just deserts." It's tragic. Those who died in the bombing should be honored, not looked down on.

Listen bud, he's got radioactive blood!

2003-08-21T15:54:00.000-05:00

Somehow, I don't think this version of the movie would do as well. (Link via Ghost of a Flea.)

He's got a point

2003-08-21T15:47:00.000-05:00

Jack Rich makes an interesting point about the Alabama Supreme Court monument honoring the Ten Commandments.

First, there appears to be a plaque (I'm not certain of its exact form; that's not the important thing, it's the contents that count) in the SCOTUS, right behind where the Chief Justice sits, that contains...the Ten Commandments. Two questions for consideration:
1. Is the Ten Commandments a constitutionally acceptable display in the U.S. Supreme Court building?
2. If it is acceptable, in what substantive way does this display differ from the display in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court?

I think he makes a good point. I don't know what secession has to do with anything though.

Another dumb law ...

2003-08-21T12:40:00.000-05:00

... and acronym.

Nick Gillespie points out some of the aspects of the "Victory" act.

The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul

2003-08-20T18:52:00.000-05:00

Filling his usual post as pessimist at NR, John Derbyshire writes that he doesn't want to live forever. Of course, neither did Bilbo Baggins.

On the Sidebar

2003-08-20T18:01:00.000-05:00

As you can see, I've added the News Box from GeorgeWBush.com. I can't say for certain at this point that I'll vote for Bush, but I don't see any other viable alternatives at the moment. For now I'll have to say I'm going for Bush.

I feel for him

2003-08-20T17:06:00.000-05:00

Once again, Christopher Johnson is explaining some problems of the Anglican church. This time, he does it by illustrating the difference between Western Anglicans and their African counterparts.

Interesting

2003-08-20T16:58:00.000-05:00

David Heddle has an interesting post about "Carnal Christians". I don't really have anything to say about this larger topic, but I did have a thought about this:

No model of the free will is, in my opinion, completely satisfactory. However, as an explanation of the gross features of free will I follow, as I have written about many times, the basic Augustinian, Lutheran, and Edwardsian (and hence Reformed) notion that free will means not only are we free to choose what we want, but in fact we always choose what we want most. ¹

I would agree with David that no model of free will is completely satisfactory, but I question the statement that we always chose what we want the most. I have certainly done things which I didn't think was what I most wanted at the time. Was that just an illusion?

¹I'm aware that David is using this in relation to the Calvinistic ideas of total depravity and election. I'm not trying to address those issues at present.

Good for them

2003-08-20T16:08:00.000-05:00

I just saw this story on Arutz Sheva:

Three Foreign Ministers are visiting in Israel this week - and all of them are adhering to Israel's request not to meet with Yasser Arafat. They represent Japan, Ethiopia, and Nicaragua.

Good for them. Of course there was also this:

Israel has a standing request from European Union leaders not to meet with Arafat, but the EU has so far not agreed.

Shame on them.

Soap Box

2003-08-20T16:04:00.000-05:00

I got this in the mail and I thought I'd share.