Nuclear Arms: The Ultimate Anti-Life Issue

Some take WIFC! Wrote about it on the Epstein.

"omg! pam, do you think that means 32 people are to the 'sacrificed' to god? or are they to be 'given' to eleazar?"

They're "the Lord's" portion, so I assume that they're given to the priest, and he's supposed to get them to the lord - i.e., sacrifice them.

I suspect that the animals provided a few priestly meals on the way, but the people...?

You're right, though, all of the killing is reprehensible.

And I agree with your assessment of the NT.

omg! pam, do you think that means 32 people are to the "sacrificed" to god? or are they to be "given" to eleazar?

verse 41 says, "So Moses gave the tribute which was the LORD’s heave offering to Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses."

(now, i don't know what eleazer is supposed to have done with the people - they were infidels....)

even if he was to kill them, i suppose it is horrible, but how different is it really from moses and joshua et. al. just killing those 32 people, among the many thousands, during the course jihad?

farnaz,
here's my opinion, if you still care, about the grand theme of the NT.

during the first century a.d., people came up with a new god based on the god of the ancient jewish scripture. this new god’s plan is outlined in his sequel, the new testament.

who among us has not heard john 3:16: “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that we could have eternal life”?

lovely. first of all, these are his rules. he could have made any rules he wanted, and he came up with this?! this is the plan?! it is absurd. he has to kill his son to placate himself. yahweh sent jesus so jesus could somehow absorb the sins we committed (and will commit) due to our sinful nature – which itself is a curse from yahweh. then we could sacrifice (kill for god) jesus’ sin-soaked body back to yahweh thus allowing him to pardon us so he can offer us eternal life, if we believe this convoluted story. it is a terrible plan.

this, after he sent us a creation story we would later find to be false, flooded the world, confused our languages, demanded killing things for atonement, and mandated genocide in his name. if Jesus somehow symbolizes hope and goodness, that’s great. if Jesus was actually sent by god to be crucified and resurrected, we have a sick, twisted, extremely mysterious god.

secondly, had he actually sacrificed his son, jesus would be dead, or in hell suffering eternal damnation for our sins. (better still, jesus would still be alive and preaching – a 2000-year old medical marvel, and a testament to god’s power.)

god’s sacrifice was much less than that of the mother whose son was killed in iraq today: her son is never coming back to her. jesus is now safely with yahweh and the holy spirit, in heaven, while we patiently, but eagerly, await their promised apocalypse.

What the hell are you talking about?
----------------
Since you can't seem to leave me alone, since I won't continue with this nonsense, I was suggesting another topic, although I'm logging off now.

'Night Kiddies.

Or this - Numbers 31:31-40:
31And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

32And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,

33And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,

34And threescore and one thousand asses,

35And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

36And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:

37And the LORD'S tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

38And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and twelve.

39And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and one.

40And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons.

farnaz,
sorry, i didn't mean to "pile on". you have left us alone over there, for the most part, but then you made that statement about "no "infidel" in the tanakh. i'll leave you alone (but i am still wondering how you can think deut 13:6-9 is a "wretched translation").

farnaz,
"I was and am talking about texts."

ok, excellent! let's talk texts. you have called this a "wretched translation" of deut 13:6-9:

"If your BROTHER, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and serve OTHER GODS,'...you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to PUT HIM TO DEATH..."

please, explain where the translators went wrong. why is this not disgusting?

here's another one. it's an actual HUMAN SACRIFICE in the ot.

we all know the case of abraham’s almost-sacrifice of isaac. lesser known is the case of the actual sacrifice of jephthah’s daughter (judges 11:30-40). to refresh your memory:

jephthah makes a deal with god: if god will let him defeat the ammonites, when he returns from battle he will sacrifice as a burnt offering “whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me.” god does his part and jephthah slaughters the ammonites. (hooray!)

when he gets home his daughter (we never learn her name) comes dancing out the door to greet her father, and though it makes him sad, he “carried out his vow” and killed her.

that's disgusting too.

"I just finished reading two articles on urban sprawl, Pam, a phenomenon about which you undoubtedly know more than I, not irrelevant to religion, but I wouldn't want to go there.
I guess it's not up for discussion, so, briefly, one article is by an environmentalist, the other by an organization called PERC, whose precise agenda I'm trying to figure out. At first glance, I don't see evidence that they are a developers' association."

What the hell are you talking about?

"I nevertheless resisted in kind response until you and Walter started pursuing me here, after asking me not to post on Epstein's."

You can't be serious! The posts are dated, you know.

"all this drama, paranoia, and multiple personality disorder" was in reference to all the fake posts. Are you admitting that you posted them?

And the translation?

I just finished reading two articles on urban sprawl, Pam, a phenomenon about which you undoubtedly know more than I, not irrelevant to religion, but I wouldn't want to go there.

I guess it's not up for discussion, so, briefly, one article is by an environmentalist, the other by an organization called PERC, whose precise agenda I'm trying to figure out. At first glance, I don't see evidence that they are a developers' association.

And, again, I'm not going to go through all the posts seeking out personal insults, ad hom nonsense, etc. In reply to endless restatements of the issue, the privileging of one "sacred" text, I received accusations, etc., from Arminius, Walter, and MaryCunningham. Obviously in Rome, I nevertheless resisted in kind response until you and Walter started pursuing me here, after asking me not to post on Epstein's.

Here is one example, in which I'm associated with a variety of maladies, and in which you request that I not post on Epstein's thread.

"Farnaz, seriously, please leave us alone on this thread.

We came here to avoid all this drama, paranoia, and multiple personality disorder - to have a quiet discussion with Peter.

Thanks."

Posted by: Pamsm | October 8, 2009 11:53 PM
------------------------------------
Again,

I agreed not to post on Epstein's thread, provided you and would not post on Jacoby's. Yet here you are chasing after me, the blogger you sought to exile.
---------------------------
How much clearer can I make it to you?

I did not blog on Epstein's thread out of interest in dueling sacred texts, or the like, although there is a place for that. I was interested in a discussion atheism vs. "belief."

Again, no one is defending Christianity here. We’re talking about texts.
--------------------
I was and am talking about texts. Arminius is in the mix. No, you don't get to alter the facts.

Farnaz: “Arminius, you, and Walter, have not only launched ad hominem attacks, repeatedly, but continue blindly to ignore the issue: You cannot hold one sacred text above criticism while attacking those you don't like.”

No, you don’t get to throw Arminius into the mix – the conversation about New and Old Testaments in the Christian bible has been among you, me, and Walter. Please provide examples of ad hominem attacks on my part – or Walter’s. I can provide dozens of your insults. Further, neither Walter nor I have been holding the NT “above criticism.” We have said only that the tone of the text is different. It is. The text itself is what we were discussing – not the interpretation that some have given it.

Farnaz: “I'm not going to debate Tanakh with you. You have no knowledge of ancient Hebrew, none of Aramaic, none of methods of reading.”

This seems to be a favorite tactic of yours. When pinned down, you aver that whomever you are arguing with is simply too illiterate/uneducated/stupid to ever be able to understand what you understand. If an innocuous translation of Devarim 13 exists, surely you can point me to it. I don’t need to know Aramaic or ancient Hebrew to read a translation. Also, I gave you translations from two Jewish Web sites. I suppose that the people who made those translations are also unqualified…? Who does that leave – you?

Farnaz: “I'm tempted to post some ‘NT’ filth, along with a pastiche of citations calling it for what it is, but that would only prolong this greatly unwanted dialogue.”

Go ahead. No one is defending the NT. But be sure to give text, not interpretation.

Farnaz: “You can continue ignoring the issue in the same anti-intellectual way that you have.”

More insults.

Farnaz: “Again, you cannot wage an argument on behalf of atheism vilifying Tanakh and Quoran, while holding the ‘NT’ sacred. For one thing, it's illogical. For another, too many dead Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, Africans, et al, have died in the wake of the ‘NT's’ publication.”

Again, no one is defending Christianity here. We’re talking about texts.

Hello Schaum,

I do not know if anyone is still posting on this thread, but could not help throwing in here a bit.

I liked your post linking shamanism withthe blood sacrifice of Jesus, it's metaphoric purpose and intent, and the effectiveness of this metaphor in cultures that are related to shamanic worldview as opposed to present day society, divorced from shamanic perspectives.

There are several places that I disagree with you, one of the biggest being your tying of blood sacrifice to shamanism as a constant. Although shamanic paths generally hew to the concept a prayer sent heavenward needing to be 'charged' with 'mana', it is in no way universally required to be blood sacrifice that is the source of mana. Prayer can be powered by any number of things or essences. Blood sacrifice certainly became popular, since deep in history and almost exclusively in certain tribes, but it is just a form or medium that is chosen in the ritualistic enactment of prayer.

Indeed, some cultures see the movement toward blood sacrifice as being a further devolution from connection to "heaven" or the Divine. As example, common belief holds that the Native American Sundance is a derivation of blood sacrifice as a ceremonial enactment of personal and tribal prayer and rejuvenation.

Piercing Sundancers believe that you must be 'pierced', (see A Man Called Horse), to the Tree of Life as symbolic representation of our requisite sacrifice and pain in the journey of physical form. Sweet Medicine Sundancers believe that one needs not 'give blood' to live life, or to interact with the Great Spirit. They believe that the movement toward blood letting amounts to a human distancing from their source in the Great Spirit and a choice toward pain and suffering in the human condition.

As a comment on your later thought that non-shamanic cultures have no real understanding of blood sacrifice and so the metaphor of Jesus and Resurrection is a bit of a leap. These things all can resonate in human consciousness, even if the culture has no apparent continuity with them. Our awareness and metaphoric conceptualization of ideals runs deep.

Schaum,

Great post! Greek Shamanism, yes, very much so! I'd thought not to bother, but good for
you. The whole Christian testament is a melange of Greek and regional religions, with some warped elements of Judaism here and there.

Particularly transparent are the stick figure Pharisees, a Greek literary convention of the period. Too the best of my knowlege, though, the "NT," alone, took the leap into moral insanity, declaring God as the accuser of mankind (the equivalent of Satan), engineering a man-God sacrifice at Human's hands, announcing that "belief" in the man-God assured salvation, disbelief, damnation.

Armed with this hideous doctrine, some humans have walked for centuries knee deep in the blood and bone of others, whom they need not consider human.

Also note, Farnaz, that you are the only one in this conversation making ad hominem attacks on others. Does that seem OK to you?
-----------------------
I kind of thought that by using the word "blusterer" I would have pre-empted the above, but I haven't, quite clearly,

Arminius, you, and Walter, have not only launched ad hominem attacks, repeatedly, but continue blindly to ignore the issue: You cannot hold one sacred text above criticism while attacking those you don't like.

I'm not going to debate Tanakh with you. You have no knowledge of ancient Hebrew, none of Aramaic, none of methods of reading.

I'm tempted to post some "NT" filth, along with a pastiche of citations calling it for what it is, but that would only prolong this greatly unwanted dialogue.

You can continue ignoring the issue in the same anti-intellectual way that you have. Frankly, that's up to you. I had naively thought that by calling the issue to Walter's attention, he might yet get it. I was certain you would. But you cannot.

Again, you cannot wage an argument on behalf of atheism vilifying Tanakh and Quoran, while holding the "NT" sacred. For one thing, it's illogical. For another, too many dead Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, Africans, et al, have died in the wake of the "NT's" publication.

You asked me not to post on Epstein's thread. In return for refraining (not difficult after the nonsense), I requested that you leave us alone on Jacoby's thread.

You cannot do this. Neither can Walter. You're here, on the new Jacoby thread. ...

Do you find that a bit strange? Even stranger than being able to address the very simple issue I raised on Epstein's thread, twice here?

I have no wish to interfere with your Christianity, Christianism, cultural or observant. Kindly, leave us alone.

"There is nothing so dangerous as a blusterer. Go back to skimming science for dummies."

Well you should certainly know. Present it, then.

It's not here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Deuter13.html

Nope, not here, either: http://www.tanakh.org/chapter_dv_13_hebrewenglish.html

So whose translation might it be that makes the chapter innocuous? Yours?

Also note, Farnaz, that you are the only one in this conversation making ad hominem attacks on others. Does that seem OK to you?

The idea that Jesus' death was a universally effective blood sacrifice (now either magically re-enacted in the "Mass" or otherwise memorialized in the Eucharistic ritual of bread/body and wine/blood) depends upon ideas that belong to the ancient "primitive" and popular culture of ritual magic (commonly referred to as "shamanism") and its traditional ritual blood sacrifice of animals (and even human beings). In shamanistic cultures (and all the cultures of ritual sacrifice, all of which developed from the "primitive" base that we may, for the sake of simplicity, refer to by the general term "shamanism"), prayers are offered Up (either to God or to various deities in the "air", or in the space between "Heaven" and Earth). The participants in such cultures believe that prayers cannot ascend unless they are carried up by "mana", or the life-force of freshly sacrificed animals (or even humans). That is to say, from such a point of view, every time a prayer (or request) is offered Up, it must be "delivered" by the released (and naturally ascending) energy of a blood sacrifice, or else it will not "arrive". Likewise, the "mana". (or blood-energy) sent Up with a prayer functions as a kind of "self-addressed envelope", to convey the resultant blessing (or the prayer's "answer") back to the sender.

Such ideas were common to both the old ritual religion of Israel and the popular Hellenistic religions that existed at the time of Jesus and early Christianity. Therefore, the death (and the apparently miraculous, or magical, "disappearance") of Jesus, coupled with all kinds of "reports" and visions and dreams and hopes, eventually became an "official" interpretation of Jesus' death as a blood sacrifice, not only effective, but universally effective (such that "faith" in the Spiritual Power, or Great "Mana", released by Jesus' death, "Resurrection", and "Ascension" would, in any and every moment, grant any worshipper direct access to God in "Heaven", above, without the necessity to go through any other rituals of purification or blood sacrifice).

Thus, Jesus was "officially" interpreted to be a human sacrifice that grants everyone the "Mana", for effective prayer (or direct access to the "Heavenly" Blessings of God). It is obvious that most people living in modern post-industrial societies would not claim it is necessary to kill animals (or humans) in order to provide an energy-vehicle (to and from God) for prayer-requests. Therefore, it must be asked, in a non-shamanistic culture (or a culture that has lost all sense of either the necessity or the meaning of the process of ritual sacrifice), what is the "meaning" of the death of Jesus? Without the shamanistic mind, or the ritual "idea", the death of Jesus can no longer be understood as a sacrifice at all (whether effective or ineffective), and his death is, therefore, simply a death.

She can't answer that, because there is no other translation.
-------------------
There is nothing so dangerous as a blusterer. Go back to skimming science for dummies.

True, Christians killing Jews is not the only bloodshed. There is Christians killing Muslims, animists, pagans, atheists, Hindus, etc.
----------
Don't go away mad, just go away. Try to get Peter to chat with you. Someone will. Get!

She can't answer that, because there is no other translation.

Two thousand years of unprecedented bloodshed??? Hardly unprecedented. And Christians killing Jews is not the only bloodshed in that 2000 years, either. Christians have killed other Christians (of the wrong denominations) and many others during that time. So have non-Christians. And they've done it for land, for power, for money, for all sorts of trumped up reasons, and for no reason at all.

Walter's original point, with which I agree, is that the NT does not instruct people to kill other people (and animals) as the OT (or whatever you want to call it - that's what it is called in the Christian bible) does repeatedly.

That doesn't make the NT all good - the idea of one person dying horribly for the "sins" of others is reprehensible. Slavery and submission of women to men are espoused in its pages. I certainly don't hold it "sacred."

I had to suffer through Christian church services as a child - never once did I hear the minister instructing that Christians should hate Jews, let alone kill them. I don't think any Christian church teaches such a thing, unless maybe it's Mel Gibson's own.

Still, some sick people have used the supposed trial of Jesus before Pilate to justify doing what they wanted to do anyway for other reasons. If it hadn't been that, it would have been something else.

When people start drawing tribal lines - whatever the perceived differences - they aren't very nice to one another. Religion (as per the very good article you linked to) facilitates it.

ok. i'll "see" you later. i'll take your non-response to mean that the translation i had was basically correct.

please go away, walter

farnaz,
what's the proper translation for deut 13:6-9?

The entirety of the "NT" (sic) is two thousand years of unprecedented bloodshed.

walter and crony, please leave us alone on this thread.

"what's the proper translation for deut 13:6-9?"

Shoot, why limit it to verses 6-9? The entirety of Devarim Chapter 13 is vile.

farnaz,
what's the proper translation for deut 13:6-9?

and i quoted the tanakh saying essentially, "kill you brother if he's an infidel."
-----------------
No, you quoted a wretched translation, one among many.

i've conceeded that there's "bad stuff" in the NT. i've just said i don't think it's as bad as parts of the OT and koran. can we move on?
--------------------
I think the "NT" is uniquely dangerous, as has been born out by the last two thousand years of history. HOwever, that is neither here nor there.

The single simple issue remains: You can hold no "sacred" text sacrosanct if you are waging an argument in support of atheism.

To do so is to undermine whatever validity your position might have, in the interest of bigotry.

For the atheistically (and, perhaps, religiously inclined), here is a Zizek piece worth reading:

"Defenders of the Faith."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

farnaz,
just saying something (over and over) doesn't make it true.

you said, (again)
"The word "inifdel" does not appear in Tanakh, nothing approaching it."

and i quoted the tanakh saying essentially, "kill you brother if he's an infidel."

why the denial?

i've conceeded that there's "bad stuff" in the NT. i've just said i don't think it's as bad as parts of the OT and koran. can we move on?

I posted this and the comment that precedes it on Epstein's thread. Sorry about this nonsense, but until the middle schooler agrees to remain in the classroom, there's nothing for it.
------------------------
And, Walter,

Again, just as a matter of principle--you can do what you like.

Vilifying Quoran, finding it illiterate and laughable as you do, finding the Tanakh "cartoonish," "disgusting," while keeping the "NT" sacrosanct nullifies your atheistic arguments.

Your comments on Quoran I've taken you to task for before, Walter, many times. I'd think about all this, were I you, but, then, of course, I'm not.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | October 9, 2009 1:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

WAlter, I asked you in the nicest possible way to leave us alone on the Jacoby thread, promising in return not to post here. This you cannot do.

Re: Your post

The word "inifdel" does not appear in Tanakh, nothing approaching it.

On the "NT" (sic)

The NT is a throwback to pre-Judaic times, along with a melange of imports from other regional religions.

It posits a deity so viscious as not only to reinstate human sacrifice, which should have been ended for all time with the binding of the thirty-five-year-old Isacc, but to create circumstances in which human will make that sacrifice. Human is then held hostage for eternity for this bloody torture. Adding to the moral insanity, the sacrifice of Seth, Osiris, Marduk, Jesus, whatever, is of course divine in nature.

Further, the essentialist document particularly holds "the Jews," who would have known nothing whatsoever of the Jesus myth, particularly guilty.

The confusion between existence and essence, which Mary Queen of Nada, thinks she understands, is part of that ritual cannibalism, also regional, which no Jew could have participated in. Said disgusting ritual led to the slaughter of millions. Superstitions persist among some Christians, abound in the Middle East on "The Jews," torturing the host (torturing a cracker--Ritz?), and killing children to get their gentile blood.

Of course, the Christians have nothing to worry about since they have "grace," very, very cheap grace. Allows them to keep everything, follow no one, nothing, free people.

Do what you will but believe in the corpse and you shall be saved. Do great works but don't believe and your damned.

As Hinudus say on that bit of moral psychosis: nice.

So, to use your words, what is "disgusting"? What is "cartoonish"?

please, just leave us alone on Jacoby's thread.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | October 9, 2009 1:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

My my but it does not take long for the adolescents to take over the joint. And just a wee bit ago I thought I saw adults in here....

Hmmmm, one might say....

farnaz, you said,
"As for "infidels,"....they don't occur in Tanakh. You did, however, label that text "disgusting.""

oh come on. of course there are infidels in the tanakh. are you quibbling over the term "infidels"? they may say "unbeliever" or "idolator" or similar, depending on the translation and so forth, but the concept is certainly there. and infidels are not to be suffered gladly. the penalty for "other gods" is DEATH.

in the TEXT, i'm talking about the TEXT here, the tanakh, say starting with

deut13:6
“If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’....you shall surely KILL him;"

yes, i find that disgusting.

josiah was famous for restoring proper worship - that meant killing "infidels" and destroying their places of worship. remember when moses went through the camp and killed a bunch of infidels?

i find that disgusting. and there is nothing like it in the NT. i'm sure you know all this. that's why it's puzzling that you'd deny it. again, i'm talking about the TEXTS, scripture - NOT jews and christians.

if you want to call the bread and wine thing "cannibalism", well, ok. i don't know, i just see bread and wine. i suppose it's symbolic cannibalism or something. it's kind of weird, but it doesn't hurt anybody really, i mean, it's bread...and wine...

sure, jesus is a human(ish) sacrifice. and it's kind of twisted tale of shifting blame. we're punished for adam's sin, then jesus is punished for our sins. nobody is punished for his own sins. but anyway, that's a fairy tale. jesus is dead now.

frankly in today's world, i think christians and jews behave pretty well, generally speaking - it's many muslims who have real problems with "other gods" these days... given the hatred and attacks against them, i think israel has been unbelievably moral and restrained in responding. (i wish they'd stop builing settlements, though...)

Schaum,

I find this thread-hopping extremely juvenile, but, hopefully, Walter and cronies will stay where they are now to discuss Jewish ritual, the "cartoonish," "barbaric" "OT," the hilarious Quoran, and leave us alone. I hope Affected Uncle Mod will take his demented self to their thread.

I'll be in touch.
---------------------

Farnaz, seriously, please leave us alone on
this thread.

We came here to avoid all this drama, paranoia, and multiple personality disorder - to have a quiet discussion with Peter.

Thanks.

Posted by: Pamsm | October 8, 2009 11:53 PM
----------------------------
Seriously, I would have had the jabbering not continued. Also, Walter posted on Jacoby's thread, complaining to me, forcing me to respond yet again.

Seriously, leave us alone on Jacoby's thread. I said as much to Walter, re all his cronies, not just you.

Leave us alone.

Oh, and Walter, keep your condederates over there with you. Take the Affected Uncle MOderate along. Hurry up, now, dear.

Farnaz:

No, definitely not signing off. I have a houseguest for a few days...spending time with him.

Want one of my email addresses? Organmajor@hotmail.com. Feel free.

Dear Moderate,

I am not sure our doyenne of deconstruction understands what an independent variable is.

Sometime--not now--you might explain.

Best
MC

Posted by: Mary_Cunningham | October 8, 2009 3:54 AM
----------------------------
I'm not sure that Mary Queen of the lavatory understands what "understands" means. (Too much beer mixed in with the beer, I suspect)

Schaum,

You are a wondrously talented fellow. I posted to you on the other thread yesterday. I'm not going to be blogging here as frequently as I had been. Don't want to lose touch with you.

If you decide to sign off, post that, please.

Farnaz

Walter IFC,

it started with your weird "accusation" of me not being as critical of christian scripture as i have been of jewish and islamic scripture, and the implication that i am either a closet christian or an anti-semite (and i suppose anti-arab or something).

i explained:
1)the nt is less "cartoonish" than the ot (and the koran).
2)the nt has no "kill the infidels" parts.

the nt just has less (but is not entirely free of) bad science and bad morals. as i've mentioned, i haven't read jewish scripture other than as presented in the ot, so if there's some "good stuff" in there i'd be happy to read it. of course christians, like members of just about every religion and non-religion, have done terrible things over the ages.
-----------------------------------------
Here you are, hopping from thread to thread, in hopes of garnering allies, hardly Caesar crossing the Rubicon. (Yawn)

First, I accused you neither of being a closet Christian nor of being an antisemite. Rather than address the issues I raised, it was you who kept accusing me of casting stones I never had in my hand, just as you're doing now.

Second, I replied quite clearly to your comments about the Tanakh, giving extensive evidence about the fiction, the dark, dark elements of the "NT" (sic), and its historically tragic consequences.

Your reply? MOre accusations of name-calling. Never once did you consider the evidence. Even now, you say you "explained" that "OT" (sic) and Quoran are less "cartoonish" as though what you were saying were fact. As for "infidels,"I don't recall you mentioning them, just as well since they don't occur in Tanakh. You did, however, label that text "disgusting."
Disgusting. You've said much worse about Quroan.

I'm not going to reprise my "NT" critique; readers are invited to visit the thread and read it all for themselves, but hroughout, neither you nor your cronies dealt with the single issue raised repeatedly. Either no sacred texts are up for grabs or all are. If jokes are made about one, a favorite pastime of yours, jokes are made about all.

As for your complaints about other bloggers, tell them, not me. I'm not your go-between. If you've got problems with Schaum or Onofrio, address your "concerns" to them.
-----------------
You write:

"please leave us alone over there."

I'd intended to before I saw your missive. Still plan to, providing you post here that you will leave us alone on Susan's thread.
-----------------------------
I LEAVE WITH this bit of wisdom of Walter in Falls Church, this addressed to Mary Cunningham.

mary,
"PS: if I cut off bits of my baby boy's penis and said it was a religious ceremony, where would that put me in the disgusting stakes?"

;-)

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | October 7, 2009 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Moderate, I won't say don't go away mad since, insane, there is no other way for you to go. Your writing is atrocious, testimony to your muddled thinking, pomposity, and bluster. I want nothing to do with you since composing in the theme of stick figures is tiresome.

Get over yourself. You never made it to the talented tenth, never will.

The brutal truth cannot be beat,
illusions, though, can be a treat.

):^(

(:^U

:^)

daffy duck! that's who it was...

or was it sylvester who said "that's despicable"?

farnaz,
what the hell was that yesterday?!

peter, pam, mary, onofrio, arminius(3142, that is), mary and i went over to epstein's thread to have our conversation. the idea was not to interrupt whatever was going on on susan's typically very active thread. the conversation here on susan's thread gets very off-topic (which is fine), taking on a life of its own - largely in response to your guidance. we wanted to get away from all that and have our little conversation. but you couldn't (wouldn't anyway) leave us alone.

it started with your weird "accusation" of me not being as critical of christian scripture as i have been of jewish and islamic scripture, and the implication that i am either a closet christian or an anti-semite (and i suppose anti-arab or something).

first, i suppose i should be flattered you've been paying attention to my posts. you even remembered i'm in my 40s. wow, you're good.

i explained:
1)the nt is less "cartoonish" than the ot (and the koran).
2)the nt has no "kill the infidels" parts.

the nt just has less (but is not entirely free of) bad science and bad morals. as i've mentioned, i haven't read jewish scripture other than as presented in the ot, so if there's some "good stuff" in there i'd be happy to read it. of course christians, like members of just about every religion and non-religion, have done terrible things over the ages.

when that wasn't enough, you (or someone around you) started playing that fake name game. i don't know if it's you, and i don't have the computer smarts to check into email accounts and screen names and log-ins etc..., but that stuff follows you around. there seems to be a correlative if not causal relationship...even if the details are murky (or "mucky"...).

in that name game stuff, it's one thing to invent a new character (like that fake nazi guy). i cna see how that might, if done well, be interesting and amusing. but it's another thing to pose as a known poster. that's despicable as yosemite sam would say.

please leave us alone over there.

YourAffectionateUncle/Moderate:

You have been unmasked. You have lost all credibility.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Keep pumping...though by now I imagine you are quite bruised. Perhaps its just the natural aging process. You are impotent is so MANY ways!

AffectionateUncle/"A real Nazi dropping in. Wow, and I hope not really."Moderate:

"You don't suppose this is another joke personality troll as sometimes appear here? I hope this person is not actually serious. But the tone does not sound satirical. Extraordinary."

""A real Nazi dropping in. Wow, and I hope not really."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA What a complete idiot!

/b/tard:

"Your Affectionate Uncle Moderate wrote:

"A real Nazi dropping in. Wow, and I hope not really."

Aha! The gasbag returns. Wonder if he's been pumping?"

1. My you do have and active fantasy life. First I was CCNL (A better writer than either you or Farnaz). Now I'm Your Affectionate Uncle. It seems that Your Affectionate Uncle really keeps you up late at night. Why would long defunct blogger matter that much to you? Did he strike a nerve?

2. The pump is jammed with your brain cells and out of service. The one besotted cell remaining in your head is on its last legs. Have another drink. It might help clear your head.

Onforio:

It should be clear by now that you have been manipulated and used by Farnaz and the /b/tard. The crack about Zyclon B did indeed call you "vermin" they have now abused you as they have so many others. Now that they have exposed themselves for the frauds they are, watch them wriggle on the line. They look worse with every attempt at self justification. Completely unethical.

"You are a petty, verbose, blustering fool, jealous of my having seen through Schaum's ruse."

What you "saw through" was your besotted confederate who can't hold her liquor slip up and post under the wrong fake id just like you do when you are drunk blogging.

Actually what I saw through is that you are a liar and a fraud who who has lost all credibility. You should hang your head in shame and depart from these boards, having blown your cover. Then again you and the /b/tard could fake another Nazi or Christian Right incursion to see what you can stir up. How many other such events have you faked so you can cry "anti-Semitism"? You really should get a grip on yourselves.

Dear Moderate,

I am not sure our doyenne of deconstruction understands what an independent variable is.

Sometime--not now--you might explain.

Best
MC

Susan Jacoby,

I know you routinely read this, and I sincerely hope you read this post.

I urge you to go to Greg Epstein's blog, and read first, the spirited debate that Farnaz and I had. I am sure that I was calm and polite. Eventually she fled to your blog here, and called on Schaum, one of her associates, to check in to Epstein and do something (see her post of October 7, 2009 5:08 PM). Schaum made a non-committal reply. But what immediately followed on Epstein's blog was over a dozen ad hominem attacks on me by an impostor. Note that my true login is Arminius3142, that's pi to 3 decimal places. The impostor logged in as Arminius3412, note the different 4 numbers.

Nothing is being done about this. I really fear for the integrity of the blogs, and have few that I can trust now. Please help if you can.

Farnaz:

You said it yourself...'why do I bother'.

Schaum,

If you have a moment, click on to this thread. REad the last several posts, beginning with Walter IFC's NT defenses.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/greg_m_epstein/2009/10/disarmament_begins_with_ourselves.html

(Don't really know why I bother. There was a time when this blog was worth reading.)

Ha, Onofrio:

No mud-slinging on your part. And such a poet as you could never be called vermin! After all, you immediately picked up on 'poet of the untermensch' as referencing your geography! Hats off!

Schaum,

When last we wrote, I was vermin to your faux-Zyklon bomb. For any mud I slung, I am quite contrite.

A fine jape, that, and well wrought. I salute.

Farnaz1:

" I don't find antisemitism amusing, but I distinguish between nazis and Schaum."

Actually, Farnaz, if you go back and read the entire exchange, you will see that I did not say even one antisemitic word.

The mudslinging was aimed from the "non-nazi" side. Even the comment about ZyklonB being a sufficiently effective treatment for vermin was a mere statement of fact...thats what it was originally invented for!

Your Affectionate Uncle Moderate wrote:

"A real Nazi dropping in. Wow, and I hope not really."

Aha! The gasbag returns. Wonder if he's been pumping?

Moderate/Affectionate Uncle

You are a petty, verbose, blustering fool, jealous of my having seen through Schaum's ruse. As for the rest, I have no idea why you and so many other Christians wish to deny the existence of antisemitism, blame the victim, since I do not understand Christian ideology, have avoided comprehending it, will always do so.

Further, "Uncle," I will talk postmodern with you any time of the day or night, once you learn how to read. I've just finished co-authoring a paper with a philosopher on post-Delouzian ethics. Why don't you share your thoughts on Delouze and those who have continued his work? Hmmmm....maybe Levinas. Let us start with "Totality and Infinity."

Silly man. Grow up. I don't find antisemitism amusing, but I distinguish between nazis and Schaum. You, on the other hand cannot tell north-north-west from southerly, a hawk from a handsaw.

Affected Uncle, notice the difference between how you and Onfrio responded to Schaum's pretense. And notice, Affected, that he, unlike you, revealed his identity.

Lewis weeps.

Farnaz,

I wanted to thank you for illuminating the issue of sound ethics on a post modern basis. Your abject failure at it, though you are obviously talented and intelligent, points to considerable difficulties with the undertaking. Your method of ethical discourse is to cite historical outrages, imply that those here are somehow responsible, and that you are thereby virtuous in comparison to them. This is completely inadequate, as past events are independent of your own mendacious and hostile behaviours. In particular, your admitted association with a character pretending to be a Nazi on this blog is conclusive. You and your friends (and characters) are unethical. Which begs the question: How many of the apparently anti-Semitic commentaries on these boards were also staged by you and your friends?

Further detailed correspondence with you would be unproductive, as you have nothing serious to offer. Though from time to time I may comment on your abuses of fact and of your fellow persons.

I wish you well, and I do hope you find a way out of the moral cul-de-sac you chose as your life path someday. I doubt you will though, because you cling to a passé post modern fundamentalism, and so your intellectual methods will continue to lead you into difficulties.

Hi Schaum,

Indian religion is filled with flood myths not all that dissimilar from your own. A sacred dog was instrumental in preserving the Cherokee. What happened to the dog?

“What happened to the Dog? The settlers in the Cumberland chipped away at it. Soldiers dynamited it. The atrocious Bledsoe brothers built their fort in the middle of the Avery Trace overlooking sacred ceremony ground. They took potshots at the Indians who came to trade and worship there. By the 1970s the Cherokee Dog had dwindled to a foreleg. This was removed by some civic group. Eventually, it was placed on a pedestal in a park in the nearby town of Monterey, where you can see it today."

At any rate, this is the version in a recent telling. Click on the link. It's a brief, though fascinating, read.

"I'm thinking of names for the currency which will replace the U.S. Dollar."

The geithner?

Farnaz:

"Did you know that not only fish but dogs are sacred?"

Well, I knew that indirectly. I've read that some tribes of American Indians buried their dead with dogs, evidently to escort them into the spirit world. I suppose that is a sacred occupation for dogs...

I'm thinking of names for the currency which will replace the U.S. Dollar.

http://dailybail.com/

http://www.warka-bank.com/

Schaum,

Did you know that not only fish but dogs are sacred?

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:GwOqQ1-KQncJ:www.pantherslodge.com/sacreddog.doc+sacred+dogs&cd=23&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Ah, and the stories are beautiful!

Compare Updike's self-or-human-lacerating elegy with Byron's epitaph, which Pam posted.

Hi Schaum,

I LOVE this poem! Sending a copy to Christian as a warning.

I would swear that you told me that dogs name was Plautinus! But I can't find the post.
--------------------------
I love it too, translation not withstanding, and thought you might appreciate the sentiment. Sometimes, I use it in classes, along with the Updike poem, to show why the one so spare and direct works well, while the other, so "poetic," does not. I am very fond of Amichai's poetry, often wish I were fluent in modern Hebrew if only to be able to read it as he wrote it.

Regarding Plautus/Plautinus, we had this chat before! I swear I've always spelled the pup's name Plautus. (Plautus: Roman playwright, author of Twin Manaechmi, among other works.)

If Updike had put the last two words in parentheses, this one might have worked.

Dog's Death

She must have been kicked unseen or brushed by a car.
Too young to know much, she was beginning to learn
To use the newspapers spread on the kitchen floor
And to win, wetting there, the words, "Good dog!
Good dog!"

We thought her shy malaise was a shot reaction.
The autopsy disclosed a rupture in her liver.
As we teased her with play, blood was filling her skin
And her heart was learning to lie down forever.

Monday morning, as the children were noisily fed
And sent to school, she crawled beneath the youngest's bed.
We found her twisted and limp but still alive.
In the car to the vet's, on my lap, she tried

To bite my hand and died. I stroked her warm fur
And my wife called in a voice imperious with tears.
Though surrounded by love that would have upheld her,
Nevertheless she sank and, stiffening, disappeared.

Back home, we found that in the night her frame,
Drawing near to dissolution, had endured the shame
Of diarrhea and had dragged across the floor
To a newspaper carelessly left there. Good dog.

--John Updike

Farnaz:

"A Dog After Love

After you left me
I let a dog smell at
My chest and my belly. It will fill its nose
And set out to find you.

I hope it will tear the
Testicles of your lover and bite off his penis
Or at least
Will bring me your stockings between his teeth."

I LOVE this poem! Sending a copy to Christian as a warning.

I would swear that you told me that dogs name was Plautinus! But I can't find the post.

Epitaph for Lord Byron's Newfie:

Near this Spot
are deposited the Remains of one who possessed Beauty without Vanity,
Strength without Insolence,
Courage without Ferocity,
and all the virtues of Man without his Vices.

This praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery
if inscribed over human Ashes,
is but a just tribute to the Memory of
BOATSWAIN, a DOG,
who was born in Newfoundland May 1803
and died at Newstead Nov. 18, 1808.

When some proud Son of Man returns to Earth,
Unknown by Glory, but upheld by Birth,
The sculptor’s art exhausts the pomp of woe,
And storied urns record who rests below.
When all is done, upon the Tomb is seen,
Not what he was, but what he should have been.
But the poor Dog, in life the firmest friend,
The first to welcome, foremost to defend,
Whose honest heart is still his Master’s own,
Who labours, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,
Unhonoured falls, unnoticed all his worth,
Denied in heaven the Soul he held on earth –
While man, vain insect! hopes to be forgiven,
And claims himself a sole exclusive heaven.

Oh man! thou feeble tenant of an hour,
Debased by slavery, or corrupt by power –
Who knows thee well must quit thee with disgust,
Degraded mass of animated dust!
Thy love is lust, thy friendship all a cheat,
Thy tongue hypocrisy, thy words deceit!
By nature vile, ennobled but by name,
Each kindred brute might bid thee blush for shame.
Ye, who perchance behold this simple urn,
Pass on – it honors none you wish to mourn.
To mark a friend’s remains these stones arise;
I never knew but one – and here he lies.

Hi Onofrio,

Thanks so much for the references, which I've bookmarked and will look into. Have done a bit of reading and found that red hair figures in quite a bit of myth, bigotry, etc. Also, discovered that it is much more rare than I had thought. Very pretty, though, ic gelīefe!

Irrelevant, but I couldn't resist:

Epigram Engraved on the Collar of a Dog Which I Gave to His Royal Highness

I am his Highness' dog at Kew;
Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you

--Alexander Pope
--------------------------------
A Dog After Love

After you left me
I let a dog smell at
My chest and my belly. It will fill its nose
And set out to find you.

I hope it will tear the
Testicles of your lover and bite off his penis
Or at least
Will bring me your stockings between his teeth.

--Yehuda Amichai

peter,
happy anniversary. we're over here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/greg_m_epstein/2009/10/disarmament_begins_with_ourselves.html

Hi Walter , Pam, Onofrio,

I have enjoyed reading your comments in this forum. It is my 25th wedding anniversary today so I will dap in later tonight. Foraging for supper.

Hello Justacomment,

I apologize if I missed responding although I think??? I did reply to a couple of your posts and did not get a response back. I thought we had lost you in the shuffle of our cyber-travel. It was either that or I tried responding and the forum was no longer active. We are cyber-aliens looking for a virtual-world that does not face imminent extinction, and that in a cyber-parsec. As Walter mentioned, we have seen the end of four, six, maybe eight posts since this all began. As Pam says, the hunter/gatherer/nomad has a lot less chance of survival. That is us. We are in already cultivated lands here that will not support our diet of meat for long. Walter, our scout, is already preparing the evacuation of our tribe. We are on the hunt again. If you care to join the small band follow his lead.

As for replying to every post, I have found that is impossible since there are more than I know what to do with (just in this forum alone). I would be here day and night in response, 24/7. There has been a lot directed in my direction and much of it evolutionary in content, whereas my area of special interest is more philosophical in nature since I am not a evolutionary scientist. Our common point is that we are all philosophers. We are inquiring into what can explain origins and life.

On the primitive/advanced dichotomy

Many of us reflexively wince at the dichotomy, which correctly applies only to technology. However, historically, it has been accompanied by the savage/civilized binary, which is abundantly falsifiable. Neither the Australian aborigines, for example, nor the American Indians thought to cut off the thumbs of those with whom they considered themselves in trade competition nor to hack off their hands and tie them around their necks. These activities only developed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries courtesy of the civilized Brits.

Indeed, earlier on, quite precociously, they came up with the ingenious strategy of providing the AmerIndians with blankets infected with Small Pox, of trapping them and burning them to death, the better to advance the fur trade

During the Boer War, they introduced the world to concentration camps.

The above is sketchy. Many more contributions from the Mother land could be noted.

Then, let us not forget Hiroshima, Nagasaki, technologically brought to us by the US.

But even when we think of technology, the primitive/advanced dichotomy occasionally breaks down, as seen in the recent interest in folk remedies.

Somehow, I think we need to develop more nuanced ways of expressing stages in the evolution of cultures.

On Dogs and Cats

First, I am with little knowledge of either. That said, here is a story.

My daughter, my neighbor's Wheaten terrier, Plautus, whom she has befriended, and Plautus' human mother were out walking a couple of weeks ago when the pooch spotted an abandoned kitten. He started to cry and would not budge. My neighbor had to adopt the kitten, subsequently named Menaechmus, Manny for short, over whom Plautus forever fusses.

I related this story to Norrie Hoyt who thought that Plautus might, in his next life, take human form.

Hi Schaum,

"But the question of crime, whether raised, lowered, expanded, restricted...whatever...is not confined merely to the incidence of murder. There are other serious offenses to consider: rape, beatings, drug trafficking, kidnappings, armed robberies..."

Yes, of course, but the same reasoning obtains for all, no?

Farnaz:

"This is the total number of murders in the United States in any given year and is far more than the number of murders eliminated due to abortion."

I overlooked this. Almost 'nuf said, I think. I might add that we cannot, obviously, predict the number of murders prevented by abortion, no?"

But the question of crime, whether raised, lowered, expanded, restricted...whatever...is not confined merely to the incidence of murder. There are other serious offenses to consider: rape, beatings, drug trafficking, kidnappings, armed robberies...

pam, justillthennow,
i might add that based on the bits of entrails that show up at our door she enjoys the kill too.

pam,
"Actually, it's the chase they're interested in, not the kill."

my cat will catch a mouse then sit down and start cleaning herself, letting the poor mouse begin to escape, then pounce again. she'll roll over and feign reach for the mouse, then catch it again. it's definitely a game for her. my daughter is horrified when she sees this and i've even rescued (only temporarily, i'm sure) a few mice.

farnaz,
re self-correcting science and science worship:

good points all well taken.

Hello Pamsm,

Yet you validate that it is the kill, as well as the chase, that is irresistible to them. The chase alone does not fulfill if they don't get to tear it to pieces, edible or not. That is why they will go one chasing, for hours perhaps, so that they can display total dominance on that arrogant little trash bag.

Eons of embedded instinct needs to be given regular exercise, and relief! It is about the kill.

Onofrio,
I hear you as to the native Australians. They are, after all, human, and have all the brain power that appertains thereto.

If it's not being used for memorizing times tables and the English royal succession, it's going to be used for something else - most likely something that helps one deal with one's environment.

For the record, I don't consider "primitive" a perjorative. It shares a root with "primate," and means "first." This was the first way for all humans to live.

That said, I don't see many groups returning to it once agriculture is discovered. For one thing, it puts you at a distinct disadvantage in a fight with those who would take your land (see English colonists against native Americans, et al.).

When you live by hunting and gathering, you must stop fighting to hunt and gather - or become weak from hunger. Your enemies, meanwhile, are well fed by supply trains from the farms back home.

"The travesty of an unfulfilled, non-malicious heat of the moment kill. What to do, what to do, what to do...?"

Actually, it's the chase they're interested in, not the kill. They're perfectly happy (in fact ecstatic) to go lure coursing, where they chase a plastic trash bag attached to a line pulled by a motor. If the lure breaks down (or the lure operator isn't increasing speed quickly enough) and they catch it, they tear it to pieces, even though it's inedible. It's just fun.

Hi Schaum,

"Since Levitt's empirical work never accounted for the greater number of abortions by African Americans, his evidence doesn't distinguish whether the drop in crime was due to there being a relative drop in the number of African Americans or whether it was due the unwanted children theory advanced by Forssman and Thuwe as well as the Rockefeller Commission. As a result, former Secretary of Education William Bennett made his controversial - and widely denounced - statement that "if you wanted to reduce crime -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."[5] Levitt denies that his theory has racial implications."

"Racial implications" will always be there for those who wish to see them, regardless of the issue. I strongly recommend Lee Rainwater's "And the Poor Get Children," a classic decades-old text. Poverty and crime go hand in hand as a brief glance at history will show. One thinks, for instance, of Britians "landless men" of days long past, landless white men.

Recently, in an attempt to preserve the purity of Catholicism, the blogger who raised the race issue in this matter proclaimed that the girls who mugged my daughter might just as well have been designated "latino" (sic). Even if they had been "latino," their etnicity, sans Catholicism, would not have provoked their attack on my girl, the "Christ killer." But they were not Latinas. They were simply Catholic parochial school girls, who, like the blogger, think of Jews as "the Jews."

I would have liked not to get into this, but I am genetically programed to react to racializing. I suppose it could be worse.

Schaum,

"This is the total number of murders in the United States in any given year and is far more than the number of murders eliminated due to abortion."

I overlooked this. Almost 'nuf said, I think. I might add that we cannot, obviously, predict the number of murders prevented by abortion, no?

Hi Walter,

"no doubt there are lazy scientists and even charlatans. but because science is "self-correcting" bad science will ultimately be exposed - by other scientists. fortunately, and here's the BIG difference btwn science and religion, scientists don't take anybody's word for anything. some scientist will always challenge what another says, try to duplicate the experiment or examine the results himself. i've often said they're a bunch of smart-**ses who love proving each other wrong.:"

Neither I nor I daresay Onofrio was equating religion and science, nor setting them up for a duel. It is, rather, those who "worship" science, who fail to see its embeddedness, and Gould was not such a one, who should be taken to task for envisioning the history of science as a sacred text.

Science's self-correction has taken, in some instances, centuries to correct itself, in others mere decades, for reasons having naught to do with either knowledge or technology. One problem lies within the scientific disciplines themselves as Kuhn so eloquently and thus far incontrovertibly pointed out in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

Another problem emerges with Science's enmeshment with culture, as Gould, among so many others noted. Moving from the not sublime to the, indeed, ridiculous, we get shoddy scholarship, as, Gould, again, loved to muse on, failure to check incorrect citations, etc.

And in a different, though brilliant, vein we read H&A's sublime critiqe of instrumental reason.

One of science's more recent attempts to correct itself lies, as I noted, in its more reflexive stance. Much more needs to be done, in that vein....

It is only those who set science up to be god that put it on a par with religion. I do not do this. Neither does Onofrio, it would surely seem.

Hi Schaum,

To Mrs. Reynold's Cat

Do you like cat poems? I posted a slew of them here at one point. Here's one I like much.

Cat! who hast pass'd thy grand climacteric,
How many mice and rats hast in thy days
Destroy'd? -- How many tidbits stolen? Gaze
With those bright languid segments green, and prick
Those velvet ears -- but pr'ythee do not stick
Thy latent talons in me -- and upraise
Thy gentle mew -- and tell me all thy frays
Of fish and mice, and rats and tender chick.
Nay, look not down, nor lick thy dainty wrists --
For all the wheezy asthma, -- and for all
Thy tail's tip is nick'd off -- and though the fists
Of many a maid have given thee many a maul,
Still is that fur as soft as when the lists
In youth thou enter'dst on glass-bottled wall.

-Keats

Schaum,

"They studied the children of 188 women who were denied abortions from 1939 to 1941 at the hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden. They compared these “unwanted” children to another group – the next children born after each of the unwanted children at the hospital. The "unwanted" children were more likely to grow up in adverse conditions, such as having divorced parents or being raised in foster homes and were more likely to become delinquents and engaged in crime. [2] Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University have tried to revive discussion of this claim with their 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime"."

I'm willing to grant that abortion may reduce the numbers of births of children who end up committing crimes, etc. My question, though, is whether that number is statistically significant, whether we can claim that the reduction in US crime is due to the legalization of abortion.

What do you say, my friend?

Mary Cunningham,

Don't see your point.

mary,
"...the difficulty of constructing a theory with a statistical sample of one: which, after all, characterizes both economics and evolution."

this (and entrenched energy interests' incredibly effective obfuscation campaign) is the trouble scientists are having with global warming. it's not like we have other earths to experiment with.

I'll amend the applied economics statement to 95% of applied economics. Andrew Lo, econ. prof at MIT wrote about economic modeling: " yes, there are economic models that are very robust. Unfortunately they only apply to 5% of real life situations".

Schaum:

You should buy her TS Eliot's Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats where the poem is found.

If you don't have it already, you should buy it for yourself too.

I posted on the Epstein on the difficulty of constructing a theory with a statistical sample of one: which, after all, characterizes both economics and evolution.

Maybe you could add?

Best,
MC

Continued:

Support for this theory is logically separate from support for legal abortion. Levitt suggests the following argument: suppose an individual assigns a low value to the life of a fetus, versus that of a newborn infant or adult. However, there are only 15,000 murders in the whole of the United States in any given year. This is the total number of murders in the United States in any given year and is far more than the number of murders eliminated due to abortion. However there were millions of abortions during this same time.[3] Therefore, the "cost" of abortion was not paid in full by the reduction in murder (though one would expect to see a reduction in other crimes as well). Only if the value of the life of a fetus was very near zero in comparison to the value of an adult life would the "cost" of the abortions be paid for by the reduction in murders. Levitt also states that whereas the male contingent of aborted fetuses would have been prone to criminality, the female contingent would have been prone to unwed motherhood although rates of unwed motherhood have increased,[4] since the time of Roe v. Wade, not peaked and then significantly decreased, as is the case for the crime rates.

Since Levitt's empirical work never accounted for the greater number of abortions by African Americans, his evidence doesn't distinguish whether the drop in crime was due to there being a relative drop in the number of African Americans or whether it was due the unwanted children theory advanced by Forssman and Thuwe as well as the Rockefeller Commission. As a result, former Secretary of Education William Bennett made his controversial - and widely denounced - statement that "if you wanted to reduce crime -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."[5] Levitt denies that his theory has racial implications.

My hunch/theory about abortion and crime rates has evidently been a theory debated by others for some time! I should surf the web more frequently:

The legalized abortion and crime effect is the theory that legal abortion reduces crime. Proponents of the theory generally argue that "unwanted children" are more likely to become criminals and that an inverse correlation is observed between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime. In particular, it is argued that the legalization of abortion in the United States, largely due to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, has reduced crime in recent years. Opponents generally dispute these statistics, and point to negative effects of abortion on society.

The 1972 Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future is one of the better known early versions of this claim, but it was surely not the first.[1] The Commission cited research purporting that the children of women denied an abortion “turned out to have been registered more often with psychiatric services, engaged in more antisocial and criminal behavior, and have been more dependent on public assistance.” A study by Hans Forssman and Inga Thuwe was cited by the Rockefeller Commission and is probably the first serious empirical research on this topic. They studied the children of 188 women who were denied abortions from 1939 to 1941 at the hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden. They compared these “unwanted” children to another group – the next children born after each of the unwanted children at the hospital. The "unwanted" children were more likely to grow up in adverse conditions, such as having divorced parents or being raised in foster homes and were more likely to become delinquents and engaged in crime. [2] Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University have tried to revive discussion of this claim with their 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime".

Mary_Cunningham:

"The Naming of Cats"

Thanks! My sister just acquired a solid black British Bombay with a lot of attitude -- he's an adult from a shelter for abused animals -- and no name. She can't decide what to call him; naturally, I've forwarded this wonderful poem to her.

WalterIFC:

"some scientist will always challenge what another says, try to duplicate the experiment or examine the results himself. i've often said they're a bunch of smart-**ses who love proving each other wrong."

And let us devoutly give thanks for that!

peter, pam, onofrio(?), mary,
let's continue our evolution/flood etc... discussion here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/greg_m_epstein/2009/10/disarmament_begins_with_ourselves.html

it really is a pain to have to go to expired threads to find all of our old posts.... this one should be "open" for about two weeks.

onofrio,
"Their dogma of the survival of the Elect in Christ - that all creation has laboured to bear them alone into eternity - is of the same kidney as the *Social Darwinism* they deplore. The simian grandsires they find (and loathe) in Darwinism are reflections of their own view of unsaved humanity - beasts to superseded by the *new creation* in Christ, wayward, bestial, and damnable in their *natural* state."

i think there is some connection here with the doctrine of "original sin" - man's "original sin" being his animal nature.

the more "primative" a society, the more "darwinist" it is. the more it is survival-of-the-fittest in the social sense. "fit" here could mean strong or smart or pretty or even "socially skillful". a society guided by these principles would evolve into a meritocracy. the wheat gets separated from the chaff, and damn the chaff.

but then, some humanist comes along and gives us an advanced morality - where we value charity and caring for the least among us. this morality attempts to override our animal nature. in this sense, our "primiatave" selfish survival instinct is our "original sin" - stamped on us from "the beginning". it is in our nature to "outcompete". only when we listen to that good, humanist voice, and overcome our animal selves, can we concieve of things like equal rights, welfare and social security.

i wonder if republicans realize how "darwinist" their objection to social programs is? i wonder if they realize how darwinist capitalism is?

(btw, peter, here i am using "darwinist" in the social sense. this has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution - except by analogy.)

farnaz,
"He [gould] took pains to rid science of its self-congratulatory myths, often pointing to its social embeddedness, its numerous, often amusing failures to pursue freshman level scholarship in tracking down citations, leading, at times, to decades of misconception."

and onofrio,
"Yet it annoys many who post here to view science this way, as if it's being denied, devalued, put on a par with hucksters."

no doubt there are lazy scientists and even charlatans. but because science is "self-correcting" bad science will ultimately be exposed - by other scientists. fortunately, and here's the BIG difference btwn science and religion, scientists don't take anybody's word for anything. some scientist will always challenge what another says, try to duplicate the experiment or examine the results himself. i've often said they're a bunch of smart-**ses who love proving each other wrong.

Nice poetry all through this thread, original (Onofrio--others as well?) and not.

One of the biggest problems in science: Man more and more whether he likes it or not coming into knowledge of how to design himself, breed and create himself. But the process toward such fraught with such moral dilemmas that he wants to make the possibility of such a myth, something of an antireligion no one should follow, a complete untruth. Or perhaps it should be said he wants to make it a religion pure and simple--and therefore make it something completely undesirable, for religion has of course been coming into discredit for centuries. But then again there are those who will pit old time "true" religion against such--and there will be those that make it a religion not to make it something undesirable but because they are possessed, fanatical about improving man, and perhaps the most dangerous people of all. How to move man toward making himself without increasing his impatience toward such? How to in fact decrease his impatience as methods more and more come to light so that man moves into making himself without the horrors that can come of such? Morality at its most tried when one comes into unexpected power--because power...But that is a story as old as time. An old old story again and again. The lesson must be learned in a new way every age.

FARNAZ1MANSOURI1

A proposition:

The history and current relationship between Qatar and the United States is similar to that of Ireland and England.

Discuss.

I'll switch to the other blog but seeing as I've just spent two weeks with TSE, apropos cats...

The Naming of Cats

The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
It isn't just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.

First of all, there's the name that the family use daily,
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, George or Bill Bailey--
All of them sensible everyday names.

There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter--
But all of them sensible everyday names.

But I tell you, a cat needs a name that's particular,
A name that's peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?

Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum-
Names that never belong to more than one cat.

But above and beyond there's still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover--
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.

When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name.

Hello Pamsm,

LOVED your cats and dogs story...

"Eventually, the hounds reluctantly depart, casting longing glances over their shoulders, utterly frustrated."

The travesty of an unfulfilled, non-malicious heat of the moment kill. What to do, what to do, what to do...?

Farnaz,

Refs for Seth

te Velde, Herman 'Seth, God of Confusion' (Leiden 1967)
pp.141-151 - demonisation
pp.109-151 - the foreigner

See also
Redford, Donald B. 'Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times' (Princeton 1992)

For his epithets, consult Leitz, C (ed) 'Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen' (Peeters, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 2002)

What was on First. Why was on Second. I dunno was on Third. Because struck out. And that's when it all went bad.

Onofrio,

I don't know if it's related, but even earlier the ancient Egyptians associated red hair with their chaotic god Seth, who was diabolised post-*New Kingdom*. Seth himself was construed as the deity of non-Nilotic regions (default chaotic) in general and par excellence of the peoples of Sinai, Canaan, and Syria.
-------------------------------
Incredible. You wouldn't, by any chance, have a source at the ready?

Farnaz,

Thee:
"She was also influenced by the much earlier, in fact, medieval view that both the devil and Jews have red hair."

I don't know if it's related, but even earlier the ancient Egyptians associated red hair with their chaotic god Seth, who was diabolised post-*New Kingdom*. Seth himself was construed as the deity of non-Nilotic regions (default chaotic) in general and par excellence of the peoples of Sinai, Canaan, and Syria.

Primitive/Advanced

"Who's on First"

Abbott: Strange as it may seem, they give ball players nowadays very peculiar names.

Costello: Funny names?

Abbott: Nicknames, nicknames. Now, on the St. Louis team we have Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third--

Costello: That's what I want to find out. I want you to tell me the names of the fellows on the St. Louis team.

Abbott: I'm telling you. Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third--

Costello: You know the fellows' names?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well, then who's playing first?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow's name on first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The fellow playin' first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy on first base.

Abbott: Who is on first.

Costello: Well, what are you askin' me for?

Abbott: I'm not asking you--I'm telling you. Who is on first.

Costello: I'm asking you--who's on first?

Abbott: That's the man's name.

Costello: That's who's name?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

Abbott: Every dollar of it. And why not, the man's entitled to it.

Costello: Who is?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: So who gets it?

Abbott: Why shouldn't he? Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Who's wife?

Abbott: Yes. After all, the man earns it.

Costello: Who does?

Abbott: Absolutely.

Costello: Well, all I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name on first base?

Abbott: Oh, no, no. What is on second base.

Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.

Abbott: Who's on first!

Costello: St. Louis has a good outfield?

Abbott: Oh, absolutely.

Costello: The left fielder's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: I don't know, I just thought I'd ask.

Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell you.

Costello: Then tell me who's playing left field?

Abbott: Who's playing first.

Costello: Stay out of the infield! The left fielder's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: Because.

Abbott: Oh, he's center field.

Costello: Wait a minute. You got a pitcher on this team?

Abbott: Wouldn't this be a fine team w i t h o u t a pitcher?

Costello: Tell me the pitcher's name.

Abbott: Tomorrow.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Costello: Now, when the guy at bat bunts the ball--me being a good catcher--I want to throw the guy out at first base, so I pick up the ball and throw it to who?

Abbott: Now, that's he first thing you've said right.

Costello: I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

Abbott: Don't get excited. Take it easy.

Costello: I throw the ball to first base, whoever it is grabs the ball, so the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to what. What throws it to I don't know. I don't know throws it back to tomorrow--a triple play.

Abbott: Yeah, it could be.

Costello: Another guy gets up and it's a long ball to center.

Abbott: Because.

Costello: Why? I don't know. And I don't care.

Abbott: What was that?

Costello: I said, I DON'T CARE!

Abbott: Oh, that's our shortstop!

Primitive/Advanced

"Who's on First"

(Lou Costello is considering becoming a ballplayer. Bud Abbott wants to make sure he knows what he's getting into.)

Abbott: Strange as it may seem, they give ball players nowadays very peculiar names.

Costello: Funny names?

Abbott: Nicknames, nicknames. Now, on the St. Louis team we have Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third--

Costello: That's what I want to find out. I want you to tell me the names of the fellows on the St. Louis team.

Abbott: I'm telling you. Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third--

Costello: You know the fellows' names?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well, then who's playing first?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow's name on first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The fellow playin' first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy on first base.

Abbott: Who is on first.

Costello: Well, what are you askin' me for?

Abbott: I'm not asking you--I'm telling you. Who is on first.

Costello: I'm asking you--who's on first?

Abbott: That's the man's name.

Costello: That's who's name?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

Abbott: Every dollar of it. And why not, the man's entitled to it.

Costello: Who is?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: So who gets it?

Abbott: Why shouldn't he? Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Who's wife?

Abbott: Yes. After all, the man earns it.

Costello: Who does?

Abbott: Absolutely.

Costello: Well, all I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name on first base?

Abbott: Oh, no, no. What is on second base.

Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.

Abbott: Who's on first!

Costello: St. Louis has a good outfield?

Abbott: Oh, absolutely.

Costello: The left fielder's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: I don't know, I just thought I'd ask.

Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell you.

Costello: Then tell me who's playing left field?

Abbott: Who's playing first.

Costello: Stay out of the infield! The left fielder's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: Because.

Abbott: Oh, he's center field.

Costello: Wait a minute. You got a pitcher on this team?

Abbott: Wouldn't this be a fine team w i t h o u t a pitcher?

Costello: Tell me the pitcher's name.

Abbott: Tomorrow.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Costello: Now, when the guy at bat bunts the ball--me being a good catcher--I want to throw the guy out at first base, so I pick up the ball and throw it to who?

Abbott: Now, that's he first thing you've said right.

Costello: I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

Abbott: Don't get excited. Take it easy.

Costello: I throw the ball to first base, whoever it is grabs the ball, so the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to what. What throws it to I don't know. I don't know throws it back to tomorrow--a triple play.

Abbott: Yeah, it could be.

Costello: Another guy gets up and it's a long ball to center.

Abbott: Because.

Costello: Why? I don't know. And I don't care.

Abbott: What was that?

Costello: I said, I DON'T CARE!

Abbott: Oh, that's our shortstop!

Pam,

Creative intelligence, the argument from design, has roots going back to Plato. Awhile ago, you used the matter of parasites, if I recall correctly, to call the construct of deity into question. I thought it was a brilliant argument, should be published, widely shared. :)

Pam,

Thee:
"primitive hunter-gatherers, when they were fathered by a relatively sophisticated, civilized people who understood agriculture"

I get your gist Pam, and of course, I was prattling facetiously back there, but all the same I'd prefer to avoid the baggage that attends the primitive/sophisticated dichotomy.

Setting aside *ab origine* also, and speaking rather of Koori, Murri, Anangu etc. as they themselves prefer, I would like to attest that the culture of these indigenous folk contains levels of sophistication that beggar our raptor franchise.

Their songlines and dreaming express a profound awareness of the minutiae of the natural environment and their relation to the whole.

Their poems weave together the evening star and the moonlight on a clay pan, the lily roots, the cycad nuts, invocations for bones, catfish, frogs, sacred trees, the soft little noises a hard-shelled prawn makes as it burrows in the mud - none of this simply aesthetic reflection, but an oral encyclopedia. This lore/law is encoded and transmitted in ritually sung-and-painted maps, dances, toponomy - a vast reference matrix for what they call *country*. By it they knew how and where to find food and medicine, the times to strike camp, the intricate seasonal cycles within microclimates our scientists have still not plumbed...

Out there, in the country those old fellas knew, we whitefellas are like blind men. We know how to live ON country, force it to feed cities and industries - our arenas of conspicuous consumption and competition. The old fellas, Koori and Murri and Anangu, knew how to live IN country, sustained their culture for millennia. So much for *primitive*.

"Oh, I imagine that fundamentalists of all stripes will try to have it banned. Work of the devil, don'tcha know?"
---------------
The thing is that some religious folk, among them scientists, have somehow managed to reconcile Darwin and their faith. Wonder what exactly stops the rest.

"On the movie "Creation," wonder if creative designers will picket."

Oh, I imagine that fundamentalists of all stripes will try to have it banned. Work of the devil, don'tcha know?

Pam,

"Gould wrote quite a bit about this and similar subjects, principally in his The Mismeasure of Man."

I still love "The Mismeasure of Man," inspired. Still recommend it. A number of writers up through the mid-twentieth century were influenced by phrenology, craniometry, etc., Wharton among them. She was also influenced by the much earlier, in fact, medieval view that both the devil and Jews have red hair.

One can trace, via different, "nonscientific," discourses any number of pseudo and authentic sciences.

Pam,

On the movie "Creation," wonder if creative designers will picket.

And God said, "Let there be evolution," and so it went on for awhile, until creative designers, angels flung from heaven, reversed the divine trend. :(

"...unlike his AngloChristian contemporaries who used it to demonstrate the inferiority of Irish Catholics, among others."

Gould wrote quite a bit about this and similar subjects, principally in his The Mismeasure of Man.

On cats that stand their ground:

I've bred Scottish Deerhounds (Greyhound family) for many years. I've also had cats (currently a bunch of Bengals).

Indoors, the hounds simply ignore the cats, but outside, if they can talk them into running, they consider them fair game - it's just an irresistable urge for them to chase. And a catch would mean a kill - no malice, just heat of the moment.

The cats learn to simply sit still and look unperturbed. The dogs don't know what to do about it. They bounce their forequarters up and down, the paws moving ever closer to the cat, and bark. The cats just blink their half-closed eyes.

Eventually, the hounds reluctantly depart, casting longing glances over their shoulders, utterly frustrated.

Onofrio,

Trumping monsters
we are saved,
undone if we
crow ofermode.
--------------------
True that. No Britnoth, this broad. Blind your monsters, and beat it, says me.

Pam,

From my preceding post to you--When I say "Social Darwinism," I am using the term in Gould's sense, i.e., as independent of Darwin.

"Social Darwinism underwrote a number of pseudosciences, among them craniometry, which Darwin used in evaluating skeletons, unlike his AngloChristian contemporaries who used it to demonstrate the inferiority of Irish Catholics, among others."

Hi Pam,

Farnaz, I don't remember reading that particular essay by Gould, although I've read most of them. I'm surprised that he would entertain such a notion, since Darwin was clearly conversant with the dynamics of social organization.
---------------
I, too, have read most, and, in fact, just scanned my records to see if I had indexed the one I refer to. I've no doubt it's there, but, alas, a number of them are unglossed.

See the index for Science. I'm not sure exactly when this article appeared, but I believe it was in the late eighties. It was a daring piece, but not heretical. If, as you say, you've read most of Gould's essays, you know that in the last years, he more and more took up the interrelations between science and culture. Nor was Gould arguing that Darwin was a racialist, merely, that his thinking had been affected by the discourses of the day. (How could it have been otherwise?) One can always do this sort of analysis regardless of how revolutionary a thinker might be. The same sort of critique has long been made with respect to the Chomskeyan linguistics revolution, for example.

Social Darwinism underwrote a number of pseudosciences, among them craniometry, which Darwin used in evaluating skeletons, unlike his AngloChristian contemporaries who used it to demonstrate the inferiority of Irish Catholics, among others.

Farnaz,

"put my own girl in a tizzy with his "So there" to Polyphemus.
"Why did he have to let Cyclops know?" "

Trumping monsters
we are saved,
undone if we
crow ofermode.

:^)

Re Darwin and social Darwinism: they are poles apart. Social Darwinism bastardizes Darwin's theory by saying that it should be every man for himself, strongest surviving - no need to help the less fortunate. But this completely ignores the fact that that humans evolved as social animals, where the strong look out for the weak, and all resources are shared. There's an article on empathy in this month's Discover magazine. Also a great one on micro-RNA, but I digress...

Farnaz, I don't remember reading that particular essay by Gould, although I've read most of them. I'm surprised that he would entertain such a notion, since Darwin was clearly conversant with the dynamics of social organization.

My own understanding is that Darwin's influences were the observations he made on the Beagle voyage, pigeon breeding, and the writings of Malthus.

The movie Creation, on Darwin's life, has found a US distributor, and will open in December.

"...but i'm explaining to peter how scientists can find a tooth and say "it's a pig" (ancestor) based on just a tooth. that's usually because they have other more complete pig (ancestor) fossils to compare the tooth to."

OK, point taken. :)

Onofrio,

Odysseus, the hero for all ages, sages, and epochs, put my own girl in a tizzy with his "So there" to Polyphemus.

"Why did he have to let Cyclops know?" she asked, in despair. Actually, H & A take up this point in "Dialectics," but the Dochter and I took a different path to "enlightenment.

Arminius is our classicist.

Onofrio below.

Christmongers of the creationist *kind* can only conceive of the world in terms of for/against, and thus crave personal villains, Christ-shaped shadows thrown everywhere. Darwin fits the silhouette; they nail him as a sort of anti-apostle (sere beard fits the anti-part), failing to notice the contribution of their own beliefs to the notion of *selection*. Their dogma of the survival of the Elect in Christ - that all creation has laboured to bear them alone into eternity - is of the same kidney as the *Social Darwinism* they deplore. The simian grandsires they find (and loathe) in Darwinism are reflections of their own view of unsaved humanity - beasts to superseded by the *new creation* in Christ, wayward, bestial, and damnable in their *natural* state.
They hate *natural selection* because it places them back in the striving throng, not set apart from it by *divine election*.
Whatever the *brand* of elect selectionism, vast numbers of human beings are consigned to a scrapheap, whether in this world, or the world to come.
If Darwinism is guilty, Christmongery is thrice guilty.

Nice...

Farnaz,

Thanx muchly for the H&A link! I look forward to imbibing. The tale of Odysseus has been much with me since the age of 8. Recently read through a child's version of it with my 9 year-old daughter. She loved it, especially the part about the visit to the underworld.

Re Lewontin. My father-in-law introduced me to him once after a lecture he gave in Sydney. It would have been in the later 90s.

Onofrio,

My last two posts were to you. Here is a link to an article on "Dialectics and the Enlightenment." The link will bring you to the author's explanation of H&A's use of the Odysseus myth.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_4_65/ai_54098120/pg_14/

On Gould - my late father-in-law was a friend and colleague of Richard Lewontin, Gould's collaborator on *Spandrels*.
---------------------------------
Neat! Did you ever meet Lewontin or Gould?

When I made the equation Science = Myth, one august posting personage reeled off an aretalogy of medical and technological marvels, for which I owed Science allegiance. The implication: how impious of me to be unimpressed by the idols, how ungrateful of me to bite the feeding hand.
---------------------
Yes, some simply do not wish to admit the critique which science has, for decades, leveled against itself. The journal Science published a scathing expose of German biology, chemistry, evolutionary theory, etc., during the Hitler era. Although the garbage Science unflinchingly disclosed had long been known, because it hadn't been addressed in the scientific journals, science felt free to continue proclaiming its "purity," its freedom from politics, culture, and, by extension, even funding considerations.

The article had salutary effects, led to re-examinations of scientific writing, inquiry into the metaphysics of science, et.

On science and myth, see Horkheimer and Adorno, "Dialectics of the Englightenment."

The chapter on Odysseus is invaluable. H&A demonstrate through the Homeric legend, Man's flight from myth to enlightenment, which, then, becomes myth again. Throughout the text, they are at pains to undermine the grand narrative of Science as savior, their prime target, "instrumental reason."

Moi, je proclaim: Watch out for them idols on either side of any divide.

Farnaz,

drivel

A term I try to eschew.

On Gould - my late father-in-law was a friend and colleague of Richard Lewontin, Gould's collaborator on *Spandrels*.

Farnaz,

"Survival of the elect," "grace," etc., but mitigated historically by race, nationality"

Agreed. Indeed, the *elect* distinction has been racialised, nationalised, legalised... the source in apostolic writ, Constantine the pioneer, frightened white Europe - Rome's rump - the adept.

Jezeus wept.

Onofrio,

On Gould

He was a Darwinist, that's for sure. However, he attached to contingency more weight than Darwin had. He declared himself (unapologetically) a mechanist, often incurring the ire of cultural and/or practicing Christian philosophers, social critics, fellow scientists. We have, where I work, some debates 'twixt he and them, dismal affairs. They self-righteously condemn his "drivel," as if their disapproval speaks for itself.

Hi Farnaz,

Thee, re Gould:
"He took pains to rid science of its self-congratulatory myths, often pointing to its social embeddedness"

Yet it annoys many who post here to view science this way, as if it's being denied, devalued, put on a par with hucksters.

When I made the equation Science = Myth, one august posting personage reeled off an aretalogy of medical and technological marvels, for which I owed Science allegiance. The implication: how impious of me to be unimpressed by the idols, how ungrateful of me to bite the feeding hand.

Onofrio,

Agree with Cyber-Man. Thou art a chosen, selected one, a singer of (non)sacred songs.
:

Darwin fits the silhouette; they nail him as a sort of anti-apostle (sere beard fits the anti-part), failing to notice the contribution of their own beliefs to the notion of *selection*. Their dogma of the survival of the Elect in Christ - that all creation has laboured to bear them alone into eternity - is of the same kidney as the *Social Darwinism* they deplore.
----------------------
Interesting! "Survival of the elect," "grace," etc., but mitigated historically by race, nationality, etc. Confusion stemming from split btw. soul/body only loosely patched together again. Hence, pura sangre, limpe pura (pure blood) became for the Spaniards a prerequisite for being "Christian" (Catholic). This was their way of preventing pollution from the "savage" ways the Native Americans, and, worse, from "Jewish" thought courtesy of conversos.

This, too, was a development, "evolved" from prior "thinking," if one could call it that.

O N O F R i O:

Ahhhhhhhhh aaaaaaaaaaaa iNTERESTING.

WE [i],YE art "NATURALLY-SELECTED" & no-more as if "god(s) Chosen people.." SiNdrome!

i-ya-ya-ya-i-yaaaaayayay-YO!!

Christmongers of the creationist *kind* can only conceive of the world in terms of for/against, and thus crave personal villains, Christ-shaped shadows thrown everywhere. Darwin fits the silhouette; they nail him as a sort of anti-apostle (sere beard fits the anti-part), failing to notice the contribution of their own beliefs to the notion of *selection*. Their dogma of the survival of the Elect in Christ - that all creation has laboured to bear them alone into eternity - is of the same kidney as the *Social Darwinism* they deplore. The simian grandsires they find (and loathe) in Darwinism are reflections of their own view of unsaved humanity - beasts to superseded by the *new creation* in Christ, wayward, bestial, and damnable in their *natural* state.

They hate *natural selection* because it places them back in the striving throng, not set apart from it by *divine election*.

Whatever the *brand* of elect selectionism, vast numbers of human beings are consigned to a scrapheap, whether in this world, or the world to come.

If Darwinism is guilty, Christmongery is thrice guilty.

Hi Onofrio,

Yes, Darwin as symptom, if you like, "symptom," in the sense often used by postmodern theorists. Gould's essays are invariably a pleasure to read.

He took pains to rid science of its self-congratulatory myths, often pointing to its social embeddedness, its numerous, often amusing failures to pursue freshman level scholarship in tracking down citations, leading, at times, to decades of misconception.

As his critique of Darwin shows, and Gould was the quintessential Darwinist (plus contingency), he embraced the postmodernist critique; it enriched and expanded his work in the history of science. He, of course, was not/is not alone.

Farnaz,

Darwin as symptom - I like the cut of that jib. Makes a whole swag of sense. Yet more laurels to Gould.

Schaum,

Re: Abortion and crime

Hard to believe, but I see in Mary Cunningham's post on crime and abortion an argument that goes to the question I raised earlier. She points out that Ireland, which prohibits abortion, has a lower crime rate than England which allows it. The same relation obtains in, e.g., Qatar and the US, and I've no doubt we could find similar pairs.

Obviously, there are numerous other factors that must be taken into account before we establish a causal connection between legal abortion and crime reduction. To this, I might add any number of other possible outcomes related to, for example, earnings, pursuit of additional training/education, etc.. Given what we've learned via Pam, I suspect various correlational studies have been attempted.

Schaum, Walter, Onorio, Pam, et al,

Many years ago, I read an article by Stephen Jay Gould, originally published in Science. In it, he argued that Darwin was a Social Darwinist, in other words, that his investigation was informed by the proto-Social Darwinism already rife in the culture.

The essay was brilliant as was so much of what Gould wrote.

Susan: As always your essays are well written and thought provoking. I usually agree with most (not all) of your comments, but your essays always provide opportunities for serious discussion.

I notice that you get many more responses than most other panelists, and that may be gratifying. Unfortunately, so many of the responses are so far afield from the topic at hand that I wonder whether the responders even read your essay.

In the case of this essay, you are mostly correct.

Schaum,
cats.... :-)

WalterIFC:

Something similar here too. There is a sidewalk here, around the periphery of the entire condo complex. There is one condo, which is home to a big orange striped cat. He frequently sits on the sidewalk outside his home, and forces dogs on a leash to step off the sidewalk and into the street to avoid him. He fears nothing!

Schaum,
there's a cat on our street that has been declawed. the thing is none of the other cats (mine included) seem to know this. this declawed cat is definitely "top cat" in the neighborhood. i'd even say "top pet". i've seen the cat sitting in the middle of the sidewalk when a person comes by walking a dog. the cat just sits there and makes the person/dog go around him.

WalterIFC:

This particular cat, enormous, fat, graceful, swift, is one of four feral cats that live in my condo complex. I think everyone here feeds them. They are quite wild. And they are very disdainful of the humans they live around. They are interesting to watch. Oddly, one never hears them, no cat fights, no known fixed abode...and quite alive to themselves. They know who they are.

mary,
i know you're not a fundamentalist. i was referring to peter and the wonderful, but crazy, people up at my church. tata.

Walter,

Well, I'm certainly not a fundamentalist. And I can't see much wrong with the evolutionary theory. But Darwin's theory--and that's all it ever was/is a theory--led to Herbert Spencer and a faux scientism about racial groups. Spencer, incidentally, was a sociologist not a scientist. Social Darwinism was a wicked 'creed' and it had an enormous impact. (Why do you think when the US ended free immigration in 1921--about-- it left the door open for the English and Scans, but not the 'lower', darker Italians and Greeks, tragically for the latter in Asia Minor were trying to escape the genocidal intentions of the Turks. Sad, very sad, that history).

Anyway, can't do much more today (it's 4 pm here in London) but will check in tomorrow on Epstein's site.

Best,
MC

Schaum,
"...a cat, just outside my window, has caught a bird. God, nature is violent."

i love cats. they are domesticated (more recently and less so than dogs) but still wild. athletic, graceful, demanding, aloof, loving, playful... quick, somebody write a poem...

Nice quote from Anais Nin:

"Age does not protect you from love. But love, to some extent, protects you from age."

And that thought was just shattered by the discovery that a cat, just outside my window, has caught a bird. God, nature is violent.

Pamsm:

Thanks for the Freakonomics link. Its nice to read support for "my" theory, although disappointing to discover my thinking isn't original. Mary Cunningham's comments about crime/abortion in Ireland and UK are very interesting. And I agree: I'm not sure abortion as a poverty/crime control tool is a ripe idea, not withstanding Sanger's motivations.

onofrio,
"I take your point, though publications by Answers in Genesis say that Leviathan and Behemoth - those contemporaries of Job - would have been dinosaurs."

i know about AiG, ham, hovind, woodmorappe et. al. i just think they make the flood story even more, and unnecessarily, ridiculous by trying to account for dinos on the ark.

a clever scientapologist would just say they were extinct by then (without going into the issue of why so many (99%) of god's creations were "failures"). they've got enough to deal with trying to "explain away" the currently living animals.

mary,
i am interested in your thoughts on all of this (to the extent you care to share them).

you said,
"What I don't like about any kind of Darwinism is that it leads to Social Darwinism..."

it may lead that way in discussions. peter is very confused about this and talks about "darwinism" as a philosophy. i have to use scare quotes because "darwinists" don't say "darwinism" - that's a religious pejorative, meant to scare people, as darwin is truly reviled in fundamentalist circles. it also reveals a religious mindset: i think peter thinks scientists revere darwin like he was some sort of atheist prophet or something...like we hold meetings where we prostrate ourselves to darwin and wonder what he would have thought about this or that topic. it's kind of funny.

we (i, anyway) am only talking about the scientific theory of evolution. peter will occasionally conflate that with the social/political/philosophical realm, which to me, is an entirely different discussion.

as far as moving to a "quieter" thread, i would love to do that. it is hard to follow our conversation when other comments interspersed. these threads only seem to last about two weeks and we're on our 3rd or 4th thread now... peter is out of touch right now, but is supposed to check this thread monday, so if we left a message here telling him where we are, he could find us.

we could go here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/greg_m_epstein/2009/10/disarmament_begins_with_ourselves.html

it's a new thread (oct 2) with no comments on it yet. pam? onofrio(?)? mary? what do you think?

Schaum's theory about the link between abortion and crime rates was published in Freakonomics some time ago. I haven't looked at the American study, but off the top of my head there are a few things wrong. Criminal acts are correlated with young, poor men. Eliminate a large proportion of the young, poor men through aborting them and you will lower the crime statistics.

Abortion in the US is most common amongst poor black families, read the percentages in Guttmacher; I think African-Americans account for 12% of the population but 36% of the abortions. So free abortion has killed off a large number of (potentially) poor black men, the group most associated with criminal acts. Goes back to Marguerite Sangster and PP doesn't it. Her goal was to eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor themselves.

Internationally the correlation doesn't hold up. The crime rate in Ireland, which prohibits abortion is lower than the crime rate in the UK, which has free abortion. Of course, Irish women can travel to the UK for an abortion but the number who do is not large. The Irish have lowered their birth rate by contraception, which is freely available, not by abortion. Germany limits abortion to 12 weeks with no noticeably different crime rates than, say, Sweden where it is 18.

In an era of cheap and available contraception, I don't think the anti-poverty argument for abortion has legs, but I'm not about to debate the subject.

WIFC, pam, &tc.

I'm around, but maybe we could agree to post on a different blog. Too much of a melange here, difficult to follow the train of thought. And I'm not sure I'm up to debating ID--too tautological, like survival of the fittest really, or survival of the best adapted, or whatever you want to call it. What I don't like about any kind of Darwinism is that it leads to Social Darwinism which IMHO was/is a very bad thing.

Anyway...been travelling a lot, took Murder in the Cathedral with me (TS Eliot), well actually, all his plays and poems, it's not a very large book. The later poetry was just wonderful and managed to kill a few flies as well with the book.

Maybe we could try tenets of atheism, kind of an atheist theology. I'm OK on philosophy but not the deconstructionist drivel. Have to agree with The Moderate on that!

Best,
MC

PS Daniel 12, glad you're not posting any more poetry. But you might try a haiku, the standard is 5,7,5-syllables that is.

pam,
i said,
"'ardi' is much more than just a skull, but i know what you mean. it is only possible to 'extrapolate' from just a tooth or just a skull, if there are other similar, more complete fossls or similar living species."

and you said,
"There are anthropologists and paleoanthropologists who would disagree. Nebraska man notwithstanding, a great deal can be learned from teeth alone - diet, social organization, age at death..."

of course, and teeth ar harder than bones so are very often present. but i'm explaining to peter how scientists can find a tooth and say "it's a pig" (ancestor) based on just a tooth. that's usually because they have other more complete pig (ancestor) fossils to compare the tooth to.

the same point applies to all those other (great) examples you gave. peter wants to know (or at least pretends he does) how we can determine some animal walked upright just based on a skull. well, it's because we have other fossils (and living animals) with certain skull base structures for comparison.

Pam,

What is impossible for us is possible for God. If he wants to make some folks forget seedtime and harvest and take up the woomera, so be it. We just need to trust that God knows best. What is the alternative? If you're saying that Aborigines aren't descendants of Mesopotamian agriculturalists of the early Bronze Age, then you're saying God's Word can't stand, and that cannot be, since his Word says "the word of the Lord stands forever." (1 Peter 1:25)

Part one.

A short essay on Christianity, Lamarck and Darwin.

We all are aware of the prominent role Christianity has played in Western civilization. We all also are aware of the scientific revolution and its effect on Christianity. And we should be aware that the concept of evolution achieved its greatest success first with Lamarck and his theory of the transmission of acquired characteristics (one of the famous examples, the giraffe elongating its neck bit by bit and passing this characteristic to young who in turn elongate their necks a little bit more and pass the characteristic to young, who in turn...).

And of course we are aware of Darwin and how he is distinguished from Lamarck--how he is correct and Lamarck is wrong: Darwin has a characteristic such as the long neck of the giraffe having come about by a fortunate mutation in one or possibly more of the young which resulting in a slightly longer neck allowed the young gifted with the mutation to survive and pass on the characteristic. And the young when reaching adulthood and reproducing in turn done one better by genetics allowing for a still longer neck. No Lamarckian stretching of the giraffe's neck and passing the characteristic to young for Darwin, but rather a fortunate mutation which one of the young has and passes on at reproductive age.

Part two.

Now Darwin with respect to religion. Apart from the obvious, that Darwin challenges the Bible as to the creation of man, and opens up a much wider time frame, earth history than the Bible allows, we have Darwin leaving man adrift, with no special origin and no special destiny but rather a species like all others subject to natural selection. But there is a problem with this Darwinian view with respect to man.

Man differs from the animals in being able to invent and transmit culture. Man in fact possesses a rudimentary Lamarckian tendency which distinguishes him from the animals. Of course man is more subject to natural selection than this rudimentary Lamarckism, but this rudimentary Lamarckism is precisely what we mean by religion, culture, knowledge--and is the reason why man, for all natural selection, wonders if he indeed had a divine origin and has a special destiny. Interpreting man from the Darwinian view only not only overlooks the above fact of culture creation on the part of man, but makes him as adrift as the animals, with no special origin or destiny.

Part three.

This is not to say in entertaining the Lamarckian tendency on the part of man that we should turn back to religion and criticize Darwin, but rather do the opposite: See if we can increase this Lamarckian tendency, and even though in doing such we will wonder if we indeed are more special than the animals, we will not wonder in any hard and fast and constricting religious style. We will in fact become more scientific, while unavoidably noticing we are doing what no animal species has ever done--and therefore curious as to how special we are.

It seems with each passing day Lamarck is becoming more and more vindicated. Lamarck was incorrect in his famous theory--Darwin was much more accurate--but Lamarck's theory always did apply in rudimentary fashion with respect to man and his ability to create culture and pass it to young. With each passing day we are coming to see that although Darwin was more correct with respect to all other life than Lamarck, Lamarck is more correct than Darwin with respect to man.

Man does not like depending on fortunate mutations appearing in young to give him advantage. Man wants to take the offensive, and has done so in first creating culture. And we can see with the advance of the genetic sciences that man is zeroing in on the selective breeding Darwin describes and more: Man is coming into position to transmit acquired characteristics to young. In other words, although Lamarck did not know it, Lamarck was a prophet--with respect to man at least.

Part four.

Man is moving into position to bypass the need for culture, for what mistakes of the past and what wisdom of the past does the human race need to know when it can create humans beings who are so profound that they simply make fewer mistakes and are born possessed of wisdom which was all too rare in the past? The human race is coming to be able to design itself, to choose what it wants to become--and that is Lamarckian to the core.

And in being able to do such the human race simply cannot view itself as drifting in the Darwinian sense, subject to natural selection and having come from nothing and going really nowhere. Every step of the human race in becoming Lamarckian makes it wonder all the more about a special origin and destiny. This is not to say, again, that religion will come back against Darwin let alone Lamarck with respect to man, but rather the opposite--we will be moving further and further away from religion in our scientific knowledge as to what we want to become, but we will be connected to man's ancient past in wondering about a divine origin and destiny.

This is unavoidable in man making himself. Every success of man in choosing his destiny--and for all removal from religion that entails--precisely for becoming more and more capable of making himself man cannot help but wonder how special he is. Just as say, anyone wonders in becoming more and more successful in his field. Success does not breed Darwinian pessimism, man utterly subject to natural selection and having come from nowhere and going nowhere special, but rather the opposite no matter how far the removal from religion.

Darwin not to mention religion overcome; Darwin not to mention religion understood; Darwin not to mention religion not to mention culture understood: All understood in man designing himself.

Onofrio,
Speaking of Aborigines, don't you wonder why some of the descendants of Noah became primitive hunter-gatherers, when they were fathered by a relatively sophisticated, civilized people who understood agriculture? Did they just forget?

And the other point...

" 'ardi' is much more than just a skull, but i know what you mean. it is only possible to 'extrapolate' from just a tooth or just a skull, if there are other similar, more complete fossls or similar living species."

There are anthropologists and paleoanthropologists who would disagree. Nebraska man notwithstanding, a great deal can be learned from teeth alone - diet, social organization, age at death...

The base of the skull (foramen magnum) is all you need to know whether a pre-human walked upright, or was a knuckle-walker like the chimps and gorillas. Pelvises and femurs also tell this tale without other bones.

The top back of the skull tells you about muscle attachment from the jaw, which gives significant clues about the face.

Ribs tell you whether the conical chimp torso (reduces muscle strain when arm-hanging), or the barrel-and-waist human one was present.

But I agree that more is certainly better. This is why Ardi and Lucy are so important - they're the most complete skeletons known of their species.

Walter,

Thee, on providence and plants:
"maybe he built a "firmament" (today, what we might call a magic greenhouse) around two of each kind of plants to protect them during the flood. awesome, huh?"

Praise God, Walter; there's nothing he cannot do. Even though Scripture is silent on this point, something along these lines must have occurred.

When I've thanked the Lord yet again in prayer for the unmerited grace he bestows on those in Christ Jesus, I consider my favourite tree, the Wollemi Pine, and thank him that he preserved it through the Flood (or invented it afterwards - he can do anything!). Of course, all those God-denying Darwin cultists claim that the Wollemi Pine is a survivor from the age of the dinosaurs, which, in their blindness, they think was over 65 million years ago, contrary to the clear testimony of God's Word. But - praise God - Scripture gives those who believe a sure and faithful guide to the truth about these matters. We can rest assured that the Wollemi Pine survived in its remote gorge entirely due to the providence and wise foresight of the Living God. Its existence today proves that things the evolutionists tell us happened millions of years ago actually occurred quite recently.

Yep, God's awesome, Walter.

Walter,

Since Genesis is a fact, then either:

1) All the marsupial *kinds* were created in the Beginning, and then after the Flood made their way miraculously to Australia AND ONLY AUSTRALIA, along with just two *kinds* of monotremes - the echidna and the platypus.

2) The varieties of marsupials we see today developed from a Flood-surviving *kind* that arrived in Australia within the 4300 years since the Flood. So we're talking adaptation, mutation, and extinction on a vast scale, compressed into several millennia at most.

Of course the Australian Aborigines must be among the descendants of Noah's sons, and must have arrived here, like all the hoppy-pouchy creatures, within the last 4300 years (perhaps they helped herd them here?). We have lots of examples of rock art by these ancient people, who, as hunter gatherers, depicted animal species in careful detail. Today's Aussie fauna - kangaroos, goannas, bird and fish species, etc - can be identified in this art and in Aboriginal languages. But no sign of many other fauna known only from fossils. So THEY must have been extinct by the time Aborigines got here, i.e. significantly less than 4000 years ago.

Of course, these fauna, like the dinosaurs you mention, might have all become extinct before the Flood due to wildly viral sin. I take your point, though publications by Answers in Genesis say that Leviathan and Behemoth - those contemporaries of Job - would have been dinosaurs. And Ken Ham and Co would know, being far more expert at this sort of thing than you and I, not to mention all those sinfully blinkered paleontologists.

Doing fine, Walter, but I'm going to quibble with you slightly on a couple of points:

"btw, humans did not 'evolve from apes'... humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor."

Technically true - humans didn't evolve from any currently existing ape (chimp, gorilla, orang, etc.), but when you consider that the line that led to gorillas split off from the line that later split to descend to humans and chimps/bonobos, you have to conclude that that last common ancestor was pretty ape-ish. It's likely (though not certain) that Ardepithecus (Ardi) and Australopithecus (Lucy) were in our direct line, and they're essentially slightly modified apes themselves. Personally, I think it was fairly arrogant of us to classify ourselves as another genus. We're just brainier naked apes.

On the other hand, aren't these simple correlational analyses? Might not there be any number of other factors to explain the various crime decreases the authors point to?

onofrio,
"...these creatures must have travelled on the Ark in some form, along with all the dinosaur eggs and junior baluchitheriums."

from the evidence (the bible) i'm not sure about dinos on the ark. since the bible doesn't mention them, we have lots of interpretive latitude. it is possible that just before the flood, they all died (probably due to sin...), then the flood waters distributed and deposited them in the rocks (in the perfect evolution-mimicking sequence, as discussed previously).

i dunno, just a theory... you know, the animals get all the attention, put what about the plants? noah, that we know of, didn't bring all the plants on the ark. i think god must have taken care of them somehow. maybe he built a "firmament" (today, what we might call a magic greenhouse) around two of each kind of plants to protect them during the flood. awesome, huh?

(why'd he have to go through all the flood business anyway? couldn't he just have murdered all the bad people and left the plants and other animals alone...sheesh. truly mysterious.)

Pamsm, Schaum,

Found it on googlebooks, and, yes, here is empirical support for Schaum's theory.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LkQPOSXMUscC&dq=Freakonomics&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=BRvISujAOYHRlAeO7aySAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

"I have a pet "theory" that the decrease in the high rate of crime in the US is commensurate with the decrease in the population of unwanted people..."

Schaum and Farnaz,
Read Freakonomics by Dubner and Levitt - they make a pretty good case for it.

Walter,

Thee:
"and kangaroos migrating to australia (and only australia)"

And roos aren't the oddest. Don't forget the monotremes!

Strange isn't it, that enormous fossil marsupial wombats (Diprotodons) big as a car are found only in Australia. Given that Genesis is fact, these creatures must have travelled on the Ark in some form, along with all the dinosaur eggs and junior baluchitheriums. You'd think there would be fossil evidence of their long march down under, across Asia from Ararat. Perhaps one of Peter's bright Steves will dig one up in the ruins of a ziggurat.

peter:
"In Christ is "hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3)
Can you say that of yourself or any scientist? No."

sure i can. it's easy! and it would be just as true as when you say it about jesus.

Ah me, an ennead of d.

May it not put out de light,

like Olivier's Moor,

but rouse delight in the souls of On.

peter, on intelligent design:
"...the idea of Darwinism is starting to be questioned very intensely and new avenues are starting to be investigated as to how we got here."

pardon me, but i just have to laugh at the "new avenues" assertion. "maybe god did it" is the oldest avenue there is.

peter:
"...to be a credible scientist by todays standards you have to support the old evolutionary boys club. That is the mindset. People are starting to question it and the boys don't like it."

are you kidding me?! the scientist who could disprove evolution (using evidence, not scripture) would be the most famous scientist ever. the reason every scientist not presuppositionally beholden to ancient mesopotamian cosmology "believes in" evolution is the evidence. (un)naturally, you'll say that's because they're wearing their "evolution goggles". at least you've got to admit that these goggles seem to work really really well. when one "presupposes" evolution, all the evidence falls perfectly into place.

but, if you presuppose noah's ark you're left with "explaining away" sloth migrating to south america from ararat, and kangaroos migrating to australia (and only australia). you are also left trying to explain how the rock layers were laid down during the flood in such a sequence to make it appear as if life evolved "from simple to complex". note that the point i'm making here is the sequence of fossils, not the millions of years.

Farnaz,

"Elegant, no?"

Very sensible, yes, and *devoutly* to be wished.

The direly deus-distempered will diss it devoutly, doubtless.

Doubt and dread -(n)ought to be divorced. Q required.

farnaz:
"The argument from design, they suggest, should be taught in philosophy and religion courses, taught, not preached."

indeed, there is nothing new about intelligent design. it goes back to aristotle at least and i'm sure much much earlier. it could be said that the very first religious thought, possibly something like "who made all this?" proposed an intelligent designer.

peter:
"Yes I did see the [ardi fossil] news and I do not believe it is an evolutionary branch between ape and man. I have not looked into the details."

yes, but i asked whether two of ardi's "kind" on the ark?

btw, humans did not "evolve from apes" as miss/un-informed creationists say mockingly. humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

peter:
"You have no way of knowing if a fossil find is truly what happened. Scientists have been wrong in interpreting the evidence before, such as Piltdown and Nebraska man."

true. those were frauds. do you know who exposed them? it was scientists, not religionists.

peter:
"It is impressive what someone can create out of a pigs tooth and imagination. From skulls alone scientist's construct what the animal looks like. How exacting do you thing that is? How much speculation goes into their findings?"

"ardi" is much more than just a skull, but i know what you mean. it is only possible to "extrapolate" from just a tooth or just a skull, if there are other similar, more complete fossls or similar living species.

It's odd that college students who have religious training, not indoctrination, see the "intelligent design" controversy. The argument from design, they suggest, should be taught in philosophy and religion courses, taught, not preached.

Evolution theory should be taught in science classes.

The reasoning? The former is susceptible of philosophic and religious "arguments," the latter of scientific.

Elegant, no?

peter:
"...the idea of Darwinism is starting to be questioned very intensely and new avenues are starting to be investigated as to how we got here."

what?! "darwinism" has been under fire from the beginning. it's always been "questioned", i.e., tested, against new evidence. haldane, i believe, said something like "finding a fossil rabbit in precambrian rocks would disprove evolution."

and of course it has alway been questioned on religious grounds.

all,
pardon us while we converse here...we're like vagabonds being pushed from thread to thread as they close...

peter:
"Did you open the link to Discovery Institute? It is just a brief clip."

yes i saw it. i'm curious as to who their resident "agnostic" is. i mean, really, think about it. how can you be agnostic if your theory is "god did it"?

did you read the "wedge document" link i gave you? if not, google it. do you know who their founder is? it's a religious group. when it suits them, they say they're not, but doing so just makes them look bad, and undermines their credibility on "scientific" isues.

the wedge document describes how the goals of the intelligent design movement:
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

sounds religious...

Peter Huff,

He centres a farflung void on a race of mites, mere specks on a mote, seals them his own, sets them up to fail, dabbles as a mite to damn most and awe the scant remnant (such desperate lengths), and scintillates the latter forever with the spectacle of his own self-glorifying self.

That about nuts the gospel shell. What a petty godgoblin you revere.

Your posts lunge at a resounding brass peal, but burble out a flatulent monotone - certainty, certainty, certainty...Being deaf you play on, fancying your trump compels.

True, an audience lingers. I suppose the grotesque has its fans. Your flaccid cadenzas keep their titters from your tin ears.

Oh, yes, of course many unwanted children were born...and not all unwanted children become criminals.

Nevertheless, I've read enough to know that many people who are unwanted remain uneducated, undirected, often become mentally ill, resort to crime, and it occurs to me that when there are fewer unwanted lives, there must be fewer people turning to crime. Of course there is not empirical evidence (that I know of, at any rate) to support my 'theory'.

I have a pet "theory" that the decrease in the high rate of crime in the US is commensurate with the decrease in the population of unwanted people, and that decrease in turn is partially a result of abortion being practiced widely here for 30 years. An army of unwanted people has simply never been born.
----------------------------
You've said this before. But many unwanted children were born. Many wanted children become criminals. I'm not discounting your position. Just would like to know how you arrived at it.

Schaum,

One last interesting point: One student, who said she was a religious Catholic who had had an abortion, insisted that God did not belong in this conversation. She argued that so long as we had separated church and state, God could not be a factor in legislation. Unless we ended this division, no God arguments could obtain.

I feel the same way about systems analysis/design courses...it, like critical thinking, begins with asking the right questions.

I have a pet "theory" that the decrease in the high rate of crime in the US is commensurate with the decrease in the population of unwanted people, and that decrease in turn is partially a result of abortion being practiced widely here for 30 years. An army of unwanted people has simply never been born.

Schaum,

After Chris and a few others, gave the standard argument that a fetus was a human being with a soul, that to end its life was murder, they had nowhere to go. Opposing thse arguments were the woman's body, her rights to it, the falsity of the notion that a born and an unborn were equally human. They also brought up the now current argument that if we are indebted to protect a "life" that depends on another life, shouldn't we require all people to have bone marrow transplants, donate kidneys, etc, to save lives?

Amanda, the student I mentioned earlier did not participate in this debate, later telling me that she could not countenance the religious nonsense. She, too, though, found herself without a reply for the last argument. She's pondering it....

Schaum,

He thought it "unfair" that there were more arguments available to those who supported abortion rights than there were to those who opposed them.

All writing classes must, in some way, address critical thinking, I believe. Earlier, they had read an essay by Feldman on the "Church-State" debate. The essay purported to present the two sides without bias, yet they detected distinct sympathies....

Farnaz

"Rather than see this lack as a signal for them to rethink their views, they considered it "unfair."

I may be having a blond moment: 'unfair' in what way, exactly? To their point of view, to the unborn, to the 'right to life' argument, to what exactly? This is a writing class you are teaching? Are you working on critical thinking skills? And why and how, I wonder, did he think the arguments supporting a woman's right to choose were 'better'?

Hi Schaum,

You know, I'm not quite sure whether or not this discussion was illuminating although it raised some interesting questions. I have them write this essay since for more than one hundred years, we typically confuse assertion with argument. Hence, we have endless ravings, accusations, values preaching in place of evidence.

For example, one student, who opposes abortion on religious grounds complained that there were better arguments favoring a woman's right to choose than there were denying it. We, therefore, endeavored to add to his list. In the end, he and others of his view, were left with scant evidence. Rather than see this lack as a signal for them to rethink their views, they considered it "unfair."

In the end, they will have to present two views without bias. This will not be their primary problem; rather, it will be organizing the material. Therefore, I did not want the primary goal of this essay to be lost. Thinking and writing are, I believe, related.

After class, I asked the one brilliant student in the class, her views on abortion. She is an ornery, defiant young woman with a strong sense of superiority, a working class kid with a chip on her shoulder and absolute disgust for elitism. (She interests me!) She told me that she considers abortion to be murder. However, her perspective, she said emphatically, has nothing to do with religion. She's a science major and supported her position with data.

Farnaz,

So nice to see you again, illuminating this thread with your fascinating perspectives. Whatever you do, don't leave us.

In preparation for an essay comparing/contrasting positions on a current controversy, I had small groups of students debate a topical issue.

They chose the topics, which ranged from embryonic stem cell research to Barry Bond and undocumented immigrants. Debate plodded as most of the groups either found themselves in agreement or undecided on the topics. What did emerge was that regardless of the issue and their positions, most students based their conclusions on the same values. Those who supported embryonic stem cell research base their arguments on the value they place on human life; the same applies to those who oppose it. Priorities, etc., differ, but the values are, often, the same.

Hello Peter, you said:

“(W)here you start at determines how you look at the world.”

Agree with you 100%, how you start sets up the direction. Let’s go together back to the start, just to better understand why you believe in a world where the ultimate standard is based on what your God told you.

To simplify let’s say that there are only two alternatives.

One is to build analyzing step by step the material and immaterial world guided by tentative premises. Each piece analyzed may result true or false depending if I can trust that the facts supports the conclusion consistently, which means that any repetition of the analyzed phenomena gets the same results, whether I can do it by myself our trough others that I trust in. Early on in this direction it will be possible to gain fruitful insight into the material world, not so into the immaterial one. The later can be deal with as a concept, but cannot be proved consistent, nor even can be unequivocally proven to exist.

The other alternative is to build based on accepting that the understanding of the material and immaterial world only comes from an ultimate standard emanated from an entity from the immaterial world. Early on in this direction will appear contradictions of the truths resulting from applying the ultimate standard with rules that do not follow this specific standard. The conflicting results will be resolved by the ultimate standard, even if there are facts that appear to support the alternate result. Any gains from truths coming from knowledge that do not follow the ultimate standard have only temporal importance, not significant to the eternal meaning of the world.

Now let’s choose one of these two directions and make a case for the one selected. One of your observations in your post could help in this task: to choose the one that needs fewer assumptions, that is the more elegant.

Which one is it? Why have you accepted the ultimate standard coming from one specific God that never has communicated directly with you? How do you know that immaterial agents exist? There are hundreds and thousands of human groups that claim a different immaterial agents as the source of their ultimate standard, how and why you got to the conclusion that yours is the truly one?

(Peter, I know that you are busy dealing with simultaneous debates with other posters, so please don’t bother with an answer. My comments are just food for your mind, bone appétit!).

Unsupported, unsubstantiated and unproven, like the claims of virgin birth, resurrection and eternal life. All ideas stolen by jealous christers from earlier and older religions.

WALTER: "on the other hand, scientists who don't see any evidence for noah's flood come from all varieties of religious (and areligious) backgrounds."

But not all religions are true. How can they be? And just because they come from different backgrounds, to be a credible scientist by todays standards you have to support the old evolutionary boys club. That is the mindset. People are starting to question it and the boys don't like it.

There attitude is the same problem that got us into this mess, "Did God really say?" It is humanisms way of justifying itself - to deny God, to put man as the measure of all things. Some measure.

WALTER: "in science one doesn't start with the conclusion (e.g. "the flood happened"), then interpret evidence to conform to that conclusion - that's a religious thought process."

Sure they do. They start with a theory and make the evidence conform to it. A fossil does not come stamped "one million years old" or "transitional link." Someone looks at it and sees it came from a certain layer of rock, and everything that comes from that type of rock they date to a certain age - uniformitarianism. Or they see a similarity between this fossil and that and assume that it was a transition between two different types of beings instead of just shared similarities of design to co-habitat the same environment.

And yes, as believers in God we look to Him as the highest standard, the ultimate standard in order to understand the world He created. If we looked to another authority then His would no longer be that authority. The problem is that scientist's can't relate everything to everything else all at once whereas God can. He has disclosed how He created the world, why it is in the mess it is, and the solution of our problem.

In Christ is "hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3)

Can you say that of yourself or any scientist? No.

Hi Walter,

Yes I did see the news and I do not believe it is an evolutionary branch between ape and man. I have not looked into the details.

ME: "The consequence of ideas is a fascinating subject. Dig deeper into whom and what influences a person and you start to unravel their inner core values. This is the case with Darwinism."

WALTER: "and it is also the case with your "experts". if you are talking about "experts" who see evidence for a global flood a la noah's ark, i GUARANTEE you EVERY one of them has "core values" that REQUIRE that the flood happened as described in the bible. their salvation literally depends on it."

That is right Walter. I never denied that. Neutrality is a myth. Everyone builds on those core values - where you start at determines how you look at the world. But the point I continue to make is that unless that final reference, the ultimate standard of measure is objective and omniscient, nothing you believe is certain. You have no way of knowing if a fossil find is truly what happened. Scientists have been wrong in interpreting the evidence before, such as Piltdown and Nebraska man. It is impressive what someone can create out of a pigs tooth and imagination. From skulls alone scientist's construct what the animal looks like. How exacting do you thing that is? How much speculation goes into their findings?

WALTER: " as you might say, that's their "presupposition". any physical evidence out here in the real world is superfluous."

You are talking about evidence that happened in the distant past. Evolutionary thought has not built evidence in a vacuum, but it has been built step by step on false premises.

Unless it has been revealed by the mind of God or we think His thoughts after Him much of what appears real may be superfluous in your eyes but it is superficial. As I have said before, there are two real realms, the physical, temporal realm and the unseen eternal realm. And the second is greater.

If you have no ultimate standard how can you ever be sure you have it right? You continue to operate on the premise that you can sort this all out without God. Man is trying to relate something to something else without knowing all the facts. Are you sure they have it right?

Regarding terrorists with bombs, my nuke-savvy friends say don't worry. Bombs are well secured with fail safe devices. And they have to be carefully maintained. If a terrorist stole one it would soon be an expensive, inert pile of junk.

I read a long technical article to this effect as well. I cannot find it. I don't know much about bombs but I pal around with people who do.

If the Iranians really are going to make bombs, the U.S. and others will have to secretly cooperate to be sure they get the latest and best fail-safe technology to keep the bombs from going off and to keep a terrorist from triggering one. There is unspoken international cooperation on this. India and Pakistan have fail safe technology. I'll be even the North Koreans have been given this. Either the Russians, the Chinese or the U.S. will have to see to it that Iran gets it. No one want to see them with bombs that anyone can set off by pressing a button. That would be a terrorist threat!

A deceased friend of mine did, in fact, set off a bomb by pressing a button. The very first bomb.

Yikes. I never thought of it, but I am probably one of the few people alive today who knows folks who were at Los Alamos making bombs, and also people in Hiroshima getting hit by them. Both are such nice people . . . it is so difficult to imagine them in that unspeakable horror.

There have been some flippant comments by other panel respondents about how we shouldn't worry, mankind can handle bombs, its just another weapon, bla, bla. That's nuts. You might as well say AIDS or the Black Plague is just another illness, or the Nazis were just another hate group. Nuclear bombs are indescribably more horrible than you can imagine in your worst nightmare. Perhaps they are necessary for now, for the U.S. or Israel, but the long term goal must be to get rid of them, just as we got rid of torture and slavery.

My nuke-savvy friends say we will have to live with a nuclear Iran, but I think they agree with me and Obama that in the long term of history, eventually, we can and will find a way to get of them. A combination of political agreements and technological means of verification will eventually be developed to rid the world of these things. We have already made strides toward this.

themoderate wrote:

"I got the rumor of a small Israeli boomer too, from a retired Israeli intel officer."

It is not a rumor. It is well known that they have one. There is no point to having a nuclear missile armed submarine if no one knows about it. It will not deter if your enemy does not know it exists. The Israelis have no desire to actually nuke anyone. Deterrence is their only objective.

Israel will officially neither confirm nor deny having nukes, for political reasons, but everyone knows they have them. Frankly, they would be crazy not to have them. If any country ever needed nuclear weapons, they do.

Your Affectionate Uncle Moderate wrote:

""A real Nazi dropping in. Wow, and I hope not really."

Uncle Moderate:

"As the old song goes: "One more drink, fool, will drown you"."

Sounds like something your mother sang to you as a child.

Pump harder, little uncle.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Mucky:

As the old song goes: "One more drink, fool, will drown you".

So have another drink. Maybe it will help you to keep your characters straight. And yes, you were that transparent as "Schaum".

Dear LITTLE Moderate:

"Did you forget that you started that story as Muckenfuss? You really do need to switch to light beer."

As you know from your own experience, the best lies are the ones that remain as close as possible to the truth. Right, UNCLE?

I'll leave the alcohol to you and Armenius.
Pump, man...PUMP!!!!

Moderate: "A real Nazi dropping in. Wow, and I hope not really."

HAHAHAHAHHAHAH What a moron! Little-man syndrome and all!

Pump HARDER, Moderate (make sure you are applying it to the correct head). You are losing ground. You've been exposed and bested. You are just a gasbag. And a little one at that.

You are up past your bed time. You know it makes you cranky, sweetie. Let your "Nazi" friend tell another fairy tale to help you sleep.

Honey Bunch, Precious,

You never had any credibility, not when blustering about postmodernism, or sharing your entre nous with an Israeli General. Give it up, Darlin'. You're looking silly. Sleepy time, now. Must do what we can to preserve, you know.

Sweetie. You have lost all credibility. Enough said.

Jed,

"My scientist friends say "they are going to get a bomb so get used to it." I doubt they will use one on Israel because there will be a cold-war style balance of terror between them. No one can wipe out the Israeli defenses with a first strike. They even have submarine based bombs."

I got the rumor of a small Israeli boomer too, from a retired Israeli intel officer. Quite proud of it he was. Some estimates have Israeli deterrent forces at around three hundred warheads these days deployed in a miniature version of our strategic triad. Pretty hard to kill in a first strike for a newly minted nuclear power. Things should stay in hand for a while yet. Long enough to conclude a just peace, I hope.

Moderate/Affectionate Uncle:

You are a rigid bore, full of bluster about postmodernism about which you know nothing. You also lack the reasoning skills of even a remedial math student, and you protest way, way too much.

I praised Schaum, so I am Schaum. I praised Onofrio, so I am he too, and Arminius? Oh, I forgot. You said Arminius was Pseudo.

Bottom line: You're a silly old reitree who ought to just, well err retire. Affectionate Uncle, your fast decaying ear taught you only to write witchy and/or dull, wilting subjects, flabby verbs.

Lewis weeps.

"I've had good luck! A book dealer in Roanoke, who has agreed to buy my library before I go to Germany, has a complete set of the same edition of Nin's Journals, and is loaning me the first volume for a week. I'll go get it tomorrow."

Did you forget that you started that story as Muckenfuss? You really do need to switch to light beer.

I do not know much about nuclear weapons, but I happen to know many scientists in the nuclear weapons biz, including some in Iran, at the places which are supposedly secret but have been in the CIA factbook for years, and also on my mailing list (really).

According to these people, there are no technical way the U.S. or Israel can stop them from making a bomb. Even a full scale nuclear attack would only delay it. If they want to make a bomb, they will.

I cannot judge whether political pressure can be brought to bear, but it seems unlikely. They sell oil, which is fungible. If we don't buy it, someone like China will. China probably doesn't care whether they have bombs or not, as long as their oil is black.

My scientist friends say "they are going to get a bomb so get used to it." I doubt they will use one on Israel because there will be a cold-war style balance of terror between them. No one can wipe out the Israeli defenses with a first strike. They even have submarine based bombs.

volkmare wrote:

"The firebombing of Tokyo in 1945 killed more people than the atom bombs did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that same year."

I don't think that is correct but the numbers were gruesome. It may not be relevant but the deaths in Tokyo could easily have been reduced, if the Japanese government had taken responsibility and evacuated nonessential people, as European governments did. Subsequent conventional bombing killed many fewer people because the citizens evacuated themselves against orders, and because the U.S. bombers warned people where they were going to attack. The U.S. wanted the citizens to flee. The purpose was to disrupt industry and destroy cities, not to kill people, despite the lurid comments by LeMay.

"Is the loss of a soul by atomic fire worse than death by napalm?"

Yes, because atomic fires continue to cause sickness and pain decades later. They may even cause genetic problems generations later, but fortunately recent research indicates that is not the case.

Some weapons are more cruel than others. It was far easier to escape from conventional bombs in 1945 than from atomic bombs. It was easier to get help, because the surrounding areas and hospitals outside the bombed area were intact, and the number of casualties was not overwhelming. I know many Japanese people who survived conventional bombing. Their houses were destroyed but they were fine. I also know some people who were in Hiroshima, which is close to where I used to live. They still suffer.

"I don't think you were Yeal."

You are funny, Farnaz. You well know I wasn't Yael. You were the one who posted a Farnaz rant from that ID. It is perfectly clear that you were wrote Yael. Just like your latest sock puppet version did from its Nazi character login. You clowns get a few drinks in you and you can't keep your logins straight. Maybe you guys should switch to light beer. :^)

"You're coming off badly in this."

Em... Lets see now. Your sock puppet makes up a Nazi extremist character to taunt the decent folk who still blog here. You correspond on friendly terms about it with its author, and I am coming off badly? That's rich. Tell us another one.

"Protest away that you were on to Schaum; you weren't. Even I, who was, had doubts for a couple of moments there."

Why does it concern you so? Are you embarrassed? The character was easily identified as the latest in the long running /b/tard series. That series has been running too long. Friend, or nom de plume, what matters it? They are transparent and naïve characterizations. Pathetic excuses for writing, really. I remind you that you wrote:

"You are Hakenkreuzes? I kept wondering where Schaum had come from. The math should have given it away. The eclectic reading list, etc., knowledge of Christianity.

I missed one of you terribly.

The thing is the Schaum voice was so entirely different. What gifts you have. I envy you."

You impeach yourself in your own words. I wonder how many other of the supposed anti Semitic bloggers on these boards were similarly staged?

You have lost all credibility. Enough said.

Evidently she married her first husband, a man named Hugh Guiler, early in the 1920s, then went to Paris where she carried on a very open and evidently bohemian lifestyle with Miller while still married to Guiler. I haven't found any mention of his actions/reactions/behavior to this Nin-Miller liaison. Perhaps there will be something in the first volume. I'm beginning to feel like a divorce detective, finding a bit here, some stuff there.

Schaum,

Well that is luck! Where exactly are you now with the journals?

Farnaz:

I've had good luck! A book dealer in Roanoke, who has agreed to buy my library before I go to Germany, has a complete set of the same edition of Nin's Journals, and is loaning me the first volume for a week. I'll go get it tomorrow.

Ah, poor Moderate, the little man....
once again, as always, bested by Farnaz.
Pump harder, little man...PUMP HARDER!!!!

Moderate,

I don't think you were Yeal. I know you are Your Affectionate Uncle, uncle. However, I care not. You're coming off badly in this. Protest away that you were on to Schaum; you weren't. Even I, who was, had doubts for a couple of moments there.

peter,
"WALTER: "peter, did you see the news of "ardi" today. what's up with that?!! were she and her kind left off the ark?"

There again Walter, you are coming at this from your world view which suppresses God's word as truth."

huh? is that a yes or a no? seems like a simple question. what does "god's word" tell you about "ardi"? obviously i don't believe there was an ark, but i'm wondering how you "deal with" "proto-human" species.

peter:
"I saw your's and Onofrio's discussion from previous posts on the ark and the logistical problems. I'm working on sorting them out, what I can. There again, it is a matter of pitting one expert against another."

and earlier,

"The consequence of ideas is a fascinating subject. Dig deeper into whom and what influences a person and you start to unravel their inner core values. This is the case with Darwinism."

and it is also the case with your "experts". if you are talking about "experts" who see evidence for a global flood a la noah's ark, i GUARANTEE you EVERY one of them has "core values" that REQUIRE that the flood happened as described in the bible. their salvation literally depends on it. as you might say, that's their "presupposition". any physical evidence out here in the real world is superfluous.

on the other hand, scientists who don't see any evidence for noah's flood come from all varieties of religious (and areligious) backgrounds.

in science one doesn't start with the conclusion (e.g. "the flood happened"), then interpret evidence to conform to that conclusion - that's a religious thought process.

Hi Daniel 12 and Walter,

Daniel, it is going to take some time to unpack your post and I am not available this weekend. We are looking for a forum in which we can continue for a while. It does not seem to exist on the Washington Post Faith Forum unfortunately. Or does anyone know of one in which we can continue our discussion to fruition?

WALTER: "peter, did you see the news of "ardi" today. what's up with that?!! were she and her kind left off the ark?"

There again Walter, you are coming at this from your world view which suppresses God's word as truth.

I saw your's and Onofrio's discussion from previous posts on the ark and the logistical problems. I'm working on sorting them out, what I can. There again, it is a matter of pitting one expert against another.

I think you should work on how a mindless, purposely process leads to mind and purpose and how with no ultimate, objective, omniscient revelation you can justify your knowledge with certainty. How do you know a thing rightly, in all its intricate relationships without knowing God rightly, or without knowing Him at all? In your consensus of knowledge with others who do you point to as an ultimate source? Have they ever been wrong and how do you know with certainty they are not wrong now?

WALTER: " was god "practicing" with all those proto-humanish species before he got it right with adam and eve? maybe "ardi" was a "nephilim" ('cept that she was only 4' tall). is there any mention of a race (lots of races, actually) of "short people" in the bible? i don't recall that. maybe "ardi" was a juvenile nephilim. i can't say with objective absolute certainty because i wasn't there."

God created this world and everything in it with perfection, but limitation and each created to its own kind. Sin brought death and destruction, as God warned Adam it would. He got it right the first time.

WALTER: "come to think of it, how do you explain ANY extinctions? 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. god seems to have been hit-or-miss (mostly "miss") with his creations. does the bible offer any objective absolute clues on this?"

Yes, sin is the result of death, decay and extinction. Man brought this into the world when he decided to disobey God and take of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Man continues to live apart from the wisdom and guidance and law of God in deciding for himself what is good and in his limited knowledge of how things are connected and related has truly polluted and buggered up God's creation by his actions.

Susan:

I liked your posts before, but now that you've invoked the mighty Tom Lehrer, you're officially my favorite.

I once started a political science paper on immigration with a verse from "National Brotherhood Week" (and I got an A).

Thanks for an insightful post as usual, and in the tradition of the master himself (Lehrer), for injecting a bit of humor into a really nerve-wracking topic.

Moderate:

Perhaps it will help if you pump harder.

"The lady protests too much, methinks."

A couple of points:

1. You may be assured that I have no pretension to being anything like C. S. Lewis, or any other literary genius.

2. If you think I write CCNL or YAU you really are guessing. Actually, I wrote Yael. Or perhaps I write Arminius and Walter in Falls Church too? Or maybe I wrote Muckenfuss? Or Pseudo? Who knows who else?

3. As to "The above quotation refers to Coetze, not Schaum." You wrote:

"You are Hakenkreuzes? I kept wondering where Schaum had come from. The math should have given it away. The eclectic reading list, etc., knowledge of Christianity.

I missed one of you terribly.

The thing is the Schaum voice was so entirely different. What gifts you have. I envy you."

So that dog won't hunt.

4. "Second, quite obviously, you were not on to Schaum, not for a moment."

I was "on to" Schaum since his second post.

5. "Fairness, Moderate, is at the heart of the postmodernist critique." As it has no means of knowing or assessing facts or truth, its practitioners run roughshod over both. So its methods to lead to free floating subjectivity, fear, loathing, and self righteousness. Quite a bit like the Religious Right, and for the same reason. They are immune to experience because they have a fundamentalist belief in ancient tribal writings, and you are immune to experience because you have a fundamentalist belief in a method that says it has no meaning.

6. Schaum: You show considerable knowledge of certain apparatus. Care to make any product recommendations? Perhaps you could post a review based upon your experiences. Unfortunately your favorite one seems to have sucked out all but one of your brain cells. The remaining one is in underdamped free oscillation.

HAKENKREUZES: interesting.

Better 44/45 Qausi Judeo-abe-Ju's helping run America than 44 or 45+ Jude-abe-Islamic; not to mention the Judeo-abe-Christo's being the Majority & the Judeo-vedic-Hindus & Judeo-vedic-Buddhista's even more so being a 'minority' here when it comes to Religio (Pre-Apocalyptarian) SECTions or CULTural Domination of SECULAR Governing/RULE!?

44 or 45 'Elected' Americans representing 300.3 Million American constituents (less 14 Milion Illegals; almost as many as AL the JU's in the world once), when acting in Concert; is pretty good i [WE] saith! NO? Then How many Judeo-abe-JU's of the Anglo Enlisha/o Parliament's of the Judeo-abe-Christo's do abe-JU's now hold?

Note: Out of 1.3 Billion Musloms; how many [Judeo-abe-JU's] are Officers/Officials of their Quasi Secular & Theocratic Systems? How many Christo's? How many Hindu's? How Many Buddhists? ... Working in Islamic gov or Nation??

How many 'Elected' JU's are in the Communist-Russian Federation's of Government Oligarch/Dictator System? Any JU's running SINO Judeo-Vedic-Buddhista's CHINA there at also?

Note: Islamics hath a "ISLAMIC ELDERS OF 'AL TAQIYAH'" via the WAHABi Meccan's known as the Islamic ZIONIZM Secret Movement on Earth! Jewish Zionism has fullfilled their Dreams; Beyond the JEALOUSY's of thiose still competing with Them [Ju's & Christo, Hindu, Buddhist Friendly's]!

Note: Christos have the post inqusition as Crusade-Zionsism movement; and the Hindu's have the HINDUTVA version of their Zionism (for world Brain washing, penetration & eventual Dominance) movement too.

Lets see: 18 Million Jews on S.S. Earth compared to YE + 1.4 Billion CHRISTIANs + 1.4 Billion ISLAMICS + 1.4 Billion HINDU's + 1.4 Billion BUDDHISTS +.. shows Ye or this Internet-WORLD that SECULARism, is the Norm & the RULE, and Pleazzza, don't equate old-Ju-ZIONISM anymore in any religio pretext, shape nor Form!

Note: JERUSALEM is again Theirs (ex-Ju-Zionist)! But WASHINGTON D.C." is for the O.U.R. Generations HERE, not for the folks from the Abroad where all Judeo-abes & Judeo-Vedics [man-made; zero "IT" made) Jealous godly Systems have been IMPORTED here [Zero Made in America]!

Time to ask these "Power-Crats" to deport & or illegalize All Judeo-Abe & All Judeo-Vedic Tax-Free IMPORTED [un] godly Religio Institutions, aka "WMD" or Dirty Bombs to Be!!

VOTE: SiNGULARITY of ALL Faiths, Beliefs, Religions;

NOT: w/PLURALiTY or toleration of ALL such SYSTEMs!

Note: There are alot of Dumb or Naive Jews on S.S. Earth too; but not as many as first thought or believed. Unfortunaely the Dumb Ones or Naives ones perished in what is called the "SHOAH" or HOLOCAUST of Manymany such mass killings of HUMAN(s)!

Oye Vay; The Jealous folks are comimg, the Jealous folks are commimg.. Hold Ye Horsas's!

Farnaz,

"Difficult to penetrate. I've never seen a voice quite like his."
------------------------
And next time you seek to gather evidence, you might want to read more carefully. The above quotation refers to Coetze, not Schaum. Use google for Coetze's biography. Not too difficult to locate information the the erstwhile South African. Won the Nobel Prize, you see.

Jeez.

Farnaz:

"Second, quite obviously, you were not on to Schaum, not for a moment."

I believe his exact words were: "A real Nazi dropping in. Wow, and I hope not really."

The old gasbag just can't stand not being the center of all attention! I wondered for a while if he was CCNL.

Farnaz:

"although I'm beginning to wonder if you may have been behind all the fakery that was used to "incriminate me."

That idea has occurred to me as well. He does seem like a bored old gassbag.

Moderate:

. You have written various characters here under various logins and also slipped up the same way that X did last night with the Schaum login. No crime in that, mind you, and a useful dramatic device at times I reckon. I am pretty sure that others animate families of characters here too. Still, Schaum's Outlines are growing repetitive.
----------------------
First of all, I have not as I have repeatedly said, although I'm beginning to wonder if you may have been behind all the fakery that was used to "incriminate me."

Second, quite obviously, you were not on to Schaum, not for a moment. All one has to do to see that is to scroll down, Moderate, or should I say "Your Affectionate Uncle," to see that.

As I suggested on the last thread re: your references to Lewis and Shaw that I had been on to you from the start, and, again, you are no C.S. Lewis.

Frankly, you are nowhere nearly as skilled or amusing as Schaum. You strike me as a bit of a bore, in fact, without Schaum's sense of humor, elan, or anything else.

Pity, foundationally speaking. Fairness, Moderate, is at the heart of the postmodernist critique. ("Fairness": see dictionary)

Farnaz:

"If you have some cello or obo music to recommend, please tell."

Well, I'm mostly into chamber music, and early stuff at that. I have a large collection of music, for harpsichord of course, but of chamber music as well. I am partial to Quantz, early Bach, Tartini, Marcello. Most of the stuff the write for soprano voice can be played on whatever instrument is at hand: violin, flute, oboe. Cello is the standard basso continuo and with few exceptions does not have solo lines to play. You have to wait until mature Bach to find that stuff...and there really isn't much that is more sublime than the first movement of his first unaccompanied cello suite. His oboe concertos are first rate too. Do you play either instrument? I've had a few oboe lessons but that was years ago. I have a cello that belonged to my grandfather, but I've never tried to play it. It is a very difficult instrument, as is the oboe. Why your interest? Buying cds?

Poor Moderate. I guess the vacuum pump didn't help his little man. Well, perhaps porn will help.

Arminius,

"The hell bomb hits, a city dies
The children weep, a widow cries
No place to run, nowhere to hide
It is not war, but suicide."

Nice piece. Did you write that one? Are you really Pseudo?

Farnaz,

"Difficult to penetrate. I've never seen a voice quite like his."

I must say, that it was obvious to me from the first that Schaum and Hakenkreuzes and were figments of author X who has written many characters here. He/She (it? But no. Pretty hard to write a bot for Schaum, though I could easily have written one for Mucky. Disappointing lack of inventiveness in Mucky I must say.) even used the hint I gave lately on linguistic signatures in previous characters.

Certainly you are bright enough and have a varied enough literary background to write him; though I make no assertion that you actually did. You have written various characters here under various logins and also slipped up the same way that X did last night with the Schaum login. No crime in that, mind you, and a useful dramatic device at times I reckon. I am pretty sure that others animate families of characters here too. Still, Schaum's Outlines are growing repetitive.

peter, pam, onofrio(?), mary(?),
alright, darn it, i guess we'll come back to this thread monday and objectively absolutely choose a new one on which to continue.

it is quite a pain to jump from thread to thread. i guess threads closing after 2 weeks is indicative of short attention spans. they should leave a thread open if people are still posing there. sheesh.

peter, did you see the news of "ardi" today. what's up with that?!! were she and her kind left off the ark? was god "practicing" with all those proto-humanish species before he got it right with adam and eve? maybe "ardi" was a "nephilim" ('cept that she was only 4' tall). is there any mention of a race (lots of races, actually) of "short people" in the bible? i don't recall that. maybe "ardi" was a juvenile nephilim. i can't say with objective absolute certainty because i wasn't there.

come to think of it, how do you explain ANY extinctions? 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. god seems to have been hit-or-miss (mostly "miss") with his creations. does the bible offer any objective absolute clues on this?

To Huff on Darwin and evolution and the challenge religion faces.

1) Despite religion, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Man, like the animals, undergoing a process of development. What direction? No one can say. Origin of such developments? No one can say. Morality? all subordinate to natural selection.

2) Man fortuitously, by natural selection, somehow gets into position of being able to transmit some things to young--in other words, man transmits culture, which animals cannot do being apparently more subordinate to natural selection than man is. In other words, by natural selection man gets into a position of "despite natural selection" in being able to transmit culture. Rudimentary lamarckism despite Lamarck being discredited in his belief that animals can transmit more profound acquired characteristics to young than culture.

3) Lamarck realized as a prophet. Lamarck's theory not a description of man let alone the animals at the moment, but of what man will come to be able to do. Man through biology, the genetic sciences, getting in position to indeed transmit acquired characteristics to young. Man begins to design himself. Perhaps no intelligent design behind existence let alone God, but certainly, strangely, for all natural selection, all non-knowledge of a particular direction in which species develop, man getting into position of intelligently designing himself. And morality understood as first something subordinate to and designed by natural selection, but eventually the becoming of the act of man designing himself. Morality the successful design of the future state of man--this project perpetually realized. Religion? If religion not understood with respect to this process religion reduced to insignificance. Religion as understood now as merely man desperate to not be subordinate to natural selection and desiring to be saved from the often ruthless process of natural selection. Answer to all problems, religious and biological: Man designing himself.

Hi Pam and Walter,

There you go Pam. Even Susan appears not to share your optimistic view that there is an evolutionary innate "do unto others" view common to most human beings. It seems to all depend (in a world that has no ultimate, objective standard) what one man or a small group, or a majority of men can dictate as right in controlling/manipulating the masses into looking at right and wrong as the way they see things. If Mao can influence and sway the hundreds of millions in China who is to say what the "right" mad man can do if the world will lend him their ears and hearts.

No, you have no ultimate standard and therefore can't make sense of whose "right" is right. Authority by man is might is right, might sets the rules, and the rules continue to change. You, as an evolutionist still cannot justify your position, since you have no fixed measure or anything but subjective opinion. The evidence is all around you. You just choose not to see it for what it is.

PS. I can't post on David's forum. I'm not available this weekend, so I will try again Monday or look here for suggestions in how to keep our conversation going until we have all had our fill and say on our current topics. I liked it better when there was a place available where we could finish what we started without having to cut in on someone else's forum - i.e., back in the Sam Harris days of over 2000 posts.

Nup, Nof's a Nin-less ninny, e'er nakedly null, Nile-narrowed, and needful of nous.

Hey nonny, nonny oh ... |^O

Schaum,

Re: The first volume

I'm sure a local library would have it, a bookstore?

Schaum,

I've got to call it a night, fading fast. Maybe, I'll pick up Nin's first journal tomorrow. She wrote exquisitely as I recall. I should resist, no room for books, but one only gets to go around once, as it were.

If you have some cello or obo music to recommend, please tell.

Don't stay away. :

Farnaz

PS. I wonder if Onofrio and all have read Nin.

Perhaps I did say bio...after all, I said MSN when I meant NSM. No, its not a bio, its the Journals. And yes, she is in Paris, and I have read in some of the things that I've found online that it is about this time that she meets Miller. And I probably should do some searches on him, since I'm only vaguely familiar. I'd dearly love to have that first volume in my hands. Searching and reading scraps is frustrating.

Schaum,

Ah, so you're reading the journals! I thought you'd said a bio. I'm a little unclear as to where you are now. Has she gotten to Paris yet? Have you come upon Henry Miller?

I swear, you're making me think of picking them up again. I recently finished Coetze's "Disgrace" and am now reading his first memoir.

Difficult to penetrate. I've never seen a voice quite like his.

Farnaz:

"Thought of those, I swear! But I guess I thought you were far, far above 'em. :)"

Above 'em? I wish! I graduated with honors, but I sweat a LOT of blood doing it...and Schaum's was a big help.

Farnaz:

"

The journals are in five volumes. I have 2-5, the first having somehow disappeared. So I've been surfing the net EVERYWHERE to find out what I can about the first volume, and thats where I am at the moment. Thus far:

Nin first came across erotica when she went to Paris with her mother and two brothers in her late teens. They rented the apartment of an American man who was away for the summer, and Nin came across a number of French paperbacks: One by one, she read these books, which were completely new to her. She had never read erotic literature in America… They overwhelmed her. She claims she " was innocent before I read them, but by the time I had read them all, there was nothing I did not know about sexual exploits… I had my degree in erotic lore."

And thats about as far as I've gotten. I'm not sure if the first volume includes any details of her life prior to the move to France. I'm inclined to think it does, and my internet search just hasn't turned it up yet.

Alles,

Götterdämmerung turns out Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.

Lord, what fools we mortals be!

Schaum, you're an uncanny sprite, certes. Zesta.

Yours, Vermin.

Farnaz:

"Wesley Schaum? Sheet music?"

Ha! Schaum's Easy College Outlines. Can't tell you how many of THOSE I bought when I was in school!

Posted by: Schaum | October 1, 2009 11:27 PM
-------------
Thought of those, I swear! But I guess I thought you were far, far above 'em. :)

And Onofrio:

You really ARE the poet of the untermenschen, I'm glad to say. Keep it up. Your poetry is deevine.

If I cannot trust that I am not talking to an imposter, then I must bid you all a fond good-bye.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, prepare to die.
- Klingon proverb

Schaum,

I'm sure they're not mad irreparably. Although they might be mad reparably. You made me thing of Nin's diaries....It's been so very long since I read them.

So...Can you tell a bit about the biography?

Farnaz:

"Wesley Schaum? Sheet music?"

Ha! Schaum's Easy College Outlines. Can't tell you how many of THOSE I bought when I was in school!

Farnaz:

"The thing is the Schaum voice was so entirely different. What gifts you have. I envy you."

I thought it would be a fun game. Hope nobody is irreparably angry. And I really was reading Nin, not blog hopping.

Dearest Schaum,

Pleez don't go away. All is forgiven. You don't have to be a nazi. Of course, we don't get many self-professed Hitlerites, but what can you do? Go with the flow, I always say.

Obo? Cello? Deconstruction? Dance (Tango Argentina)? Math? Zen? Math and Zen? Zen and brain? Computer Programing?

We're all terribly fond of you, even if you aren't really a nazi. Honestly, you were very convincing.

Farnaz,

I just went off to reread a book by Erwin Schrödinger (of Wave Equation fame) that republished his mid-century lecture series Nature and the Greeks, and an earlier one on Science and Humanism. I seem to recall some stuff that will be relevant to the discussions. However, this must needs be a slow motion discussion because we are heading into areas that can't be dealt with off the top of the head. He discusses this whole subject object philosophical thing for a bit. Get back to you in a bit on that.

A real Nazi dropping in. Wow, and I hope not really.

For now it is time to sign off for the evening.

I hear strains of Grieg ;^)

Hakenkreuzes,

Thee:
"I'm 61 and gay and fat. I LONG ago decided I don't give a crap what anybody thinks."

AND

"Actually, I am neither "he" nor a "skinhead". My husband and I are both pharmacists, both Baptists, and both members of MSN.
We're everywhere."

Yes, indeed, Dovregubben, you are everywhere; all over the shop, in fact.

Wesley Schaum? Sheet music?

Farnaz wrote:

"Arminius, Onofrio, Schaum, Moderate,

I don't know about you, but I can't keep waiting for this bloke to return from his other blogging activities. Either he's with us or he isn't. (Doesn't seem to have much of a commitment)"

I'm sitting here watching this, and I'm fuming at having my comment about nature creating none of us equally taken entirely out of context. I've drafted a couple of responses, and rejected both. My observation had NOTHING to do with race or ethnicity. If anybody wants to think that was my motivation/reasoning, then screw him/her. I'm 61 and gay and fat. I LONG ago decided I don't give a crap what anybody thinks.

Posted by: Hakenkreuzes | October 1, 2009 10:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
-----------------------------
Schaum,

You are Hakenkreuzes? I kept wondering where Schaum had come from. The math should have given it away. The eclectic reading list, etc., knowledge of Christianity.

I missed one of you terribly.

The thing is the Schaum voice was so entirely different. What gifts you have. I envy you.

Farnaz,

"Please forgive me! I'm so terribly sorry. But are you really fat? I can't believe it!"

I'm confused at this stage, but I think she is mocking me now. I think I have made a point several times in the past of saying "I don't give a crap what others think." I suspect that is what she is jabbing at. Besides, I'm 212...stocky but not fat. And I've made no secret of the fact that I'm gay. I suspect that is part of her 'inspiration' as well.

There is no such thing as a self-admitted gay nazi. Homosexuals were delivered to the 'final solution' team, along with communists and people with birth defects.

Dearest Gauleiter,

Please don't take offense. I have nothing against obesity, am not an fattophbia. Some of my closest friends are fat. I can honestly say that fat people have made great contributions to the world, if not to the subways. (Just kidding!)

It's just that I pictured you as thin. And, believe me, there's nothing so great about thinness.

Stand up for your rights! Don't let those skinny aryans push you around. (Do they know you're gay? I wouldn't go running around telling them.)

Obo?

Hakenkreuzes,

Please forgive me! I'm so terribly sorry. But are you really fat? I can't believe it!

Arminius,

"Nazi Christianity - what an oxymoron."

Here! Here!

Hakenscheissen, did you know that Jesus was a Jew? If not, why not?

Well, it was interesting while it lasted. Usually, when nazis appear on this thread, one can't get rid of them. Of course, they don't think of themselves as nazis.

There's probably something worth considering in the above. Though not by me. I just don't have the energy.

Gauleiter,

You could also talk about dance...? The waltz? Tango Argentina? Alvin Ailey?

Hakenkreuz,

That is emphatically NOT what I meant, and I'd appreciate it if you'd leave me out of this.

Farnaz's comment was addressed to me, and two others, not to you. Do not presume to speak for me.

Farnaz wrote:

"Arminius, Onofrio, Schaum, Moderate,

I don't know about you, but I can't keep waiting for this bloke to return from his other blogging activities. Either he's with us or he isn't. (Doesn't seem to have much of a commitment)"

I'm sitting here watching this, and I'm fuming at having my comment about nature creating none of us equally taken entirely out of context. I've drafted a couple of responses, and rejected both. My observation had NOTHING to do with race or ethnicity. If anybody wants to think that was my motivation/reasoning, then screw him/her. I'm 61 and gay and fat. I LONG ago decided I don't give a crap what anybody thinks.

Onofrio,

I really think ours is a musical nazi. I wouldn't bring up Wagner, though--only because he might might misunderstand. Perhaps another great German composer (not Jewish)?

Hi Onofrio,

Bloke seemed right in this context for some reason.

Arminius,

Israelis invented all that? Btw, I think our disappearing friend did mention Al Franken. Wish he wouldn't keep going and coming like this. Really. I mean where else does one find Jews interested in nazi takes on knowledge, in general? How many Jews really talk with nazis these days?

I ask you.

"Imagine the US being forced to give aid to the Taliban or to Saddam's army so that they could go on fighting us."

Sadly, you are every time you drive into a gas station and fill 'er up! So am I. We don't need to get free of Mideast Oil, oh no. Not a bit. Why our Saudi friends funding the Taliban actually like us. Yes siree! I am sure of it. Anyhow, only a Socialist President would would even think of natural gas for long haul transport, or plug-in hybrids.

Farnaz,

I note the "bloke"! My Austral heart is warmed :^)

Perhaps our fascist friends would like to discuss the music of Mendelssohn, or Israeli inventions, like the cell phone, or the laser method of enriching uranium?

Arminius, Onofrio, Schaum, Moderate,

I don't know about you, but I can't keep waiting for this bloke to return from his other blogging activities. Either he's with us or he isn't. (Doesn't seem to have much of a commitment)

Hakenkreuzes,

You have returned! No nervous breakdowns--I'm too sturdy, I'm afraid. Although the concept always seemed romantic to me. Elliot had one, you know, a fellow traveler of yours.

Do you have a favorite piece of cello or obo music? I'm not really thinking so much of virtuoso stuff.

Hakenscheissen,

Farnaz has been through a lot worse than you lightweights. Just be glad she's nowhere nearly pissed off.

Again, I aver, nazis aren't what they used to be. One recalls a time when they had a longer attention span. Ours keeps skipping from blog to blog. Rude, just plain rude, IMHO.

Well, when he comes back, I propose that he choose another topic so as to let his nazism incubate and come out even stronger tomorrow:

Proposed topics for nazi(s): Deconstruction, Math and Zen, Zen and brain, Computer programing, music for the cello or obo (I like those instruments).

Are nazis capable of another subject, Farnaz? If so, it could be entertaining, since their ignorance would be appalling.

Farnaz,

You might have something there with your inbreeding theory. Perhaps it might be expanded to include the extreme religious right - they certainly don't seem to be the sharpest tools on the workbench.

Calm yourself Princess Farnaz. You are overheating. If you are not careful, you'll have another nervous breakdown, and end up looking for yet another place to teach.

After all, nazis need a change of topic just like the rest of us...No?

Moderate,

"You don't suppose this is another joke personality troll as sometimes appear here?"

I've considered it, Moderate. Jury's still out. In the meantime, I'll jab a bit and see what bleeds through...

Truthfully, as far as nazis go, this one isn't so bad. I think we should let him stop being a nazi momentarily.

Perhaps, he has an opinion on deconstruction? Or math? Or computer programing? Or Zen? Wiener Schnitzel?

Hakenkreuzes,

Thee:
"After all, the great Schaum himself has said that nature does not create us equal. Ask him."

My question wasn't about nature, but about the new creation in Christ. I'll restate it:

Do you, as a Baptist, count black Baptists as brothers and sisters in Christ?

Simple enough...

Nazi Christianity - what an oxymoron. What a horror. What a blasphemy. If Jesus came back today, the first thing He would do is throw you bastards out of His temple. To call yourselves Christian would be funny if it were not so vomit-inducing disgusting. So what did you do to the Prince of Peace, give Him a moustache and a waffen SS uniform, plus blond hair and blue eyes? And armed to the teeth, too, no doubt. Or does He even enter into your 'religious services'?

Jesus wept.

Arminius, Onofrio, and Farnaz,

You know, I just went off to do a little background reading before continuing the discussion on epistemology, or apparent lack thereof, in postmodern deconstruction with Farnaz, and I come back to find somebody talking about this:

"... poet of the untermensch."

"Faster acting ZyklonB?"

So what just came out of the woodwork? You don't suppose this is another joke personality troll as sometimes appear here? I hope this person is not actually serious. But the tone does not sound satirical. Extraordinary.

It seems to me, and, of course, I'm speaking as an outsider, that nazis just aren't what they used to be. Have you guys seen Hirschfield's "For God's Sake" thread? About the nazi Kansas Baptist Church--white supremacist, anti-Jewish, anti "fag," etc.?

Well, they apparently did disrupt a Long Island synagogue memorial for Annie Le, the young Yale student who was slaughtered. My students came in to class with this. At all events they've been demonstrating elsewhere, and according to my class (no Jews that I'm aware of in the bunch), most of the demonstrators were young children.

I guess the Kansas church decided to bring out the heavy guns. Courage. My students also said they looked alike. Now, that was interesting since the "pastor," a disbarred lawyer has a congregation of from 70 to 100, mostly his relatives.

Inbreeding could account for the decline in nazi intelligence.

Merely a theory.

Oniofrio,

As a Baptist, do you count black Baptists as brothers and sisters in Christ?

============================

After all, the great Schaum himself has said that nature does not create us equal. Ask him.

But an interesting quote from Nin:

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage."

I suppose I have to take it back: perhaps this is not an intelligent racist after all.

So far, he/she has only quoted what is on the NSM site. Nothing new or original.

Arminius:

"Well, then, HakenScheissen,

I think we need more Jewish members in Congress and in the administration."

I wonder why Al Franken didn't make the list.

Arminius:

Farnaz,

I think we may be dining on grilled gauleiter and kreuz kebabs for supper ce soir.

Holy Omnopotence! Meant to write "Plautus, the Roman Jewish terrier."

Gauleiter,

You overlooked Orren Hatch! Not to worry. It's a common mistake. Then there is Plautus, the ancient Greek Jewish puppy who lives next door and controls world caninery.

Hakenkreuzes,

As a Baptist, do you count black Baptists as brothers and sisters in Christ?

Well, then, HakenScheissen,

I think we need more Jewish members in Congress and in the administration.

Hakenkreuzes,

Thee:
"Ah, dear Onofrio, poet of the untermensch."

Gladly so, and inevitably, since I write from the Unterwelt.

I daresay I'm *whiter* than thou, so you'll have to tar me a race traitor.

Not every Sigurd loves Wagner...but I do love to jab at Baptofascist Fafnirs.

Venn der fuehrer says, "Ve are der master race",
Ve HEIL, PLBZZZZ, ve HEIL, PLBZZZZZ, right in der fueher's face!

Himmler, has only got one ball
Goering, has two but they are small
But Hitler, well poor old Hitler,
Well Adolf Hitler has no balls at all.

The Zionist 111th US Congress

The following is a list of the 44 Jewish members —13 senators and 31 representatives — who are serving in the 111th U.S. Congress, which convened in January 2009:

U.S. SENATE

Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)

Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.)

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Al Franken (D-Minn.)*

Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.)

Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)**

Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.)

Carl Levin (D-Mich.)**

Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.)

Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Arlen Specter (D-Pa.)

Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)

John Adler (D-N.J.)*

Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)

Howard Berman (D-Calif.)

Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

Stephen Cohen (D-Tenn.)

Susan Davis (D-Calif.)

Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)

Bob Filner (D-Calif.)

Barney Frank (D-Mass.)

Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)

Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)

Jane Harman (D-Calif.)

Paul Hodes (D-N.H.)

Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)

Steve Kagen (D-Wisc.)

Ron Klein (D-Fla.)

Sander Levin (D-Mich.)

Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)

Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)

Jared Polis (D-Colo.)*

Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)

Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)

Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.)

Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)

Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)

Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)

Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)

Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)

John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)

* Elected to Congress for the first time

** Senators who were re-elected.

Democrat Rahm Emanuel was re-elected to his Illinois House seat, but left Congress to serve in the Obama administration as White House chief of staff.

It's hard to find literate nazis to chat with these days, Gauleiter. Terrierly difficult.

Springtime for Hitler

Download RingtoneSend “Springtime for Hitler” Ringtone to Your CellDownload Ringtone

CHORUS:
Germany was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore
Its former glory
Where, oh, where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me
LEAD TENOR STORMTROOPER:
And now it's...
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay!
We're marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Rhineland's a fine land once more!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Watch out, Europe
We're going on tour!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany...
CHORUS:
Look, it's springtime
LEAD TENOR STORMTROOPER:
Winter for Poland and France
CHORUS AND STORMTROOPER:
Springtime for Hitler and Germany!
CHORUS:
Springtime! Springtime!
Springtime! Springtime!
Springtime! Springtime!
Springtime! Springtime!
STORMTROOPER:
Come on, Germans
Go into your dance!
STORMTROOPER "ROLF":
I was born in Dusseldorf und that is why they call me Rolf.
STORMTROOPER "MEL":
Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party!
ULLA:
The Fuhrer is coming, the Fuhrer is coming, the Fuhrer is coming!
STORMTROOPER #1:
Heil Hitler!
STORMTROOPER #2:
Heil Hitler!
LEAD TENOR STORMTROOPER:
Heil Hitler!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
ALL:
Heil Hitler!
ROGER:
Heil myself
Heil to me
I'm the kraut
Who's out to change our history
Heil myself
Raise your hand
There's no greater
Dictator in the land!
Everything I do, I do for you!
CHORUS:
Yes, you do!

PART II

ROGER:
If you're looking for a war, here's World War Two!
Heil myself
Raise your beer
CHORUS:
Jawohl!
ROGER:
Ev'ry hotsy-totsy Nazi stand and cheer
CHORUS:
Hooray!
Ev'ry hotsy-totsy Nazi...
ROGER:
Heil myself!
CHORUS:
Ev'ry hotsy-totsy Nazi...
ROGER:
Heil myself!
CHORUS:
Ev'ry hotsy-totsy Nazi...
ROGER:
...stand and cheer!
THE HEIL-LOs:
The Fuhrer is causing a furor!
He's got those Russians on the run
You gotta love that wacky hun!
The Fuhrer is causing a furor
They can't say "no" to his demands
They're freaking out in foreign lands
He's got the whole world in his hands
The Fuhrer is causing a furor!
ROGER:
I was just a paper hanger
No one more obscurer
Got a phone call from the Reichstag
Told me I was Fuhrer
Germany was blue
What, oh, what to do?
Hitched up my pants
And conquered France
Now Deutschland's smiling through!
But it wasn't always so easy...
It was 1932. Hindenburg was working the Big Room and I...
I was playing the lounge. And then I got my big break.
Somebody burned down the Reichstag. And, would you believe it?
They made me Chancellor. Chancellor!
It ain't no myst'ry
If it's politics or hist'ry
The thing you gotta know is
Ev'rything is show biz
Heil myself
Watch my show
I'm the German Ethel Merman
Dontcha know
We are crossing borders
The new world order is here
Make a great big smile
Ev'ryone sieg heil to me
Wonderful me!
And now it's...
CHORUS:
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Goose-step's the new step today

ROGER:
Springtime!
Goose-steps!
CHORUS MEN:
Bombs falling from the skies again
CHORUS:
Deutschland is on the rise again
ROGER & CHORUS:
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
U-boats are sailing once more
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
ROGER:
Means that...
CHORUS:
Soon we'll be going...
ROGER:
We've got to be going...
CHORUS:
You know we'll be going....
ROGER:
You bet we'll be going...
ROGER & CHORUS:
You know we'll be going to war!!

Springtime for Hitler Lyrics

Download RingtoneSend “Springtime for Hitler” Ringtone to Your CellDownload Ringtone

CHORUS:
Germany was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore
Its former glory
Where, oh, where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me
LEAD TENOR STORMTROOPER:
And now it's...
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay!
We're marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Rhineland's a fine land once more!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Watch out, Europe
We're going on tour!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany...
CHORUS:
Look, it's springtime
LEAD TENOR STORMTROOPER:
Winter for Poland and France
CHORUS AND STORMTROOPER:
Springtime for Hitler and Germany!
CHORUS:
Springtime! Springtime!
Springtime! Springtime!
Springtime! Springtime!
Springtime! Springtime!
STORMTROOPER:
Come on, Germans
Go into your dance!
STORMTROOPER "ROLF":
I was born in Dusseldorf und that is why they call me Rolf.
STORMTROOPER "MEL":
Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party!
ULLA:
The Fuhrer is coming, the Fuhrer is coming, the Fuhrer is coming!
STORMTROOPER #1:
Heil Hitler!
STORMTROOPER #2:
Heil Hitler!
LEAD TENOR STORMTROOPER:
Heil Hitler!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
ALL:
Heil Hitler!
ROGER:
Heil myself
Heil to me
I'm the kraut
Who's out to change our history
Heil myself
Raise your hand
There's no greater
Dictator in the land!
Everything I do, I do for you!
CHORUS:
Yes, you do!
ROGER:
If you're looking for a war, here's World War Two!
Heil myself
Raise your beer
CHORUS:
Jawohl!
ROGER:
Ev'ry hotsy-totsy Nazi stand and cheer
CHORUS:
Hooray!
Ev'ry hotsy-totsy Nazi...
ROGER:
Heil myself!
CHORUS:
Ev'ry hotsy-totsy Nazi...
ROGER:
Heil myself!
CHORUS:
Ev'ry hotsy-totsy Nazi...
ROGER:
...stand and cheer!
THE HEIL-LOs:
The Fuhrer is causing a furor!
He's got those Russians on the run
You gotta love that wacky hun!
The Fuhrer is causing a furor
They can't say "no" to his demands
They're freaking out in foreign lands
He's got the whole world in his hands
The Fuhrer is causing a furor!
ROGER:
I was just a paper hanger
No one more obscurer
Got a phone call from the Reichstag
Told me I was Fuhrer
Germany was blue
What, oh, what to do?
Hitched up my pants
And conquered France
Now Deutschland's smiling through!
But it wasn't always so easy...
It was 1932. Hindenburg was working the Big Room and I...
I was playing the lounge. And then I got my big break.
Somebody burned down the Reichstag. And, would you believe it?
They made me Chancellor. Chancellor!
It ain't no myst'ry
If it's politics or hist'ry
The thing you gotta know is
Ev'rything is show biz
Heil myself
Watch my show
I'm the German Ethel Merman
Dontcha know
We are crossing borders
The new world order is here
Make a great big smile
Ev'ryone sieg heil to me
Wonderful me!
And now it's...
CHORUS:
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Goose-step's the new step today

ROGER:
Springtime!
Goose-steps!
CHORUS MEN:
Bombs falling from the skies again
CHORUS:
Deutschland is on the rise again
ROGER & CHORUS:
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
U-boats are sailing once more
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
ROGER:
Means that...
CHORUS:
Soon we'll be going...
ROGER:
We've got to be going...
CHORUS:
You know we'll be going....
ROGER:
You bet we'll be going...
ROGER & CHORUS:
You know we'll be going to war!!

Make that a Großkreuz.

Princess Farnaz1,

Have you spent much time in Germany? Berlin, perhaps? Frankfurt? Cologne?

===================================

"We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can't criticize Israel." -Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache

Ah, dear Onofrio, poet of the untermensch.

Faster acting ZyklonB? Perhaps. But the original worked well enough, with all manner of vermin.

Hakenkreuzes,

Baptochemistical crossbender,

Come the great Kampf that will herald the 1000 year Christoreich, your chemistic skills, no doubt, will be in high demand to develop faster acting kill-grade Zyklon. Hell, perhaps you can even come up with stuff that both slays and erases all physical traces. Final solution meets failsafe deniability! Now that would be worth an Eisernes Kreuz, certes!

Hakenkreuzes,

Hmm Baptofascists, eh...

And pharmacists too! No doubt you will be chafing at the chance to carry out some cutting-edge research on untermensch twins, once the Reich is resurrected.

Schaum,

Well, carry on with your literary quest. Meanwhile, it's lock and load time here.

Ah, Detroit. I guess there are failed cities like failed states. But don't bury them quite yet, ya never knows.

Yes, Arminius, I figured that out. Interesting website. Better organized than I would have expected.

But I am deeply into the biography of Anais Nin at the moment, and think I'll spend the evening there, rather than with the Nazis.

Ah, incest!!

By the way: have you read that bodies are piling up in Detroit? Unclaimed dead, and those who are "claimed" by relatives who cannot afford burials or cremations, are evidently increasing in number throughout the city, which has no funds to dispose of them. So they are locating them in freezers for the duration. It is constitutional to use jailed inmates and prisoners for manual labor. I wonder why it hasn't occurred to them simply to form workcrews of inmates to do the digging and burying! Talk about community service.

On the other hand, perhaps it would make more sense just to bury Detroit.

Darling Hakenkreuzes,

Have you spent much time in Germany? Berlin, perhaps? Frankfurt? Cologne?

Schaum,

You have probably figured it out already, but she (it?) misspelled msn, meaning nsm, and the web address leads to a nazi site.

My claymore is at hand, and I am applying woad. Bring on the bagpipes! A BELLANDAINE!

MSN? Surely you mean NSM. I guess even educated racists can make typos.

That is an interesting concept. An educated racist. I've never known one of those before. I wonder if their numbers really are growing? So this is an intellectual choice for you, or the usual visceral hatred of people who are different?

Hakenscheiss,

You are nowhere. You are an artifact, left over from the most hideous, non-human system ever to be a cancer to humanity. There really should be a bounty on you sorry bastards.

?

Look at Schaum and Armenius with their fun facts.

Actually, I am neither "he" nor a "skinhead". My husband and I are both pharmacists, both Baptists, and both members of MSN.

We're everywhere.

http://www.nsm88.org/

Hmmmmmm....

Schaum,

Yup, our (apparently) National Socialist Party interloper has been seen before in On Faith. It will be interesting to see what transpires.

Hakenkreuze, as I'm sure everyone on this blog knows, is the German word for swastika.

Given the tone of his comments to Farnaz, I'd be willing to bet he's a racist (skinhead?) who has been lurking here for some time. And I'd be willing to bet he's gearing up to make himself well-known to us.

Hakenkreuzes wrote:

"He ignores those who get it right in their youth."

Yes, well, he was Russian. What were you expecting?

WalterIFC:

"i predict the next use of a nuclear bomb will be by a muslim. he will do it in allah's name. "

I predict you are right.

Hakenkreuzes wrote:

"This is interesting! Do you have a link for the whole article? I'd like to read it."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0318-14.htm

'Interesting' is something of an understatement. By this plan, called COG (Continuation of Government) Reagan, in the event of an attack against the US and the consequent death of the Pres and VP, actually sets aside the order of succession to the Presidency established clearly by the Constitution. In so doing, he set aside the rule of the Constitution in the event of an attack. It should be remembered that he twice swore to uphold and defend this same Constitution!

Can't trust Republicans with anything.

to clarify, i'm not talking about testing a bomb or anything. i mean the use of a nuclear bomb to kill people (probably not muslims, but possibly the "wrong kind" of muslims) will be done by a muslim.

i predict the next use of a nuclear bomb will be by a muslim. he will do it in allah's name. (not really going out on a limb here...)

Schaum

The Armageddon Plan

This was published in the March, 2004 issue of The Atlantic:

"At least once a year during the 1980s Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld vanished.....etc.

======================================

This is interesting! Do you have a link for the whole article? I'd like to read it.

Schaum

"Some people spend all their lives in search of life's meaning. Others give it up as hopeless in their youth and decide to take life as it is. But here I came to a very curious conclusion: Meaning should be introduced into life. It's that simple."

Lt. Kolya Zubkov, in 'The Hidden War' by Artyom Borovik

==============================

He ignores those who get it right in their youth.

Farnaz1Mansouri1

Never for a moment was the use of atomic weaponry considered.

==========================

So, princess, you are a member of the Israeli government? You are in a position to offer such assurances? You have access to government secrets in Israel and Iran and the United States?

To quote my dear sweet mother:

Work as if everything depends on you

and

Pray as if everything depends on God.

Of course ( in the best eastern philosophical way of thinking ) they are both true.

based on what I have seen so far from the North Korean leaders and the terrorist funding leaders of Iran, coupled with the in-effectiveness of past attempts at steering countries through sanctions and diplomacy, .....

Prayer is our best bet.

For all those who dont believe in a personal, prayer hearing God and see prayer as little more than wishing, I have one suggestion.

Get a little faith, quick.

Arminius,

I'm off, as well. Regarding tirades, good to know your perspective, but I won't be receiving them whether given or not.

Nor am I getting off on tangents re Israel, whether Susan or anyone else wants them.

The issue is Nejad. If anything, I'd rather discuss what brought Iran to where it is now, or should I say whom, and it wasn't Israel.

Farnaz,

Thanks for the replies, but I'm fading fast and will pursue in the a.m.

Nor am I interested in tirades, either given or received.

Arminius,

Read your other link. God this is weird. You know that France pushed the whole Suez business right from the beginning. This is absolute B.S.

Israel resisted as did the US. The same thing happened in Iran. France pushed for the ouster of the elected prime minister and the installation of Shah. At first, the US wasn't interested, but later they were convinced. (Iran oil)

Your posts are strange to me, but that is nothing new.

Nevertheless, as I said, I'm not interested in tirading.

Sorry.

Arminius,

My source for the Yom Kippur war is the New York Times of 1973. The Time Table was published about a month later. I don't have access to it here, but you can get it from any library.

As for the nuclear business in the article, Cohen cites no sources.

The fact that the US prevented Israel from attacking for three weeks is widely known, though. As for the business with the trapped Egyptian Third Army, surely you knew that?

What exactly is new to you in what I've said?

I've emailed the Times link to a history prof. at the college at which I teach. I've never seen any evidence of this. I've also emailed my mother, who was doing post-doctoral research in Israel during the war.

Farnaz,

Here is one article about the 1973 war from the NYT, and it correlates precisely with what I have read elsewhere:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/opinion/the-last-nuclear-moment.html

To be honest, your account is difficult to believe. Since I am a history nut, I would really appreciate sources, and thanks in advance.

Farnaz,

Regarding Israeli nukes, my source is this, the Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
This correlates with other things I have read.

Your post to me is strange, but that is not unusual. What is your source?

Foundational flaw... is that why they used rivets later?
------------
Rivets have been used since the Bronze Age. Derrida noticed that they weren't holding and things had started to fall apart. :{

Cramer is that guy who gives investment advice on Mad Money.
---------
Who is Cramer? What is Mad Money? (Is there also Sane Money?)

When I think of some of the things this country has done, I could cry.

Arminius,

Let me add to this from my previous post:

"It was only when the Israeli ambassador to the US threatened to take the matter to Congress that the US gave the go ahead."

That was THREE weeks in, Arminius. The Israelis were prevented from striking for THREE weeks as they watched Egyptian soldiers massing against us.

Can you imagine another nation doing something like this to us? To anyone?

RubyTues,

I enjoyed reading your post. However, I'm going to let you "tirade," if you care to go on, since, frankly, I'm into a quieter mood, at least with respect to Susan's thread. Would rather talk Cranmer Marian and Elizabethan poets, playwrights, etc.

Yesterday probably matters though it's gone.

Farnaz

Arminius,

The US ignored it. It is fairly certain that by 1973, in the Yom Kippur war, they had 13 bombs armed and ready to go, before they were stopped, probably by a US promise of supplies.
-----------------
I don't know where you got this information, but, I assure you most of it is incorrect. See the New York Times timetable for the war. Israel was literally prevented by this country from pre-empting, watched as the Egyptians built up troops. It was only when the Israeli ambassador to the US threatened to take the matter to Congress that the US gave the go ahead.

Meanwhile, Israel began winning early on. The US literally forced Israel into giving aid to the trapped Egyptian third army so that they could go on fighting Israeli soldiers!!! Imagine the US being forced to give aid to the Taliban or to Saddam's army so that they could go on fighting us.

The Israeli government which still forbids anti-US demonstrations, btw., kept most of this from the people until very recently, and made Moshe Dyan take the fall.

Never for a moment was the use of atomic weaponry considered.

This is a very strange post, Arminius.

Btw., the US was fully aware of Israel's atomic projects since they weren't a secret. Most of the great Jewish physicists were killed by the nazis or other EuroChristians (sorry, but there is no other way to name them since the Jews they killed were also Europeans), but some made it to the US, England, and, of course, to Israel.

Israel began planning for nuclear weapons at the birth of the country. With French help, they built a reactor facility, which they made public in 1960 as a peaceful project. By 1965, reports had been made by the CIA that Israel had an ongoing, irreversible nuclear bomb project. The US ignored it. It is fairly certain that by 1973, in the Yom Kippur war, they had 13 bombs armed and ready to go, before they were stopped, probably by a US promise of supplies. So by then, and probably earlier, there was little we could do about Israel's nukes.

Foundational flaw... is that why they used rivets later?

Cranmer is the way I have always read of as the author of the 1549 BCP.

Cramer is that guy who gives investment advice on Mad Money.

Deconstruction is a set of applications used in the philosphy of language and discourse.

The postmodern critique extends well beyond deconstruction. However, as a method, it broadly if one wishes to start with detecting false binaries, revealing reification, etc. It figures in the the critiques of many disciplines, is seen in the writing of luminaries at the level of Drucilla Cornell.

Btw., Derrida's prime target was Claude Levi-Strauss, whose algebraic structuralism had a foundational flaw. With this beginning, Derrida was able to launch his anti-foundationalist critiqe, join the ranks of the postmodern thinkers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drucilla_Cornell

"The charges of Roseneau are no longer taken seriously by anyone."

Interesting. Most reviews I have read of Rosenau say things like oh yes, she was a practitioner who was not conducting an attack, but kind of giving away the farm. The problem remains that quite a lot of postmodern discourse fits her list so well...

The other point remains that post modern deconstruction is a method of contention rather than inquiry and resolution. Contention has its uses, like in challenging people set in their ways, such as racist perspectives, but at the end of the day you need some way to arrive at conclusions based upon more than stridently argued opinions. Even when consensus so achieved is right, group solidarity is of itself wholly inadequate as a method for pursuing lasting truths.

BTW, actually it is often said that now we live in the post post modern period. I can't wait for post post post modern. The mathematical impulse would be to exponentiate, of course and see if we could make an algebraic structure of it. :^))

Susan, since you were looking for a tirade, I hate to disappoint you. You say the U.S. looked the other way when Israel developed nuclear weapons.

Did we look the other way when the Soviet Union used American blueprints to build their first nuclear bomb or is the government guilty because they are not omniscient? It’s kinda odd thinking of the government having God-like qualities. Isn’t it? But of course that’s every conservative’s nightmare – people worshiping the mindless altar of big government.

People assume Uncle Sam knows everything Israel is up to before they do it. Other than a conspiracy theory sponsored by oil money and the local chapter of Al-Quida, what proof do you have? Maybe God’s just on their side in this battle.

Farnaz:

I'll bite: what DID happen to Moses's mother?

Farnaz:

"the archbishop, as you say, seems to have preferred Cranmer."

As did the author of the site whose link you thoughtfully provided.
----------------
The reason I chose that link is that the title of the biography spells the man's name Crammer, while the reviewer spells it Cranmer.

Curious, Cureous, Curius

paarsurrey:

What happened to Moses and his mother? Need I remind you of our earlier chat, Friend?

The SOLUTION to this IRAN, not-much of a Dilema, attempted Provoking-Confrontation POLUTION (with U.S.A.ian's & Friendly's)is to Tell IRAN's PAL(s);

Russia & China Respectfully; "IF You Commy Finkle-Fags Don't help Us "ISOLATE-IARAN" via U.N. etc..; Then WE "A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N-O-S"

Will enforce the "MONROE-DOCTRINE" (after Modernizing Such Blesseth-Doctrine) against YOU (Russia) & You (China) thus "WE, The People" will isolate You's from OUR (not Your) HEMOSPHERE A.S.A.P; Even if WE have to have a 3rd-WW-War! Or is it 4th? Or We will invade (& or Criple Infrastructures) at QUBA 1st & Venezuelia 2nd (or Simultaneously)!

Plus if Any of Ye Ships, after warning Ye all, cometh closer HERE that WE U.S.A.ian's will Blown-Up such Russian and or Chinese COMMUNIST Vessels/Ships/Planes! HENCE:

"YOU Art Either With US (World Community) or Against US (World Community) still Applies; not only in Iraq or Afghanistan etc.. Our Holy "Hemisphere", via Diplomatic GOODNESS, will not be used as a away to take-Us-Over!

Taking "Kindness for Weaknesss" is WRONG intent, Conspiracy or Thinking!

RECOMMENDATION: Better SAUDI + IRAQ + JORDAN together gang-up, not against ISRAEL, but to invade IRAN instead of Us doing it!

The Kurds, The Turks & Israel can Keep Back the Syrians & Lebanese! Aegypt, Lybia, & N. & S. Africans et al , can sit back & Watch it all unfold, PROPHETICALLY so! The Campaign will last less than 60 Day!

AMERICA (Congress) needs to retrieve 'undust' the Holyi Ole MONROE-DOC & Give it LIFE/Vitality by breathing into it Revivality, thus Modernizing such since the 'M-DOC' was meant to be DYNAMIC in Emergency; not Static or kept at the way side, nor Forgotten. (JUSTLY waiting for these right-times)!

STOP Russia! Stop China! Or Else! Eeee Haaa! Let the Battle Begin!!!!!!!

Schaum,

'Hilaron' really means, in the Greek, 'cheerful, joyous, mirthful'. Our meaning of only 'hilarious' is later.

Hi friend cyber-man

Please quote reference from Quran for following quote in you post:‎
‎“If Ye can'th Commeth To thy House; Then I will'th commeth to Ye Mountain instead. lalala!”
‎
I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.
‎
Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Armenius:

Since you are a Greek scholar and an Episcopalian, perhaps you can answer a question I have.

Why is the "O Gracious Light" so translated into the Greek "Phos Hilaron"? Hilaron means, does it not, 'hilarious'? The Phos Hilaron is found on pg 112 of the BCP/ Order for Evening. That has never made sense to me.

Oooopppss.

There's a saying, "IF Ye touch'th Kackkkkaaa, aka Dooodooo, then Ye will stink'th like-a S--T!"

Farnaz:

"the archbishop, as you say, seems to have preferred Cranmer."

As did the author of the site whose link you thoughtfully provided.

I wouldn't know whether 'pseudo-Jacobean' is a compliment or an insult. And why it would be applied to Cranmer's writings is something I've never considered. Nevertheless... His BCP is luxurious by any standard, I'd say.

Russia's Pal, IRAN want's America to invade or even Drop a Bomb! After-All the Mind of a disgruntled Islamic person(s) is to be a Matyre and Muhammad taught them singing,

If Ye can'th Commeth To thy House; Then I will'th commeth to Ye Mountain instead" lalala!

Ayotolla's , whom marry 9/10 Year old girls; sacrifice a certain population; because they know that Not All of Iran Will disappear!

They Just want to Be Historically Touched By Us "U.S.A.ian"s so that they can tell their kids We Persian Empire was invaded & Nuked by the INFIDELS, NON-BELIEVERS. i.e. "Kff{fir-Invasion of Iran"!???

Note: If All Nuke Nations Bloo-up their Nukes or Entire Arsinals on S.S. Earth; That Humans will perish; but Earth; which has another 1.4 Billion Years left via Hot-Medium-Cold Phases ; is so resilent; that Nothing will happen to S.S. Earth!

So; World; Please Blo-Ye-Selves-Up Already will ya!

HUMAN(s)un-kinds art soo soo backwards; unlike Us "HUe{MATE" Kinds!

We [i], a/k/a "Automatic Born Citizenz/Denizens", are [PROPHETICALLY] taking over the HELM ^& Futur-Bounds of this blesseth S.S. Earth, currently crawling with SATANIC VERSING LOVERS which We will exterminate soon soon very soon, & will take back OUR (not The PRE-0APOCALYPTARIANs) entire Solor System Too!!

S.S. Earth is OUr Inheritence; not Lovers of the Abrahamic-Bible/Chumash/Koran/Book of Mormon; Not Vedic-Geeta/Kangyur/Tripitaka/Tangyurs Lover either!

Schaum,

I can't imagine why anyone would refer to Crammer's prose as pseudo-Jacobean, not a compliment. In fact, it is a charge, one frequently made against Smith for his ungrammatical cribbing and mistranslation of the King James Bible, which, incidentally is penned in Jacobean style, less rigid, less ornate than the Elizabethan English prose that preceded it.

As for Cranmer, Crammer, Cramer, I've done a bit of digging and it appears the three were contemporaneous variants. Orthography, even for surnames wasn't as rigid as it is now although the archbishop, as you say, seems to have preferred Cranmer.

Cramner's Book of Common Prayer, 1549, is available online here:

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/BCP_1549.htm

And thanks for the link.

You are correct: in some places Cranmer's name is incorrectly spelled as Crammer. Be interesting to know at what point that happened.

Farnaz:

Yes.

However, Cranmer's prayerbook is referred to as written in psuedo-Jacobean English. Why? Don't know. Don't care. Its the model for the Anglican liturgy, right up through Rite I of the "new" BCP.

Hi Schaum,

Crammer/Cranmer is spelled both ways.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Thomas+Crammer%3a+A+Life.-a021240743

And, backatcha, that which I admirably resisted posting heretofore:

"Now...how about the same theme, but expressed in pseudo-Jacobean English, a la Thomas Cranmer?"

The Jacobean period refers to the reign of King James (1603-1625). Hence, Crammer's writing could not be described as pseudo-Jacobean. Thomas Cranmer/Crammer (1489-1556)

Farnaz:

Considering Iran's posturing about/against Israel, including the very public and visible comment that it should be wiped off the map, and the revelations that Iran has lied about its nuclear facilities development, do you think Israel will make a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities? Do you think it would be justified in doing so?

Farnaz:

"You don't mean Thomas Crammer of the sixteenth century? The Articles of Faith Crammer"

Yes, Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VIII...executed by Mary...martyr...all that.

But his name is Cranmer, not Crammer.

Schaum,

Billie Holiday was a class act. Liberace was... well, let's not go there.

Farnaz,

Been many, many years since I saw that movie, but much of it is permanently engraved in my memory. For some reason I never placed the closing song.... but I remember George C Scott vividly, and it may have been Peter Sellers best role ever - er, make that roles!

Arminius, very good.

"and no birds sing."

The Big Bomb sans merci....

Arminius,

Yes, dark humor can't express it. Remember George C. Scott with his phone calls (I asked you not to call me in the War Room)?

And the closing of the film, with scenes of the explosion at Hiroshima with I'll be Seeing You providing the necessary musical accompaniment?

Arminius:

""I'll be seeing you" - I had to look that one up. Ah, yes, Billie Holiday, the voice of sourwood honey."

Arminius, you'd take Billie over Liberace?

As I think of it, so would I.

Farnaz,

I recall now - one of my favorite movies. Amazing how humor and tragedy can be mixed sometimes.

No Birds Sing
Apologies to Keats

And no birds sing
(either)

NB: The foregoing is not an artistic venture.

Shattering the dust
gives the sun another Mars
no eye stings to see.

Arminius,

Yes, Billy. But many people recorded it, even Bing. Don't you recall? It was the theme song for Dr. Strangelove,

I'll be seeing you in all the old familiar places
That this heart of mine embraces all day through
In that small caf�, the park across the way
The children's carousel, the chestnut trees, the wishing well

I'll be seeing you in every lovely summer's day
In everything that's light and gay
I'll always think of you that way
I'll find you in the mornin' sun
And when the night is new
I'll be looking at the moon
But I'll be seeing you

------ instrumental break ------

I'll find you in the mornin' sun
And when the night is new
I'll be looking at the moon
But I'll be seeing you

Schaum,

Yes, I wouldn't want to parody the articles, and I do apologize to Basho. It is good that he died centuries before his flowers became monsters at Hiroshima.

Farnaz,

"I'll be seeing you" - I had to look that one up. Ah, yes, Billie Holiday, the voice of sourwood honey.

(In case you did not know, sourwood honey is considered to be one of the world's best.)

The charges of Roseneau are no longer taken seriously by anyone. I have to say that there was a period in which Derrida had been taken to such ridiculous extremes that one might not have feared atomic bomb blasts, King Billy, pitchforks, etc., but those times are gone.

We are in the postmodern age. Morally, of course, we are in the age of stone.

Farnaz:

Who else! The man had a way with words. Somewhere, I have a reprint of the original book of Common Prayer that he wrote. Ah, the sheer beauty!

"I wonder if we have not done the converse, attempted, as civilizations, to void life of meaning."

Yes. Some do.

Not surprising, as this is the central premise of postmodern methods of contention. (They are not methods of inquiry, as they deny inquiry's implicit assumption that something can be learned by inquiring about it.)

Consider Pauline Rosenau’s analysis of postmodern deconstruction that we discussed a while back. If she summarizes it correctly, it can it never reach conclusions, because no basis for conclusions exists. Thus stridency replaces forming hypotheses by means of (often) qualitative reasoning processes, and then ascertaining their validity by constructing (often) quantitative reality tests. Thus in this method there is no meaning to be found.

Schaum,

You don't mean Thomas Crammer of the sixteenth century? The Articles of Faith Crammer?

Arminius,

I've been resisting the temptation to post "I'll Be Seeing You."

Ah, these Strangeloves. Sad, me. Tired. Sad.

Nicely done, all!

Now...how about the same theme, but expressed in pseudo-Jacobean English, a la Thomas Cranmer?

More Aplogies to Basho and end of artistic ventures

even
nuclear waste
holds my gaze
on this dry
night

There now is a fellow Nejad
Whom everyone says is bad
But it is all pots and kettles
And silver medals
Among those who are surely mad.

In April sunrise
The missile falls and explodes
And spring is murdered.

The hell bomb hits, a city dies
The children weep, a widow cries
No place to run, nowhere to hide
It is not war, but suicide.

Old Pond
Apologies to Basho

Old pond
Plutoniom
Frogs dead

The atoms
burst in the field
Autumn

The geiger
Counts my few
Heartbeats

Radio act ive
loaf of bread
jug of wine
You do not appear anymore
On the blanket

Good evening, Onofrio.

How about composing a "Haiku For The End of Time?"

The best the biggest bomb can blast

is but a divot of desert, glassed,

a dish dashed bare, a baffled eye

that cannot help but mirror sky.

DANIEL12:

"But precisely this process of reconciling all peoples makes the U.S. reluctant to defend itself from let alone attack any people."

You utter, semi-literate moron. When has the US ever been reluctant to defend itself? You ARE aware that we are at war, right?

Do you give ANY thought to the crap you write beforehand?

Part one.

Is nuclear disarmament a moral imperative?

This question is badly put. Any sensible person will say of course nuclear disarmament is a moral imperative. But the same person when the question is put in this fashion will not reflect that it is a moral imperative PROVIDED FIRST THAT NOT ONLY SHOULD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION BE PREVENTED FROM BECOMING AVAILABLE TO THE LESS SOPHISTICATED NATIONS, BUT THAT THE LESS SOPHISTICATED NATIONS ARE PREVENTED FROM EVEN ONLY REGULAR AGGRESSION.

If the latter is not taken in consideration first what we have is the problem of the more sophisticated nations--who typically own such weapons--disarming in a world in which not only so many lesser powers are trying to acquire such weapons, but are willing to attack the more powerful nations regardless of whether they, the attacking powers, have such weapons.

Part two.

Furthermore we have the disturbing observation that should the more sophisticated powers disarm they will be left quite vulnerable because their entire way of life has become removed from the martial and they are reluctant to even defend themselves--and this problem is only multiplied the more a nation is composed of a variety of ethnic groups, races and religions.

Which is to say a nation such as the U.S. without weapons of mass destruction would be most vulnerable of all. In fact the U.S. would be the most vulnerable. We all know the U.S. has as its project something of being the testing ground of the world to see if all ethnic groups, races, religions can be concentrated in one place without enmity.

But precisely this process of reconciling all peoples makes the U.S. reluctant to defend itself from let alone attack any people. Such actions by the U.S. breed internal conflict, the call to decisively be removed from any military action. This means that the U.S. is crippled from being able to defend itself. Where it stands now is in a place no traditional society over most of world history could stand--because traditionally if a nation were composed of disparate elements having difficulty uniting, the nation would find itself ruined by internal discord or poor economics--or defeated by an enemy.

Part three.

So we have this little axiom, that the more sophisticated the power the less that power should disarm first, and the less sophisticated the power the more it should be prevented from not only weapons of mass destruction but prevented from even only regular aggression. If such measures are not taken into consideration the question of whether it is a moral imperative to have nuclear disarmament makes little sense.--And in fact cannot help but redound to the disadvantage of the more sophisticated powers.

And perhaps we should add--strengthen our little axiom above by a clear description of what we mean by the sophistication of society--that the more sophisticated the power--the more the power is a project of trying to reconcile all the peoples of the world within itself, which is to say is not only open to everyone from everywhere but expects the ferment of peoples to create a new type of nation--the less should that power be first in getting rid of nuclear weapons.

In other words, the United States should be the first to call for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction but be the last to give them up. And this is far from hypocrisy. In fact it is only to the detriment of all other nations if they do not reflect that the U.S., being such a ferment of peoples, deserves to be last in giving up such weapons. If other peoples cannot recognize the sense of this argument the U.S. should not even consider giving up nuclear weapons--in fact the U.S. should state it will retain the power to destroy the entire world. Either the world arrives at peace and the melding of peoples, ethnic groups, races and religions or it will be the U.S. which destroys the world.

And that is the moral but immoral but moral imperative of nuclear disarmament.

Farnaz,

Thanks, I now have Haaretz bookmarked.

Arminius,

I stopped visiting it awhile ago, since it seems, as you say, to be inconsistent. I visit Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post.

Both have great journalists working for them, but Haaretz is, of course, further left, seems more reasonable to me, in the main. But not always, which is why I also read the Jerusalem Post.

I do not read modern Hebrew well, but my husband does. Therefore, we get several Israeli newspapers, and the Israeli Haaretz, which is different, of course. (It is intended for Israelis, takes certain cultural perspectives and information as givens.)

The danger to us from Iran is difficult to calculate. That much I've seen. Russia, which is much responsible for arming them now sees the unrest from its own Muslim population as a priority. China has its own motives.

Both nations are guided by interests different from ours. Nejad wants us, the Brits out of Iran. I doubt that would end his rhetoric, though. He is the Messiah, you see.

Schaum,

"Some people spend all their lives in search of life's meaning. Others give it up as hopeless in their youth and decide to take life as it is. But here I came to a very curious conclusion: Meaning should be introduced into life. It's that simple."
-----------------
Schaum,

This is a charged statement. Sometimes, I wonder if we have not done the converse, attempted, as civilizations, to void life of meaning.

Farnaz,

Obviously I have no Farsi or Hebrew. I have no window into Iran. The only actual Israeli source I sometimes visit is Debka, and I am never sure what to make of it. They have the reputation of coming up with important Near East news before anyone else, but they have made their blunders. Obviously they are not exactly impartial, sometimes coming across as the Fox Noise of Israel. Do you have any comment on this site?

Susan,

I wish you could read Farsi. Nejad's continual bombast with respect to Israel has terrified Iranians, who fear that Israel will attack if he keeps it up. Periodically, therefore, he and his co-lunatics must reassure the Iranian people that this will not happen.

He is playing a dangerous game. If you could read Hebrew, you would see that the more dependable Israeli newspaper is keeping an even tone, aware of Nejad's particular lunacy. Nejad's real target, of course, is the US. Many Israelis are aware of this, as is the Iranian inteligentsia.

I am not defending him. However, our continual interference in Iran, our espionage, often carried out by the Brits, as was the case in the election, our history with Iran Oil, the Shah, etc., has created this disaster.

Be aware, that unlike the "Supreme Leader," Nejad is not corrupt. He rides a bicycle to work, lives in the same run-down apartment in which he lived before he took office.

He is a simple fanatic. Hates Jews, considers Christians and Hinuds "idolaters," gays "impure," wants to eliminate the B'hai, and calls for the subordination of women. He passionately wants to see an Islamic world, and in the
meantime, an Isllamic Middle East, an exclusively Muslim Middle East, with his kind of Muslims.

Originally, Iran interest in things nuclear stemmed from its desire to end reliance on oil, minimize production of same. Why? To make it less of a target for foreign intervention.

If we do not get the hell out of Iran, we will be in serious trouble. Their oil is not our oil. Their elections are not ours to manipulate.

Bear in mind that Nejad was elected since he was the first to pay attention to the poor. I believe he is sincere in his concern for them. He's done little for them because he lacks the ability, is surrounded by corruption, and, periodically, throws away millions to win friends and influence people.

However, many among the poor, despite their poverty continue to adore him. Sanctions will only hurt the poor, no one else, as the Israelis point out.

Btw., look back at the newspapers for the period covering the Bay of Pigs. Many Americans feared JFK big time. No, Nejad is not a new Kennedy, but he is a charismatic leader for the poor, in a region where the poor are in the majority.

Walk softly. Leave your stick at home. You can always go pick it up later.

"Yes, it is a typo!"

Good! You scared me for a minute. :)

The Armageddon Plan

This was published in the March, 2004 issue of The Atlantic:

"At least once a year during the 1980s Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld vanished. Cheney was working diligently on Capitol Hill, as a congressman rising through the ranks of the Republican leadership. Rumsfeld, who had served as Gerald Ford's Secretary of Defense, was a hard-driving business executive in the Chicago area—where, as the head of G. D. Searle & Co., he dedicated time and energy to the success of such commercial products as Nutra-Sweet, Equal, and Metamucil. Yet for periods of three or four days at a time no one in Congress knew where Cheney was, nor could anyone at Searle locate Rumsfeld. Even their wives were in the dark; they were handed only a mysterious Washington phone number to use in case of emergency.

After leaving their day jobs Cheney and Rumsfeld usually made their way to Andrews Air Force Base, outside Washington. From there, in the middle of the night, each man—joined by a team of forty to sixty federal officials and one member of Ronald Reagan's Cabinet—slipped away to some remote location in the United States, such as a disused military base or an underground bunker. A convoy of lead-lined trucks carrying sophisticated communications equipment and other gear would head to each of the locations.

Rumsfeld and Cheney were principal actors in one of the most highly classified programs of the Reagan Administration. Under it U.S. officials furtively carried out detailed planning exercises for keeping the federal government running during and after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The program called for setting aside the legal rules for presidential succession in some circumstances, in favor of a secret procedure for putting in place a new "President" and his staff. The idea was to concentrate on speed, to preserve "continuity of government," and to avoid cumbersome procedures; the speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate, and the rest of Congress would play a greatly diminished role."

So much for a prominent Republican's respect for order as established in the Constitution.

Pamsm:

"Obama?? Is this a typo, or do you really believe this?"

Thank you very much for correcting me! Yes, it is a typo! It should read "Osama".
Thanks again!

Hum Bom

I

Whom bomb?
We bomb them!
Whom bomb?
We bomb them!
Whom bomb?
We bomb them!
Whom bomb?
We bomb them!

Whom bomb?
You bomb you!
Whom bomb?
You bomb you!
Whom bomb?
You bomb you!
Whom bomb?
You bomb you!

What do we do?
Who do we bomb?
What do we do?
Who do we bomb?
What do we do?
Who do we bomb?
What do we do?
Who do we bomb?

What do we do?
You bomb! You bomb them!
What do we do?
You bomb! You bomb them!
What do we do?
We bomb! We bomb them!
What do we do?
We bomb! We bomb them!

Whom bomb?
We bomb you!
Whom bomb?
We bomb you!
Whom bomb?
You bomb you!
Whom bomb?
You bomb you!

II

Why bomb?
We don't want to bomb!
Why bomb?
We don't want to bomb!
Why bomb?
You don't want to bomb!
Why bomb?
You don't want to bomb!

Who said bomb?
Who said we had to bomb?
Who said bomb?
Who said we had to bomb?
Who said bomb?
Who said you had to bomb?
Who said bomb?
Who said you had to bomb?

We don't bomb!
We don't bomb!
We don't bomb!
We don't bomb!
We don't bomb!
We don't bomb!
We don't bomb!
We don't bomb!

III

Armageddon did the job
Gog & Magog Gog & Magog
Armageddon did the job
Gog & Magog Gog & Magog
Gog & Magog Gog & Magog
Armageddon does the job
Gog & Magog Gog & Magog
Armageddon does the job

Armageddon for the mob
Gog & Magog Gog & Magog
Armageddon for the mob
Gog & Magog Gog & Magog

Gog & Magog Gog & Magog
Gog Magog Gog Magog
Gog & Magog Gog & Magog
Gog Magog Gog Magog

Gog Magog Gog Magog
Gog Magog Gog Magog
Gog Magog Gog Magog
Gog Magog Gog Magog

Ginsberg says Gog & Magog
Armageddon did the job.

-Allen Ginsberg

Schaum,

Recent figures for gun deaths seem to be just over 30,000, so I was incorrect. The biggest percentage is for suicides, followed closely by homicides (almost all household murders of one family member by another), and the rest are accidents, a lot by children finding daddy's gun. No mention is made of deaths of household intruders shot by the house owner.

Schaum,
You wrote:
"Nuclear weapons will not deter the insane of the world, such as Obama, who do not fear their own deaths and are quite willing to kill countless others to further their own ends and justify their own religious pursuits"

Obama?? Is this a typo, or do you really believe this?

Schaum,

I was writing from what I remember, so I could very well be wrong. Some checking of figures is in order.

Arminius:

"In 1996 there were over 34,000 gun deaths in the U.S." - Los Angeles Times, "Chicago Sues Gun Makers and Sellers", p 1, Nov. 13, 1998.

What you posted would suggest that firearm deaths in the US have dropped in the past decade. Is that possible?

Recommended reading:

Anathem, by Neal Stephenson.

I don't want to give away too much. But the context is a version of Plato's Academy (with a nice version of Socrates) on a distant planet long long ago. The Academy is implemented as a monestary and the monks study advanced mathematics and physics as a sort of a philosophical discipline. They are forbidden to interact with the secular world, except under a very few defined situations because the knowledge they have is too powerful to be 'free'.

Then something happens to threaten the world, and the powers-that-be and they want to both use the knowledge of the monks, but keep the whole thing secret blah blah blah.

But the magic is the realized world, which is both similar and different enough to make us (me at least) look at our world slightly differently. There are lots of interesting philosophical discussions nested in the weirder parts of quantum physics too, which I like.

"Some people spend all their lives in search of life's meaning. Others give it up as hopeless in their youth and decide to take life as it is. But here I came to a very curious conclusion: Meaning should be introduced into life. It's that simple."

Lt. Kolya Zubkov, in 'The Hidden War' by Artyom Borovik

Firearms are NOT a deterrent. If they were, then the death rate by guns (20,000 in the US annually) would be much lower, and our prison population would not be the highest in the world per capita.

Nukes, on the other hand, are usually a deterrent - IF they are held by stable countries that want to survive. Terrorists, however, are another matter entirely.

I personally think it is pie-in-the-sky to think that nukes will be abolished. There is no way to guarantee 100% that it can be verified. And if you manage to verify it 98%, then there are still nukes floating around out there someplace.

Volkmare:

"As guns have always been, nuclear weapons are a deterrent."

Mark, Mark, Mark....you should always seek the truth. Guns have deterred nothing. They have made all wars possible for hundreds of years. They make gang killings, and revenge murders, possible. They make many kinds of crime possible. Man has ALWAYS found a use for every weapon he has invented. Nuclear weapons will not deter the insane of the world, such as Obama, who do not fear their own deaths and are quite willing to kill countless others to further their own ends and justify their own religious pursuits. Weapons, whether guns or nuclear weapons, deter nothing. I'm not worried about Iran anywhere near as much as I am worried about Islamic extremists who may already have the stuff of small bombs. It is only a matter of time until one is exploded in Washington or New York (my first bet would be Washington).

Please Mark: seek the truth.

Volkmare says:
"As guns have always been, nuclear weapons are a deterrent."

Ummm, Mark? I think you should take a look at the per capita gunshot death statistics for countries that don't allow guns vs. those for the USA, where we pass them out like candy at Halloween.

"And we'll try to stay cool and calm,
When Alabama gets the bomb!"
- Tom Lehrer

Iran is run by a bunch of weirdos, for sure, but they are not stupid, and even if they get nukes there is little chance that they will pop one first. However... if a country gets pushed to the wall, it could happen. There is some evidence that Israel was very close to using nukes in 1973 when they were bushwhacked by Egypt and Syria, and things really looked bad.

The result of nuclear weapon control is the same as gun control: if we get rid of them, then only criminals will have them.

As guns have always been, nuclear weapons are a deterrent.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

The firebombing of Tokyo in 1945 killed more people than the atom bombs did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that same year. Is the loss of a soul by atomic fire worse than death by napalm?

With the end of the Cold War, it no longer seems likely that the Earth will die an atomic wasteland. The United States and Russia have been reducing their arsenals for decades and another cut is being negotiated as we speak.

The real question is how does a divided world deal with jihadist states. In the past we, for the most part, ignored them or marginalized them. But a radical state with nukes is impossible to ignore.

Does America stop taking any more moral stances in order to avoid nuclear war? Does a nuke become our muzzle?

Worse than a dictator with an a-bomb is a terrorist with a bomb. How do we respond to someone who thinks that destroying a city will get them into heaven? I don't think disarmament will increase the level of respect they have for us infidels and the idea of terrorists having a bigger arsenal than the United States is disturbing. Don't you think?