Looney
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Grieving in Sichuan.
My heart certainly goes out to these people. With all of the schools built to the same inadequate specification, a generation of children has been lost to the earthquake. The one child rule means that the surviving parents have lost their hope for a family. Thankfully China doesn't have the litigation mentality of the US, but this is still a tragedy that begs for some sort of response. Hopefully the government can take some wise action.
My heart certainly goes out to these people. With all of the schools built to the same inadequate specification, a generation of children has been lost to the earthquake. The one child rule means that the surviving parents have lost their hope for a family. Thankfully China doesn't have the litigation mentality of the US, but this is still a tragedy that begs for some sort of response. Hopefully the government can take some wise action.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Tacitus, regarding the reasons for a revolt in Britain due to the abuses of the Romans. (Annals XIV)
"Prasutagus, king of the Iceni, famed for his long prosperity, had made the emperor his heir along with his two daughters, under the impression that this token of submission would put his kingdom and his house out of the reach of wrong. But the reverse was the result, so much so that his kingdom was plundered by centurions, his house by slaves, as if they were the spoils of war. First, his wife Boudicea was scourged, and his daughters outraged. ... A temple also erected to the Divine Claudius was ever before their eyes, a citadel, as it seemed, of perpetual tyranny. Men chosen as priests had to squander their whole fortunes under the pretense of a religious ceremonial. ..."
Pondering the California Supreme Court's outrage against the citizens of California, this story comes to mind. We still can be thankful that we haven't experienced the degree of abuse that the Romans committed against Britain. Also keep in mind that this is written by Tacitus who was an apologist for the Romans. We usually think of only Christians who were forced to worship the current Roman emperor or accept death. In this case, the Britains were forced to use all of their wealth to worship a Roman emperor who was already dead, given that this was the time of Nero. The end of their revolt was a great slaughter of the Britains, although it seems that Rome decided it had better chose some better governors.
"Prasutagus, king of the Iceni, famed for his long prosperity, had made the emperor his heir along with his two daughters, under the impression that this token of submission would put his kingdom and his house out of the reach of wrong. But the reverse was the result, so much so that his kingdom was plundered by centurions, his house by slaves, as if they were the spoils of war. First, his wife Boudicea was scourged, and his daughters outraged. ... A temple also erected to the Divine Claudius was ever before their eyes, a citadel, as it seemed, of perpetual tyranny. Men chosen as priests had to squander their whole fortunes under the pretense of a religious ceremonial. ..."
Pondering the California Supreme Court's outrage against the citizens of California, this story comes to mind. We still can be thankful that we haven't experienced the degree of abuse that the Romans committed against Britain. Also keep in mind that this is written by Tacitus who was an apologist for the Romans. We usually think of only Christians who were forced to worship the current Roman emperor or accept death. In this case, the Britains were forced to use all of their wealth to worship a Roman emperor who was already dead, given that this was the time of Nero. The end of their revolt was a great slaughter of the Britains, although it seems that Rome decided it had better chose some better governors.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
FAME: A California publicly funded charter school with an Islamic flavor?
Please don't take this as an accusation, but rather a rumor that I heard. The link is for people to check, see, and decide for yourself. Certainly there are Muslims in many of the schools nearby as the head scarves testify. There are also many with whom I enjoy working and spending time together. That intellectual elites have a much greater respect for Islam than Christianity is also well known, and this is post is to explore a bit of the relative status of these religions as judged by the secular aristocrats.
The emphasis at FAME is on multi-cultural aspects including Arabic. Certainly Arabic is an important language for international business these days. It is also a mandatory part of a madrasah. A feature of Islam is the multitude of rules, which have been implemented over the centuries in patterns so that much of the religion manifests itself in forms that easily fit in the category of "culture". A public charter school could, by emphasizing culture, teach much of Islam. The remainder of the Islamic education can be done outside of school so that a thorough Islamic upbringing could be achieved, but primarily paid for by US taxpayers.
Christianity, on the other hand, is primarily about a relationship with Jesus. There are few rules compared to Islam, and the theology is more along the lines of philosophy. Thus, it is considerably more difficult to try re-packaging Christianity as culture.
Please don't take this as an accusation, but rather a rumor that I heard. The link is for people to check, see, and decide for yourself. Certainly there are Muslims in many of the schools nearby as the head scarves testify. There are also many with whom I enjoy working and spending time together. That intellectual elites have a much greater respect for Islam than Christianity is also well known, and this is post is to explore a bit of the relative status of these religions as judged by the secular aristocrats.
The emphasis at FAME is on multi-cultural aspects including Arabic. Certainly Arabic is an important language for international business these days. It is also a mandatory part of a madrasah. A feature of Islam is the multitude of rules, which have been implemented over the centuries in patterns so that much of the religion manifests itself in forms that easily fit in the category of "culture". A public charter school could, by emphasizing culture, teach much of Islam. The remainder of the Islamic education can be done outside of school so that a thorough Islamic upbringing could be achieved, but primarily paid for by US taxpayers.
Christianity, on the other hand, is primarily about a relationship with Jesus. There are few rules compared to Islam, and the theology is more along the lines of philosophy. Thus, it is considerably more difficult to try re-packaging Christianity as culture.
But 6 of 7 California Supreme Court appointees were done by Republicans ...
Wikipedia has some stats here. The chief justice and two others were appointed by Pete Wilson. Governor Conan appointed one more. Deukmajian appointed two and Gray Davis appointed one.
Pete Wilson was famous for being a "moderate" Republican who was formerly mayor of San Diego. "Moderate" generally translates to be pro-abortion, systematically socially liberal, but not necessarily opposed to free-market economics. Certainly Schwarzenegger is socially liberal also. That only leaves two appointees by the conservative Deukmejian. The main thing to note about Pete Wilson, however, is that he is the architect of the collapse of the Republican party in California. Republicans have generally been a coalition of economic and social conservatives. By evicting the social conservatives, the Republicans party imploded and hasn't recovered. This implosion looks set to happen nationally since the Bush clan hasn't been economically conservative and the Republican congress has been happy to compromise on both economics and social policy.
The gay marriage ruling of the California Court shares much in common with Roe v. Wade in that with both rulings, the justices invented "rights" based on the personal moral biases and then blatantly lied in the ruling by claiming that they derived them from the constitution through careful reasoning. This works, of course, because there is no agency to hold them accountable in our republic and there are enough other corrupt intellectuals around to back them up.
One commentator I heard noted that the gay 'marriage' advocates had been winning the debate. This is primarily due to the tireless efforts of anti-Christian theologians working from pulpits and seminaries around the country, but also anti-Christian professors and teachers in secular universities and government schools. With some patience, they might have been able to achieve a legitimate democratic ruling. As things stand, the ruling is clearly a monument to intellectual malpractice in the pattern of Roe v. Wade.
There is a theory that this ruling is to put an end to gender discrimination. From what I have been reading, however, gender discrimination theory is always in the GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered) context. Now in case someone doesn't know, a bisexual has sex with both males and females. This means that a minimum of three people are required for a Bisexual 'marriage' and to not allow three would be discriminatory. So where does the discrimination end? Polyamory? Incest? Bestiality? Paedophilia? The same person who advocates gay marriage will generally protest vehemently that she is not supporting pederasty. Why? Is it because society frowns on pederasty? But didn't we just establish that society's standards are trumped by the principal of no discrimination?
Wikipedia has some stats here. The chief justice and two others were appointed by Pete Wilson. Governor Conan appointed one more. Deukmajian appointed two and Gray Davis appointed one.
Pete Wilson was famous for being a "moderate" Republican who was formerly mayor of San Diego. "Moderate" generally translates to be pro-abortion, systematically socially liberal, but not necessarily opposed to free-market economics. Certainly Schwarzenegger is socially liberal also. That only leaves two appointees by the conservative Deukmejian. The main thing to note about Pete Wilson, however, is that he is the architect of the collapse of the Republican party in California. Republicans have generally been a coalition of economic and social conservatives. By evicting the social conservatives, the Republicans party imploded and hasn't recovered. This implosion looks set to happen nationally since the Bush clan hasn't been economically conservative and the Republican congress has been happy to compromise on both economics and social policy.
The gay marriage ruling of the California Court shares much in common with Roe v. Wade in that with both rulings, the justices invented "rights" based on the personal moral biases and then blatantly lied in the ruling by claiming that they derived them from the constitution through careful reasoning. This works, of course, because there is no agency to hold them accountable in our republic and there are enough other corrupt intellectuals around to back them up.
One commentator I heard noted that the gay 'marriage' advocates had been winning the debate. This is primarily due to the tireless efforts of anti-Christian theologians working from pulpits and seminaries around the country, but also anti-Christian professors and teachers in secular universities and government schools. With some patience, they might have been able to achieve a legitimate democratic ruling. As things stand, the ruling is clearly a monument to intellectual malpractice in the pattern of Roe v. Wade.
There is a theory that this ruling is to put an end to gender discrimination. From what I have been reading, however, gender discrimination theory is always in the GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered) context. Now in case someone doesn't know, a bisexual has sex with both males and females. This means that a minimum of three people are required for a Bisexual 'marriage' and to not allow three would be discriminatory. So where does the discrimination end? Polyamory? Incest? Bestiality? Paedophilia? The same person who advocates gay marriage will generally protest vehemently that she is not supporting pederasty. Why? Is it because society frowns on pederasty? But didn't we just establish that society's standards are trumped by the principal of no discrimination?
Friday, May 16, 2008
Pondering California's Supreme Court ruling on gay 'marriage'.
Sixty years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that laws restricting mixed race couples from marrying were unconstitutional. The current supreme court ruling relied on this as a precedent. Basically, the argument was that the earlier decision trashed the constitution, therefore, we can also make a ruling which trashes the constitution. I should note that I have a special bias towards interracial marriage. History provides us countless examples of such marriages going back to Ruth and Boaz in the Old Testament. Some will argue that there were laws against interracial marriage in the Old Testament. This is true, however, every Biblical scholar I have ever read has taken these prohibitions as a proxy for religion rather than race. That is why the marriages of Ruth and the earlier one of Rahab are honored in the same literature. Again, we should keep in mind that interracial marriage has been around - and honored - for millenia throughout the world, hence, there is a precedent among civilized beings for accepting it.
Unfortunately, the earlier supreme court could not wait for the democratic process to go through and the laws to change. With American servicemen returning from WWII with Asian wives, this was certainly a problem. By overstepping its authority, however, the supreme court really set a precedent for activist judging that was to be abused and repeated. Having grabbed this authority, it is pretty tough to relinquish it.
The other thing to note is that the ruling regarding gay marriage, unlike interracial marriage, has no precedent in civilization. Even ancient societies which accepted homosexuality, like the Greeks and the Babylonians, did not have a gay marriage concept. The notion of gay marriage seems to be exclusively restricted to modern post-Christian societies. Not even communists have promoted it. When civilization has spoke - such as in Proposition 22 which the supreme court overruled - the answer has always been the same: No!
Ephesians 5:24-25 indicates that the relationship of a husband and wife is a symbol of Christ and the Church. Given this, it seems to me clear that the real reason for gay marriage is to desecrate a symbol of Christ and the Church. Part of the ruling asserts that gay marriages should be accorded the same dignity and respect that other marriages have. We are getting awfully close to the point of demanding all residents of California to actively desecrate Christianity - or be prosecuted for a hate crime. It isn't here yet, but the foundation is being established.
Sixty years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that laws restricting mixed race couples from marrying were unconstitutional. The current supreme court ruling relied on this as a precedent. Basically, the argument was that the earlier decision trashed the constitution, therefore, we can also make a ruling which trashes the constitution. I should note that I have a special bias towards interracial marriage. History provides us countless examples of such marriages going back to Ruth and Boaz in the Old Testament. Some will argue that there were laws against interracial marriage in the Old Testament. This is true, however, every Biblical scholar I have ever read has taken these prohibitions as a proxy for religion rather than race. That is why the marriages of Ruth and the earlier one of Rahab are honored in the same literature. Again, we should keep in mind that interracial marriage has been around - and honored - for millenia throughout the world, hence, there is a precedent among civilized beings for accepting it.
Unfortunately, the earlier supreme court could not wait for the democratic process to go through and the laws to change. With American servicemen returning from WWII with Asian wives, this was certainly a problem. By overstepping its authority, however, the supreme court really set a precedent for activist judging that was to be abused and repeated. Having grabbed this authority, it is pretty tough to relinquish it.
The other thing to note is that the ruling regarding gay marriage, unlike interracial marriage, has no precedent in civilization. Even ancient societies which accepted homosexuality, like the Greeks and the Babylonians, did not have a gay marriage concept. The notion of gay marriage seems to be exclusively restricted to modern post-Christian societies. Not even communists have promoted it. When civilization has spoke - such as in Proposition 22 which the supreme court overruled - the answer has always been the same: No!
Ephesians 5:24-25 indicates that the relationship of a husband and wife is a symbol of Christ and the Church. Given this, it seems to me clear that the real reason for gay marriage is to desecrate a symbol of Christ and the Church. Part of the ruling asserts that gay marriages should be accorded the same dignity and respect that other marriages have. We are getting awfully close to the point of demanding all residents of California to actively desecrate Christianity - or be prosecuted for a hate crime. It isn't here yet, but the foundation is being established.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Baking on Mission Peak.
The temperature range was from 95F to 107F according to my gadgets. The wind was fairly consistent, so this wasn't the best conditions for warm temperature acclimation. The picture is from a year or two ago.
The temperature range was from 95F to 107F according to my gadgets. The wind was fairly consistent, so this wasn't the best conditions for warm temperature acclimation. The picture is from a year or two ago.
California Supreme Court: Depravity is our state religion.
The intellectual elites of the supreme court have done what everyone expected.
The intellectual elites of the supreme court have done what everyone expected.
Monday, May 12, 2008
McCain on Global Warming.
This speech is in the more-of-the-same category. We need nuclear power plants which will presumably be built somewhere that environmentalists approve of (Mexico?) and the power shipped around the US with all of the costs and low efficiencies that go with that. We need cap and trade systems to cut corporate emissions, which means capping the jobs in the US and trading them out to other places such as China or Vietnam. There was a bit of China bashing in the debate also. Yes, China pollutes like crazy. Are we going to put tariffs on goods from countries that pollute? We could send the entire world economy into a tailspin to prove we are serious about global warming.
Unfortunately, he completely missed the problem: America's urban sprawl. As America's urban centers grow out of control, the paving over of the US guarantees a vast burning of energy just to get basic goods from A to B, along with the energy to build the infrastructure and the energy to build the vehicles. Having lived in big cities elsewhere, I actually like city living, but in America it is frequently too dangerous, especially for children. But ponder this: If there were a major supply disruption and the US were suddenly forced to use 50% less oil, what would happen?
Having failed to grasp the problem, McCain gives us this: "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears." That is why I am terrified of McCain.
This speech is in the more-of-the-same category. We need nuclear power plants which will presumably be built somewhere that environmentalists approve of (Mexico?) and the power shipped around the US with all of the costs and low efficiencies that go with that. We need cap and trade systems to cut corporate emissions, which means capping the jobs in the US and trading them out to other places such as China or Vietnam. There was a bit of China bashing in the debate also. Yes, China pollutes like crazy. Are we going to put tariffs on goods from countries that pollute? We could send the entire world economy into a tailspin to prove we are serious about global warming.
Unfortunately, he completely missed the problem: America's urban sprawl. As America's urban centers grow out of control, the paving over of the US guarantees a vast burning of energy just to get basic goods from A to B, along with the energy to build the infrastructure and the energy to build the vehicles. Having lived in big cities elsewhere, I actually like city living, but in America it is frequently too dangerous, especially for children. But ponder this: If there were a major supply disruption and the US were suddenly forced to use 50% less oil, what would happen?
Having failed to grasp the problem, McCain gives us this: "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears." That is why I am terrified of McCain.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
The Stanford "Dish". 
Saturday we went on a short hike to the Stanford Dish. What is the Stanford Dist? Donno. Probably a communications system for negotiating surrender with space aliens! Meanwhile, before the Earth is destroyed, it is a beautiful area for a walk!
Saturday we went on a short hike to the Stanford Dish. What is the Stanford Dist? Donno. Probably a communications system for negotiating surrender with space aliens! Meanwhile, before the Earth is destroyed, it is a beautiful area for a walk!
