Saturday, September 03, 2005

Ok, so I lied,
I only thought I was along the first base line. Turns out I was right behind home plate. In the second row. I'll post pictures tomorrow.

Friday, September 02, 2005

Off to Boston
I'm heading up to Boston this afternoon, to catch a game at Fenway—so I won't be blogging the rest of the day. I'll be back tomorrow, however, so don't worry too much.

And if you're curious, here's where my seats will put me, except a little closer to the field:


Some good suggestions
At the very least, they're creative and original.

It's time for this to stop's front page says "Armed gangs attempting rapes, police warn."

That's enough. We've got responsible citizens protecting their property from theft with everything they've got—and now these horrific creatures we're calling "looters" are trying to commit rapes. I think we all knew that it was only a matter of time, but now it has to stop.

Chris Muir makes a suggestion that I find irrevocably logical:

Honestly, it's time for the troops to move in with the big guns, with the authority to use them. These animals need to be stopped at all costs.

And you know what? Governor Blanco seems to get it:

At a press conference Thursday night, she said that 300 soldiers from the Arkansas National Guard arrived in New Orleans fresh from Iraq and are under orders to restore order from the "hoodlums."

She said of the soldiers: "They have M-16s and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot to kill . . . and I expect they will.
Good for her. I just hope these poor troops, returning from one hell on earth only to find another, all complete this mission safely so they can start rebuilding their communities.

Thursday, September 01, 2005

Or, you could save us the trouble...
The AP reports that:

Scores of detainees have started a new hunger strike at the U.S. prison for terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, demanding to be put on trial or released, human rights lawyers said Wednesday.
But see, if you starve to death, we don't have to do either one. (Via GOP Vixen).

I'm with her
Peggy Noonan outlines the good, the bad, and those who should be shot.

And she's 100% accurate.

I would only add that anyone trying to win either votes or political points on this issue falls in that third category—no matter what side of the aisle they may prefer.

Clarification: posts, like this one, that aim to straighten out the record rather than score points fall into the first category.

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Red Cross Banner
Wondering how I got that Red Cross banner at the top of my blog?

Via my friend The Man over at GOP and the City, I made my way over to see Jim at bRight & Early, where I learned the following:

If you would like to add an American Red Cross donation ribbon like the one at the top of this page here is how you can do it:

Save one of these images and upload it to your server. [Note: Click on the images below for a bigger version of the image to view or save—click here or on the banner above to donate.]

To put the ribbon on the right side of your page place this bit of code in your css style sheet:

.banner {float:right; position:absolute; top:0px; right:0px;}

And place this right below the <body> tag:

<div class="banner">
<img src="http://YOUR_IMAGE_LOCATION/arc_rib.gif" usemap="#banner" border="0" style="width:200;height:200;" /><map name="banner"><area shape="poly" COORDS="16,1,57,0,199,142,199,185" href="" alt="Donate to the Red Cross Hurricane Relief Effort" title="Donate to the Red Cross Hurricane Relief Effort" /></map>

To put the ribbon on the left side of your page place this bit of code in your css style sheet:

.banner {float:left; position:absolute; top:0px; left:0px;}

And place this right below the <body> tag:

<div class="banner">
<img src="http://YOUR_IMAGE_LOCATION/arc_rib_left.gif" usemap="#banner" border="0" style="width:200;height:200;" /><map name="banner"><area shape="poly" COORDS="142,1,186,1,2,183,0,139" href="" alt="Donate to the Red Cross Hurricane Relief Effort" title="Donate to the Red Cross Hurricane Relief Effort" /></map>
If you need help customizing it so it looks right, feel free to email me and I'd be happy to help.

If you want to make a banner for a charity other than the Red Cross, make your way over to bRight & Early, scroll down, and follow instructions.

Channeling Professor Reynolds
Heh. Ouch.

I'm going to repeat that, because that's the sort of thing that bears repeating
Fans of Lewis Black may recognize that headline. If you do, you may have some idea of what's coming.

A while back, I posted about Intelligent Design, and why I think "there is room to believe in both a creator God and Darwinian evolution."

In short order, I was challenged me, asserting, effectively, that since the Bible is the word of God, you have to believe that it's the word of God. Really, I'm not kidding—his entire argument uses the idea that, because the Bible says something happened, they happened; and because they happened, the Bible is accurate. It's a beautiful piece of circular logic. He asked:

How can this be so when the Bible specifically states that God created the heavens and the earth and everything within them in 6 days and on the seventh day he rested? There is no mention of evolution and it does not say "God created Man by way of many other species who came about through random genetic mutations influenced by a constantly changing environment". Had that been the case, that is the account we would have read in Bible class - the word of God Himself.
You can read my response here, if you like, in which I draw attention to a few serious problems with the Bible (where did Cain's wife come from; how did Noah fit 1.8 million species of insect on his ark, let alone all the large mammals). This was all 3.5 weeks ago.

Well, I finally got another response from my challenger. I will now post, in its entirety, his response (in which he ignores my question about Cain, and completely dodges the point of my question about Noah), followed by what I've already posted in reply to that. First, let's hear from Mr. Swipe:

"So, although He revealed his actions to man, and man wrote them down as best he could—it was inevitable that man would screw up. Some concepts got jumbled, God was forced to use a concept of time to describe his creation of the earth, despite the fact that God most likely operates outside the confines of time—things got mixed up."

Now hold on a darn moment here. Did I read this right? You're saying that an omniscient divinity would have difficulty explaining His word to a creature He had made in his own image? "Some concepts got jumbled" - yeah, sure thing they did, buster. "Thou shalt not kill"...Heck, I'm really having trouble with that one ....could ya run it by me again a little slower?

Seems the only thinking getting jumbled 'round here is that in the poster's brain. You either believe it, or you don't. You're gettin' woolier than a lamb with split ends here, young fella. " For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

Yep, there's plenty room for doubting in that.

Praying for you,

Now, I admit, I could have done better. I made it sound like God was incapable of explaining things to man—when what I intended to say was that man is incapable of understanding God. I apologize for that. However, Mr. Swipe is still an idiot. Here's what I wrote in response:
First, do me a favor Bob, and stop praying for me. If I'm going to hell, that's my business, not yours, you arrogant prick. Whatever happened to the sin of vanity? You've got it all figured out, eh? So... what keeps you from being omniscient?

The fact of the matter is, yes, God is omniscient. Man, unfortunately is not. Therefore, there are concepts out there, by definition, that God can understand and man cannot. It's simple logic, and if you can't follow it, well, then I can't help you.

Now, the next step is realizing that man's comprehension of the universe has grown steadily throughout human history. For centuries, even since recorded history began, man had an extremely limited view of the world around him. He believed that the immediate area was the extent of the world.

Next, let's address the Flood directly. These are things God said to Noah, correct? And they are recorded in the bible in the third person, correct? (i.e. not "God said to me," but "God said to Noah.")

So, when God said this, did he do it publicly? No, he really didn't. He told Noah, and Noah alone. So who is the guy that wrote it? Must be a descendant of Noah's, right, since Noah and his family repopulated the Earth?

In other words, that story was recorded by someone who wasn't there. Now, either God told him the story, or he heard it passed down from his ancestors.

If he heard it passed down from his ancestors, then he would have heard about people who could only say that everything they could see had been destroyed by a flood—seems the like the whole world to man of that age.

If God told him, then maybe God only said that he destroyed the whole world. You know, he wanted to put "the fear of God" into this guy and whoever read his book. WAIT! GOD WOULDN'T LIE ABOUT THAT!

Oh really? Who says God wouldn't lie? Where in the Bible does it say that God is always honest? Oh, and by the way, this is the guy that just wiped every species off the face of the earth—literally billions and billions of creatures—according to you. You think He's above a little fib?

My only point in all of this is that you should stop being so certain that you know everything. Life is about experience, and gaining knowledge. If you shut down what you know, and stop thinking about your faith, that's your choice—but don't expect me to do the same.

I have, in my life, doubted that God even exists. And when I started asking the questions, when I started analyzing the myths and dividing it from the truth, I came into a much more spiritual place in my life. I am a devoted Christian—and if I don't stone my brother for wearing clothes of two different weaves (remember, word of God!), you'll have to excuse me.
I welcome more comments, questions. But if you want to try and prove to me that the Bible is the direct word of God, save your breath—it can't be proven, and I'll never believe it.

God's way too omniscient to have written some of the contradictory crap that can be found in there.

After all my efforts at anonymity, it comes down to this
I've worked really hard in the past few months to eliminate any trace of who I actually am. Today, by not citing the blog (and giving me that covetted InstaLanche), Glenn Reynolds has reduced me to saying: Yes, I am the one who sent him the link in this post.

Originalists vs. "Living Document"ists
Watching Bravo tonight, I found a perfect illustration of the difference between activist judges and constitutionalist judges. From The West Wing episode entitled 'The Short List':

BARTLET:Peyton, do I have the right to put on an ugly plaid jacket and a loud polka-dot tie and walk down Main Street?
BARTLET:Where in the Constitution is that right guaranteed?
HARRISON:First Amendment. Freedom of expression.
BARTLET:What about the use of cream in my coffee? Surely, there can be no free speech argument to be made there?
BARTLET:So you have no objection to the state of New Hampshire passing a law banning use of cream in coffee?
HARRISON:I would have strong objection, Mr. President, as I like cream as well, but I would have no Constitutional basis to strike down the law when you brought this case to the Supreme Court.
BARTLET:As I lose the votes of coffee drinkers everywhere.
The problem is, there is no right to put cream in one's coffee. You'd think liberals, of all people, who have no problem eliminating one's right to own a grenade launcher would recognize that.

During World War II, cream and all dairy products were strictly rationed. In short, people were unable to put cream in their coffee, by government order. Are liberals really arguing that government rationing is unconstitutional? They'd have to be, if there is a right to cream in one's coffee.

Just because one should be allowed to do something, and ideally they would, does not mean that action is a right protected by the constitution. If you want a right to put cream in your coffee, then you'd better amend the constitution to protect it. Oh, and find some way to prevent God from wiping out dairy cows the world over—for if He did, it would certainly be ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

OK, I'll Bite
OK, Cindy, I'll accept your premise that only people who support the Iraq War should be serving in it. I'll take it even further.

I want you to refund every single penny of my taxes that was not spent on the military, public roads, police/fire/ambulance protection, or schools (and I want specific parts of that back, too). You like NPR and the NEA, so you fund them—I'll pay for the CIA and the FBI.

You see, it doesn't work that way in a democracy. But you're not interested in democracy—you want only your voice to be heard. You think that yours is the only acceptable position, so I have to ask: what makes us fascists?

Furthermore: have you ever seen a more Orwellian effort to control the media's message than this?

Monday, August 29, 2005

Great if you're the dolphin, sucks if you're the tuna
In the line of Dolphin-safe tuna, we receive more evidence that environmentalists only care about saving the cute animals:

The seals look up with sad eyes, some too tired or sick to lift their heads. Some have been abandoned by their mothers, others are malnourished. A few have been injured by sharks looking for a seal pup snack.

While the sick animals await treatment, workers and volunteers blend fish frappes for the young pups. With five feedings a day, they consume 500 pounds (225 kilograms) of fish daily.
In other words, not only are they killing 500 pounds worth of fish every day for these seals, they are grinding them into smoothies.

It's a good thing those seals weren't born as fish...

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Give me a break. And a medium fries.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is suing several manufacturers and distributors of french fries and potato chips, demanding that they warn consumers about a possible carcinogen contained in fried starchy foods:

"I know from personal experience that, while these snacks may not be a necessary part of a healthy diet, they sure taste good," Lockyer said in a statement. "But I, and all consumers, should have the information we need to make informed decisions about the food we eat."
Give me a break. If you don't know that french fries are unhealthy, then you don't deserve a warning. This is just absurd.