Thursday, July 31, 2008
Day Game.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!
The Cubs extend their winning streak to four, three up on the fearsome Milwaukee Brewers, have won their last 4 ROAD games, are one shy of their high water mark for the year, are now one game away from a nine game interdivisional home stand, it's dark (not), and we're wearing sunglasses.
HIT IT!
The Cubs extend their winning streak to four, three up on the fearsome Milwaukee Brewers, have won their last 4 ROAD games, are one shy of their high water mark for the year, are now one game away from a nine game interdivisional home stand, it's dark (not), and we're wearing sunglasses.
HIT IT!
Because Americans are really racists and simpletons at heart...
Thanks for reminding me, Senator Obama. I don't know what I'd do if I didn't have you to guide me.
"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
Add this to his 'did I mention he's black?' and 'yokels in Pennsylvania cling to guns and religion because they're bitter' oratory masterpieces.
This man is a fool. Do we really have such a lack of self respect that we'll elect him?
"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
Add this to his 'did I mention he's black?' and 'yokels in Pennsylvania cling to guns and religion because they're bitter' oratory masterpieces.
This man is a fool. Do we really have such a lack of self respect that we'll elect him?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Isn't multiculturalism grand?
Well, the powers that be in Afghanistan don't think so. A man is facing the death penalty for translating the Koran into his native language.
Okay, then...
Okay, then...
Catch me, I'm yawning
YET ANOTHER TOP (FINITE NUMBER) ALBUMS OF ALL TIME LIST.
So of course I'm linking to it...
Actually it's kind of interesting. The writer went about it in probably the most scientific way I've ever seen. Some very predictable, but some suprising results.
So of course I'm linking to it...
Actually it's kind of interesting. The writer went about it in probably the most scientific way I've ever seen. Some very predictable, but some suprising results.
Just askin'
Is it me, or are the Cubs back at 19 over (where they were at the break), on a three game winning streak, 3 games over the Brewers, with a 9 game homestand starting this weekend?
Saturday, July 26, 2008
GING 4
Yes, I'm still tormenting myself with this, in spite of a huge stack of Guitar Player magazines that a friend gave me. But I can only lust for so many hours a day.
I'm not sure I'm going to make it to the back cover. This book is boring and rehashes numerous arguments that have already been dispelled by some of the wiser apologists out there. While I still like Hitchens, he's best served in a brief essay or ten minute interview with Mr. Hewitt. I like a bit of lemon in my water. I don't want to eat the whole thing.
In the latest chapter, The Metaphysical Claims of Religion are False (boy, thats not at all a clumbsy premise, is it? No need to parse between the claims of various religions. It's about as sound as the anarchist's claim that all forms of government are opressive and wrong), Hitchens claims that scientific understanding that began with the enlightenment has forever obviated the need for a creator (Bonaparte: Mr. Laplace, why does your cosmology have no mention of God? Laplace: "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese."), and therefore, the faith of many of the brilliant philosophers and scientists who have gone before us was merely a biproduct of their times and we should no longer expect to see faith manifest itself in great men or women.
I'm going to gloss over the numerous ad hominem and straw men that litter this chapter and the book in general, and concentrate on one particular item in hsi discourse on William of Ockham. Hitchens writes:
"...Ockham stated that it cannot be strictly proved that God...exists at all. However,if one intends to identify a first cause of the existence of thw world, one may choose to call that "god" even if one does not know the precise nature of the first cause. And even the first cause has difficulties, since a cause will itself need another cause. "It is difficult or impossible," he wrote, "to prove against the philosophers that there cannot be an infinite regress in causes of the same kind, of which one can exist without the other." Thus the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who...created the creator. Religion...[has] consistently failed to overcome this objection."
Hitchens, like myself, believes that the big bang happened. Implicit within the big bang is the creation (or, if you prefer a non-theistic phrase, the "coming into existence) of matter, energy, space and time. Let me type that a different way. The big bang, according to the prevailing theory, was when all matter, energy, space and time started. There was nothing before the bang, because there was no "before." I assume that Hitchens agrees with this, since he seems agreeable enough in the above quote to the assumption that there can be no infinite regress of events (ie, no infinitely expanding and collapsing universes, contrary to the views of some wishful thinkers). Or at least Hitchens is agreeable to the notion that if this is not the first universe, that there was at least a first universe. (I'm assuming he doesn't restrict his rejection of infinite regress to God only.) And this is logical, for as Dallas Willard observed:
As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before domino x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it."
Rewrite the sentence above to read "as in a line of universes, if there are an infinite number of universes that must transpire before universe x is created," or more to the point, "as in a timeline, if there are an infinite number of moments before moment x is reached..." and you're getting the idea. The present could not happen if the past were infinite.
As to Hitchen's "who created the creator" argument, I'm left a little speechless. This question strikes me as akin to the sort of philosophical discourse we'd have during recess in middle school: "Could God make a rock so big that even He couldn't lift it?" To rehash a previous point: matter, energy, space and time came into existence at the big bang. These things didn't exist "before" the big bang, and created "things" cannot create themselves. (Greg Koukl once remarked that a cake doesn't bake itself. If you see a cake sitting on a table, someone or something other than the cake must have made the cake.) Something caused matter, energy, space and time. More specifically, something OUTSIDE OF matter, energy, space and time (a thing can't create itself). Now as to what that "outside of" thing is, we can't say with absolute certainty. Maybe a different kind of created thing, in a different realm with different sorts of physics than those that operate here. Maybe a big cosmic chocolate eclair. Or maybe the God of the Bible. We will never be able to say with scientific certainty, unless we someday discover the ability to observe outside of the universe. Which makes any attempt by any scientist to say what might lie beyond the universe as metaphysical a hypothesis as the beliefs of the most whacked out cult you can find. But if there is a Creator, if there is a God, does it not seem plausible that said God, who existed outside our laws of physics at the moment of creation--who in fact created those laws--would Himself rule over them and not be subject to them? If God is not subject to or confined by finite, linear time, why does He need a creator or a cause? Rather than religion "consistently fail[ing] to overcome" Hitchen's objection of who created the creator, Hitchens is incapable of grasping that a God outside of creation and its restrictions need not be bound by them.
I'm not sure I'm going to make it to the back cover. This book is boring and rehashes numerous arguments that have already been dispelled by some of the wiser apologists out there. While I still like Hitchens, he's best served in a brief essay or ten minute interview with Mr. Hewitt. I like a bit of lemon in my water. I don't want to eat the whole thing.
In the latest chapter, The Metaphysical Claims of Religion are False (boy, thats not at all a clumbsy premise, is it? No need to parse between the claims of various religions. It's about as sound as the anarchist's claim that all forms of government are opressive and wrong), Hitchens claims that scientific understanding that began with the enlightenment has forever obviated the need for a creator (Bonaparte: Mr. Laplace, why does your cosmology have no mention of God? Laplace: "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese."), and therefore, the faith of many of the brilliant philosophers and scientists who have gone before us was merely a biproduct of their times and we should no longer expect to see faith manifest itself in great men or women.
I'm going to gloss over the numerous ad hominem and straw men that litter this chapter and the book in general, and concentrate on one particular item in hsi discourse on William of Ockham. Hitchens writes:
"...Ockham stated that it cannot be strictly proved that God...exists at all. However,if one intends to identify a first cause of the existence of thw world, one may choose to call that "god" even if one does not know the precise nature of the first cause. And even the first cause has difficulties, since a cause will itself need another cause. "It is difficult or impossible," he wrote, "to prove against the philosophers that there cannot be an infinite regress in causes of the same kind, of which one can exist without the other." Thus the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who...created the creator. Religion...[has] consistently failed to overcome this objection."
Hitchens, like myself, believes that the big bang happened. Implicit within the big bang is the creation (or, if you prefer a non-theistic phrase, the "coming into existence) of matter, energy, space and time. Let me type that a different way. The big bang, according to the prevailing theory, was when all matter, energy, space and time started. There was nothing before the bang, because there was no "before." I assume that Hitchens agrees with this, since he seems agreeable enough in the above quote to the assumption that there can be no infinite regress of events (ie, no infinitely expanding and collapsing universes, contrary to the views of some wishful thinkers). Or at least Hitchens is agreeable to the notion that if this is not the first universe, that there was at least a first universe. (I'm assuming he doesn't restrict his rejection of infinite regress to God only.) And this is logical, for as Dallas Willard observed:
As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before domino x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it."
Rewrite the sentence above to read "as in a line of universes, if there are an infinite number of universes that must transpire before universe x is created," or more to the point, "as in a timeline, if there are an infinite number of moments before moment x is reached..." and you're getting the idea. The present could not happen if the past were infinite.
As to Hitchen's "who created the creator" argument, I'm left a little speechless. This question strikes me as akin to the sort of philosophical discourse we'd have during recess in middle school: "Could God make a rock so big that even He couldn't lift it?" To rehash a previous point: matter, energy, space and time came into existence at the big bang. These things didn't exist "before" the big bang, and created "things" cannot create themselves. (Greg Koukl once remarked that a cake doesn't bake itself. If you see a cake sitting on a table, someone or something other than the cake must have made the cake.) Something caused matter, energy, space and time. More specifically, something OUTSIDE OF matter, energy, space and time (a thing can't create itself). Now as to what that "outside of" thing is, we can't say with absolute certainty. Maybe a different kind of created thing, in a different realm with different sorts of physics than those that operate here. Maybe a big cosmic chocolate eclair. Or maybe the God of the Bible. We will never be able to say with scientific certainty, unless we someday discover the ability to observe outside of the universe. Which makes any attempt by any scientist to say what might lie beyond the universe as metaphysical a hypothesis as the beliefs of the most whacked out cult you can find. But if there is a Creator, if there is a God, does it not seem plausible that said God, who existed outside our laws of physics at the moment of creation--who in fact created those laws--would Himself rule over them and not be subject to them? If God is not subject to or confined by finite, linear time, why does He need a creator or a cause? Rather than religion "consistently fail[ing] to overcome" Hitchen's objection of who created the creator, Hitchens is incapable of grasping that a God outside of creation and its restrictions need not be bound by them.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Pop Quiz:
Barack Obama's grave, majestic aura most reminds you of:
A. Your five year old demanding your full attention because he has something very important to tell you about Elmo's World.
B. A student body presidential hopeful solemly vowing that, if elected, tater tots will go back on the cafeteria menu.
C. A Hardees employing revelling in the awesome power and responsibility of his promotion to assistant shift supervisor.
D. Your boss's son, strutting through the office with his buddies during term break.
E. All of the above
This will be graded.
A. Your five year old demanding your full attention because he has something very important to tell you about Elmo's World.
B. A student body presidential hopeful solemly vowing that, if elected, tater tots will go back on the cafeteria menu.
C. A Hardees employing revelling in the awesome power and responsibility of his promotion to assistant shift supervisor.
D. Your boss's son, strutting through the office with his buddies during term break.
E. All of the above
This will be graded.
LOL
From today's Mike Allen's Playbook:
Aw, man... while all the lucky ducks are abroad reporting on the Obamessiah's every grave expression, throat clearing and seat shifting, the rest of us are stuck here watching Methuselah feed the squirrels.
Elizabeth Holmes of The Wall Street Journal reports from the lonely McCain bubble in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.: “On Tuesday evening, a campaign staffer handed out ID badges to the traveling press with the ‘McCain Press Corps’ moniker and a picture of the Statue of Liberty. But they added a little something special. The wearers of these badges were dubbed members of the ‘JV Squad’ with the following text: ‘Left Behind to Report in America.’
Aw, man... while all the lucky ducks are abroad reporting on the Obamessiah's every grave expression, throat clearing and seat shifting, the rest of us are stuck here watching Methuselah feed the squirrels.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Paging Mitt Romney...Report to Team McCain HQ...
IMMEDIATELY.
The long knives are out, baby. The media will be watching Mac like a hawk from now on, ready to pounce on the slightest gaffe like hounds on a Dan Quayle flavored milkbone.
He needs a running mate who is polished, brilliant, and adored by the conservatives whom he (McCain) has spit upon at every opportunity. He needs Mitt Romney.
The long knives are out, baby. The media will be watching Mac like a hawk from now on, ready to pounce on the slightest gaffe like hounds on a Dan Quayle flavored milkbone.
He needs a running mate who is polished, brilliant, and adored by the conservatives whom he (McCain) has spit upon at every opportunity. He needs Mitt Romney.
Don't Panic
Okay, so the Cubs are now only 17 above, and 2 ahead of the Brewers and Cards.
I'm not going to panic. They lost a pitchers duel to Randy Johnson whose record against the Cubs, if I remember correctly, is somewhere around perfect.
So Milwaukee is on a five game tear. That won't last. Out of these three teams at least one will certainly fade and I don't think it's going to be the Cubs. Yes, we're going to be in a streetfight with someone until the end but I think we'll be one of the two finalists and I'm still confident this team will win. They're just too good. There are too many weapons in the arsenal, in all positions. We'll find a way to break this road trip apathy and I think the Cubs will win the division.
I'm not going to panic. They lost a pitchers duel to Randy Johnson whose record against the Cubs, if I remember correctly, is somewhere around perfect.
So Milwaukee is on a five game tear. That won't last. Out of these three teams at least one will certainly fade and I don't think it's going to be the Cubs. Yes, we're going to be in a streetfight with someone until the end but I think we'll be one of the two finalists and I'm still confident this team will win. They're just too good. There are too many weapons in the arsenal, in all positions. We'll find a way to break this road trip apathy and I think the Cubs will win the division.
Monday, July 21, 2008
SpaceAce!!!!
That this man is the coolest cat to ever pick up a guitar is simply unquestionable:
But my mancrush on the Spaceman was etched in stone after I saw this:
But my mancrush on the Spaceman was etched in stone after I saw this:
About. Flipping. Time.
Dempster gets his first road win in over a year.
And thank you Ryan, for slapping a tourniquet on the bleeding. 1-2 against the Astros. Sheesh.
And thank you Ryan, for slapping a tourniquet on the bleeding. 1-2 against the Astros. Sheesh.
This is not my father's rock.
My dad was born in August, 1948: eight years after John Lennon, six years after Jimi Hendrix, five years after Janis Joplin, three years after Eric Clapton, and 2 days after Robert Plant. What is the one thing that ties all of these artists and my dad together? Simply this: Nothing. He didn't listen to ANY of them.
I thought it might be interesting to compare my dad's tastes against the Billboard top 10 singles for the years that he was in high school and college (1962-1970) and see how they stack up. The BB top 10 for those years were:
Now, the thing that immediately grabs my attention is how all of the most famous "classic" rock artists weren't exactly burning up the charts. I figured the Beatles would own this list. They made it 5 times, which is certainly respectable. The Rolling Stones made it twice. Twice? The MONKEES made it twice! Elvis--The King of Rock--made it a whopping one time. So did Clapton, with Cream. So did the Doors. Hendrix is not on this list. Janis Joplin is not on this list. The Who are not on this list. If I remember these bands all show up in the top 20 at various points, still I'm amazed none of them broke the top 10 once.
1971:
1972: 01. The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face » Roberta Flack
Again, I found myself somewhat surprised: my dad has the John Denver album with Country Road and also has a 45 of American Pie (the thing I love about that 45 is that you actually have to flip it over halfway through the song because the song is so stinking long).
When I say "listen," I mean "owned their albums." And all of the most significant work by these artists came out in his high school through college years (1962-1970). All three of the Jimi Hendrix Experience's albums were released when my dad was in college. Every single Beatles album, from Please Please Me to Let it Be, was released when my dad was in high school or college. You know how many Beatles albums he had? A lone 45 with Hey Jude on one side and Revolution on the other. The Rolling Stones released at least a dozen albums (many their most significant) during this time period as well.
My dad had none of this stuff. Which always led me to conclude that he was a little weird. I mean, I guess he's always been sort of straightlaced. When others of his generation were all:
...my dad was all
Which might explain why he didn't tolerate much longhair music lying around the house by the time I was around and acts like KISS came out. But that's a post for another time.
Dad's record collection has some good stuff, no doubt about it: The Supremes, Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, Peter, Paul and Mary, Gene Pitney, Mamas & the Papas, Simon and Garfunkel, at least one Bob Dylan record, a little Tommy James and the Shondells, etc. And it has some interesting, kitchy stuff like the Ventures, Donovan, Boots Randolph and Trini Lopez. But it also contains a fair amount of "good for drunken parties but not much else" novelty crap: Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs, Paul Revere and the Raiders, etc. And some completely sanitary, safe stuff like Gary Lewis and the Playboys, the Turtles, and...the Monkees. Yes, my dad the Monkees. No Beatles, mind you, but he had the Monkees. What was wrong with this guy? Was he totally oblivious to the history making music he was practically swimming in?
I thought it might be interesting to compare my dad's tastes against the Billboard top 10 singles for the years that he was in high school and college (1962-1970) and see how they stack up. The BB top 10 for those years were:
1962:
01. Stranger On The Shore » Mr. Acker Bilk
02. I Can't Stop Loving You » Ray Charles
03. Mashed Potato Time » Dee Dee Sharp
04. Roses Are Red » Bobby Vinton
05. The Stripper » David Rose
06. Johnny Angel » Shelley Fabares
07. The Loco-Motion » Little Eva0
8. Let Me In » Sensations
09. The Twist » Chubby Checker1
0. Soldier Boy » Shirelles
1963:
1963:
01. Sugar Shack » Jimmy Gilmer & The Fireballs
02. Surfin' U.S.A. » Beach Boys
03. The End Of The World » Skeeter Davis
04. Rhythm Of The Rain » Cascades
05. He's So Fine » Chiffons
06. Blue Velvet » Bobby Vinton
07. Hey Paula » Paul & Paula
08. Fingertips II » Little Stevie Wonder
09. Washington Square » Village Stompers
10. It's All Right » Impressions
1964
01. I Want To Hold Your Hand » Beatles
02. She Loves You » Beatles
03. Hello, Dolly! » Louis Armstrong
04. Oh, Pretty Woman » Roy Orbison
05. I Get Around » Beach Boys
06. Everybody Loves Somebody » Dean Martin
07. My Guy » Mary Well
s08. We'll Sing In The Sunshine » Gale Garnett
09. Last Kiss » J. Frank Wilson & The Cavaliers
10. Where Did Our Love Go » Supremes
1965:
01. Wooly Bully » Sam The Sham & The Pharaohs
02. I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie Honey Bunch) » Four Tops
03. (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction » Rolling Stones
04. You Were On My Mind » We Five
05. You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' » Righteous Brothers
06. Downtown » Petula Clark
07. Help! » Beatles
08. Can't You Hear My Heartbeat » Herman's Hermits
09. Crying In The Chapel » Elvis Presley
10. My Girl » Temptations
1966:
01. The Ballad Of The Green Berets » Sgt. Barry Sadler
02. Cherish » Association
03. (You're My) Soul And Inspiration » Righteous Brothers
04. Reach Out I'll Be There » Four Tops
05. 96 Tears » ? & The Mysterians
06. Last Train To Clarksville » Monkees
07. Monday, Monday » Mama's & The Papa's
08. You Can't Hurry Love » Supremes
09. Poor Side Of Town » Johnny Rivers
10. California Dreamin' » Mama's & The Papa's
1967:
01. To Sir With Love » Lulu
02. The Letter » Box Tops
03. Ode To Billie Joe » Bobby Gentry
04. Windy » Association
05. I'm A Believer » Monkees
06. Light My Fire » Doors
07. Somethin' Stupid » Nancy Sinatra & Frank Sinatra
08. Happy Together » Turtles
09. Groovin' » Young Rascals
10. Can't Take My Eyes Off You » Frankie Valli
1968:
01. Hey Jude » Beatles
02. Love Is Blue » Paul Mauriat
03. Honey » Bobby Goldsboro
04. (Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay » Otis Redding
05. People Got To Be Free » Rascals
06. Sunshine Of Your Love » Cream
07. This Guy's In Love With You » Herb Alpert
08. The Good, The Bad And The Ugly » Hugo Montenegro
09. Mrs. Robinson » Simon & Garfunkel
10. Tighten Up » Archie Bell & The Drells
1969:
01. Sugar, Sugar » Archies
2. Aquarius / Let The Sunshine In » Fifth Dimension
03. I Can't Get Next To You » Temptations
04. Honky Tonk Women » Rolling Stones
05. Everyday People » Sly & The Family Stone
06. Dizzy » Tommy Roe
07. Hot Fun In The Summertime » Sly & The Family Stone
08. I'll Never Fall In Love Again » Tom Jones
09. Build Me Up Buttercup » Foundations
10. Crimson And Clover » Tommy James & The Shondells
1970:
01. Bridge Over Troubled Water » Simon & Garfunkel
02. (They Long To Be) Close To You » Carpenters
03. American Woman / No Sugar Tonight » Guess Who
04. Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head » B.J. Thomas
05. War » Edwin Starr
06. Ain't No Mountain High Enough » Diana Ross
07. I'll Be There » Jackson 5
08. Get Ready » Rare Earth
09. Let It Be » Beatles
10. Band Of Gold » Freda Payne
Now, the thing that immediately grabs my attention is how all of the most famous "classic" rock artists weren't exactly burning up the charts. I figured the Beatles would own this list. They made it 5 times, which is certainly respectable. The Rolling Stones made it twice. Twice? The MONKEES made it twice! Elvis--The King of Rock--made it a whopping one time. So did Clapton, with Cream. So did the Doors. Hendrix is not on this list. Janis Joplin is not on this list. The Who are not on this list. If I remember these bands all show up in the top 20 at various points, still I'm amazed none of them broke the top 10 once.
But interestingly, acts like Tommy James, and the aforementioned Monkees, and The Fifth Dimension (another band Dad liked), and Simon and Garfunkel, and Mamas & the Papas, and the Turtles, are on this list. And the aforementioned kegger drek, Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs, well, they were #1 in 1965. So Dad's tastes weren't all that out of the mainstream during those years.
So what this tells me (other than Billboard is a lousy indicator of what will still be on the radio in 40 years), is that my dad wasn't all that out of the mainstream, but more of a pop/top 40 kind of guy, and there's nothing wrong with that.
For the heck of it, I decided to look at what was popular for the two years after he left college. I was curious to see if anything from those years was reflected in my dad's record collection. But I didn't hold out much hope--I was born in '71, and the guy was a curmudgeon even by the time I was potty trained. Also, I was curious to see if Billboard had finally gotten with it in the years after Woodstock.
The top 10 for 1971-1972:
The top 10 for 1971-1972:
1971:
05. How Can You Mend A Broken Heart » Bee Gees
07. Go Away Little Girl » Donny Osmond
10. Knock Three Times » Dawn
1972: 01. The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face » Roberta Flack
02. Alone Again (Naturally) » Gilbert O'Sullivan
03. American Pie » Don McLean
04. Without You » Nilsson
05. Candy Man » Sammy Davis Jr.
06. I Gotcha » Joe Tex
07. Lean On Me » Bill Withers
08. Baby Don't Get Hooked On Me » Mac Davis
09. Brand New Key » Melanie
Again, I found myself somewhat surprised: my dad has the John Denver album with Country Road and also has a 45 of American Pie (the thing I love about that 45 is that you actually have to flip it over halfway through the song because the song is so stinking long).
But it's clear that by 71-72 his tastes and popular music were beginning to head in two different directions. My dad hates Rod Stewart with a passion. Stewart was, if I remember correctly, a "longhair pervert," and, according to my dad, was quite possibly amorously inclined toward members of his own sex--though this last bit may have been a parting flourish on dad's part after a particularly colorful tirade against Mr. Stewart.
Dad seemed to have a particular problem with longhaired men. I don't know if he felt this way while he was still in college or if this came later, born of jealousy when he, as a CPA, had to get out of bed every day, shower, shave, and put on a suit and tie. Come to think of it, I'm starting to feel a little jealous myself. Grow up and join the real world, you stinko pinko! And get a haircut, you look like a girl! Or are you looking for the ladies room, sweetheart?
In any event, like I mentioned before, by the time KISS rolled around, four years after my dad graduated college and three years after I was born, ain't no way four longhairs in makeup of all things were going to gain entry to my home. And he'd be damned before I was ever going to listen to some longhair in makeup named "Alice."
So it would take a few years before I knew that there was more to Rock and Roll than, oh, say, Billy Joel. (Short hair? Man's name? Sure, the kid can listen to that.)
Friday, July 18, 2008
19 over at the break
When was the last time you heard that the Cubs were 19 games over 500 at the All Star break? The Cubs are tied for most wins with the Dodgers and the Red Sox, playing in a division with 2 teams providing stiff competition.
Soriano will be back in a week or so.
Things looking goooooooood.
Soriano will be back in a week or so.
Things looking goooooooood.
What are you people, on dope?!?
Mr. Hand's immortal line from Fast Times at Ridgemont High shot through my brain this morning when I saw the ad for the new Hellboy movie: Hellboy II The Golden Army. Beneath the accolades that screamed "Hugely Inventive," "A Wonder to Behold" and "Will Become A Classic", down next to the PG-13 rating, was this disclaimor: "This film contains depictions of tobacco consumption."
Tobacco consumption! I dropped the paper in revulsion, and unable to locate a hot stove on which to burn my hands pure, simply crossed myself three or four times.
Tobacco consumption. We need a warning for this.
I hate cigarette smoke (though I have been known to puff a stogie or two in my life). It irks me that numerous smokers seem to be the only denizens of society who can't be bothered to dispose of their trash in some sort of recepticle, but rather feel the need decorate the streets with butts as if they're rose petals. That some smokers feel the need to light up no more than one pace beyond the exit sign, usually when I'm standing right behind them, inspires murderous thoughts.
But.
I think I hate the war that our society is raging against smoking and smokers even more. Smokers have become the new racists. We hate them by default. They are immoral beings from the moment we see them draw that pack out of the inner coat pocket. Why, they're a menace to everyone they come in contact with! Cocktail waitresses are risking their lives by just showing up at work because of these people (because as you all know, once a cocktail waitress picks a bar as her place of employment, she is morally bound to work there for the rest of her life)! And the children! THE CHILDREN!! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!?!?!
Time for the obligatory "of courses," as Mark Steyn would say. "Of Course" cigarettes are bad for people. "Of Course" smokers shouldn't be able to smoke just anywhere and "Of Course" any responsible and decent adult will refrain from smoking in the presence of children. I personally would not work in the tobacco industry, as I would not work in alcohol or gaming. But I'm not going to infringe on anyone else's (of legal age) right to engage in those practices. And I don't think we should drive them from every building in town, as they have done here in Chicago. An establishment should be free to decide for itself whether it wishes to be smoking or non. And I don't think the chief concern to moviegoers when it comes to an action movie that no doubt contains violence and scary images and is obviously targeted to an audience 13 and older to begin with, is that there is smoking.
What are these people, on dope?
Tobacco consumption! I dropped the paper in revulsion, and unable to locate a hot stove on which to burn my hands pure, simply crossed myself three or four times.
Tobacco consumption. We need a warning for this.
I hate cigarette smoke (though I have been known to puff a stogie or two in my life). It irks me that numerous smokers seem to be the only denizens of society who can't be bothered to dispose of their trash in some sort of recepticle, but rather feel the need decorate the streets with butts as if they're rose petals. That some smokers feel the need to light up no more than one pace beyond the exit sign, usually when I'm standing right behind them, inspires murderous thoughts.
But.
I think I hate the war that our society is raging against smoking and smokers even more. Smokers have become the new racists. We hate them by default. They are immoral beings from the moment we see them draw that pack out of the inner coat pocket. Why, they're a menace to everyone they come in contact with! Cocktail waitresses are risking their lives by just showing up at work because of these people (because as you all know, once a cocktail waitress picks a bar as her place of employment, she is morally bound to work there for the rest of her life)! And the children! THE CHILDREN!! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!?!?!
Time for the obligatory "of courses," as Mark Steyn would say. "Of Course" cigarettes are bad for people. "Of Course" smokers shouldn't be able to smoke just anywhere and "Of Course" any responsible and decent adult will refrain from smoking in the presence of children. I personally would not work in the tobacco industry, as I would not work in alcohol or gaming. But I'm not going to infringe on anyone else's (of legal age) right to engage in those practices. And I don't think we should drive them from every building in town, as they have done here in Chicago. An establishment should be free to decide for itself whether it wishes to be smoking or non. And I don't think the chief concern to moviegoers when it comes to an action movie that no doubt contains violence and scary images and is obviously targeted to an audience 13 and older to begin with, is that there is smoking.
What are these people, on dope?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Getting back on track
Well a marvellous three day weekend in the northern reaches of Wisconsin took an unwelcome turn monday when my wife became extremely sick. A few doctor visits, tests, more tests, an MRI and a few days later, she seems to be heading toward the mend. More later.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
March of the polar bears
Hugh Hewitt draws attention to the opening salvos of the envirofacists' latest scheme to ruin everything for everyone. Follow the link to his May 16 column.
And it's GOOD that businesses will fail, and that infrastructure development will be halted and that WICKED oil exploration is thwarted, and that gas for our FILTY polution-mobiles gets more expensive, and that the economy tanks, and that people lose their jobs! Good! Let it happen! Because we're BAD! We're bad, bad stinky poopie people, and all we do is consume and consume like PIGS! We all ought to feel ashamed of ourselves, and we need to be punished! We need to feel the pain we've inflicted upon Gaia! $5 dollars a gallon nothing compared to what we' ve done to the trees! WHY DON'T YOU EVER THINK OF THE TREES????? I'm here for you, tree. I love yoooooooooooou...
And it's GOOD that businesses will fail, and that infrastructure development will be halted and that WICKED oil exploration is thwarted, and that gas for our FILTY polution-mobiles gets more expensive, and that the economy tanks, and that people lose their jobs! Good! Let it happen! Because we're BAD! We're bad, bad stinky poopie people, and all we do is consume and consume like PIGS! We all ought to feel ashamed of ourselves, and we need to be punished! We need to feel the pain we've inflicted upon Gaia! $5 dollars a gallon nothing compared to what we' ve done to the trees! WHY DON'T YOU EVER THINK OF THE TREES????? I'm here for you, tree. I love yoooooooooooou...
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
How do you spell relief?
K-E-R-R-Y.
Marmol almost undid all the good that Zambrano done did do tonight. Thankfully, they got him off the bump just in time and Kid K closed the deal. Cubs win 5-1.
Marmol almost undid all the good that Zambrano done did do tonight. Thankfully, they got him off the bump just in time and Kid K closed the deal. Cubs win 5-1.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
The original draft of Jesse's apology:
Please allow me to offer my most sincere ameleoration
of my previous implication
that I was instigatin'
anything like castration
or intimation
of immolaton
or any such abomination
against the healer of our nation
and please accept this mea-culpization
as attestation
to my attempt at re-ingratiation
with presumptive recipient of the Democratic Nomination...
The original draft of Jesse's apology:
Please allow me to offer my most sincere ameleoration
of my previous implication
that I was instigatin'
anything like castration
or intimation
of immolaton
or any such abomination
against the healer of our nation
and please accept this mea-culpization
as attestation
to my attempt at re-ingratiation
with presumptive recipient of the Democratic Nomination...
GING 3
Because mullahs in Nigeria issue a fatwa against Polio vaccination, decreeing it to be a plot to sterilize muslims; because a bishop, perhaps inartfully tells his flock (accurately) that condoms are not a 100% safeguard against STDs; because one sect of Judaism has a bizarre, extra-Biblical (near as I can tell) twist to its circumcision practice; because in certain parts of the world muslims engage in the brutal practice of clitorectomy; because mormons once practiced bigamy; because of the criminal tolerance for pedophiles within the catholic church; and because many religions have in one form or another restrictions on sexual practices, Hitchens concludes the following:
1. Religion is manufactured.
2. "Ethics and morality are quite independent of faith, and cannot be derived from it."
3. Religion, "because it claims a special divine exemption for its practices and beliefs," is "not just amoral, but immoral."
Taken at face value, this first statement makes no logical sense. The conclusion does not follow the premise. Logically speaking, it is hypothetically possible that a religious people could be 100% wicked, and still have its facts straight about who God is and how he wants them to live their lives (thus not manufactured). Solomon lived wickedly and still knew how he should have lived according to God's commandments. So did Eli's sons. So did Balaam.
Regarding point 2, it is entirely true that one can be a moral creature without faith, and without having derived it from a particular creed. However, the moral code within an individual, that causes one to recognize right from wrong, did not come from said individual. Or that person's parents. Or grandparents. And so on. I have heard Hitchens try to argue that morality is entirely a construct of our capacity to reason. But this is subjective. A former theologian named Joseph Stalin reasoned that it was acceptable to inflict mass starvation on his nation in order to achieve a soviet utopia. I reason that Stalin was a butcher. Who's right? Reason is not how we construct morality. Rather, it is the mechanism by which we apprehend the morality that exists objectively, independent from us. Attempting to postulate morality in a meaningless, unintended universe is like trying to hammer a nail into thin air.
Regarding number 3... I reject outright the notion that I get special "divine exemptions" for my "practices and beliefs," if that's intended to mean that I as a Christian feel that I am entitled to certain hypocricies that the rest of the world isn't. Which is absolutely what is intended. However, if what was intended by that remark is that all religions think that their way is right--which they do (and which is not what was intended by that statement), it's somewhat understandable why an atheist like Hitchens would feel this way (of course it would be interesting to examine any ways he might "claim exemption" from morality for his own behavior as an atheist). But hypothetically speaking, if one "way" were in fact "THE way," ie, the way that the one true God has made himself known and that He Himself endorses--If the One who is the embodiment and the source of all morality says "do it this way," then necessarily, that is the right way, no? And therefore, not immoral.
Throughout this chapter, Hitchens takes several liberties with the truth. There's the "...the well-attested fact that numberless [animals] engage in homosexual play." As with so many other "facts" cited in this book, Hitchens feels no obligation to back his statements up with any sort of reference. Hopefully he's not citing Rosie O'Donnell. He also cites the appearance of homosexuality in societies throughout the world as evidence that it's part of humanity's design. Another example of the conclusion not following the premise. There are people with tourettes, blindness, and nipple rings all over the world. Are these evidence of our design? Lastly Hitchens concludes his chapter with the ad hominem that christians everywhere are gleefully awaiting the end of the world so that we can enjoy the tortured suffering of the heathen. Right, Chris. That's why we face ridicule, persecution, and in some cases imprisonment, torture, and death to bring the light of the Gospel to those who haven't heard or don't believe. That's what motivated Richard Wumbrand and his flock to defy the Soviets and to endure imprisonment and unspeakable cruelty for the sake of Christ: because secretly, they didn't want their soviet captors to receive Christ. Secretly, they wanted them all to go to hell. And that's why Wurmbrand founded Voice of the Martyrs, which assists the persecuted Church around the globe and partners with missionary organizations who are taking the gospel to the most dangerous places on earth. Really, it's all a vast conspiracy to get as many people damned as possible.
1. Religion is manufactured.
2. "Ethics and morality are quite independent of faith, and cannot be derived from it."
3. Religion, "because it claims a special divine exemption for its practices and beliefs," is "not just amoral, but immoral."
Taken at face value, this first statement makes no logical sense. The conclusion does not follow the premise. Logically speaking, it is hypothetically possible that a religious people could be 100% wicked, and still have its facts straight about who God is and how he wants them to live their lives (thus not manufactured). Solomon lived wickedly and still knew how he should have lived according to God's commandments. So did Eli's sons. So did Balaam.
Regarding point 2, it is entirely true that one can be a moral creature without faith, and without having derived it from a particular creed. However, the moral code within an individual, that causes one to recognize right from wrong, did not come from said individual. Or that person's parents. Or grandparents. And so on. I have heard Hitchens try to argue that morality is entirely a construct of our capacity to reason. But this is subjective. A former theologian named Joseph Stalin reasoned that it was acceptable to inflict mass starvation on his nation in order to achieve a soviet utopia. I reason that Stalin was a butcher. Who's right? Reason is not how we construct morality. Rather, it is the mechanism by which we apprehend the morality that exists objectively, independent from us. Attempting to postulate morality in a meaningless, unintended universe is like trying to hammer a nail into thin air.
Regarding number 3... I reject outright the notion that I get special "divine exemptions" for my "practices and beliefs," if that's intended to mean that I as a Christian feel that I am entitled to certain hypocricies that the rest of the world isn't. Which is absolutely what is intended. However, if what was intended by that remark is that all religions think that their way is right--which they do (and which is not what was intended by that statement), it's somewhat understandable why an atheist like Hitchens would feel this way (of course it would be interesting to examine any ways he might "claim exemption" from morality for his own behavior as an atheist). But hypothetically speaking, if one "way" were in fact "THE way," ie, the way that the one true God has made himself known and that He Himself endorses--If the One who is the embodiment and the source of all morality says "do it this way," then necessarily, that is the right way, no? And therefore, not immoral.
Throughout this chapter, Hitchens takes several liberties with the truth. There's the "...the well-attested fact that numberless [animals] engage in homosexual play." As with so many other "facts" cited in this book, Hitchens feels no obligation to back his statements up with any sort of reference. Hopefully he's not citing Rosie O'Donnell. He also cites the appearance of homosexuality in societies throughout the world as evidence that it's part of humanity's design. Another example of the conclusion not following the premise. There are people with tourettes, blindness, and nipple rings all over the world. Are these evidence of our design? Lastly Hitchens concludes his chapter with the ad hominem that christians everywhere are gleefully awaiting the end of the world so that we can enjoy the tortured suffering of the heathen. Right, Chris. That's why we face ridicule, persecution, and in some cases imprisonment, torture, and death to bring the light of the Gospel to those who haven't heard or don't believe. That's what motivated Richard Wumbrand and his flock to defy the Soviets and to endure imprisonment and unspeakable cruelty for the sake of Christ: because secretly, they didn't want their soviet captors to receive Christ. Secretly, they wanted them all to go to hell. And that's why Wurmbrand founded Voice of the Martyrs, which assists the persecuted Church around the globe and partners with missionary organizations who are taking the gospel to the most dangerous places on earth. Really, it's all a vast conspiracy to get as many people damned as possible.
Perfect 10
Ryan Dempster is the Mary Lou Retton of pitchers at Wrigley. Wait--I mean, um...
In other news: Is this our rescue or our latest liability?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Yay, they broke the record!!!
Public sentiment that the Democrat-controlled Congress are a bunch of losers is at an all time high. That sounds more positive than saying their ratings are at an all time low, doesn't it?
But by all means, continue to stonewall on off shore drilling, ANWR drilling and shale oil extraction, Nan.
"Pay no attention to that sound;
it's just the wind whistling through my ears..."
But by all means, continue to stonewall on off shore drilling, ANWR drilling and shale oil extraction, Nan.
"Pay no attention to that sound;
it's just the wind whistling through my ears..."
Monday, July 7, 2008
Latest on GING
I'm a slow reader and an even slower blogger. And I get easily distracted by other reading material like the big honkin' stack of Guitar Player back issues that my homie Bob gave me (not to mention my Bible). And did you really think I was going to read this over the holiday weekend? In other words, still slowly slogging through Hitchens' God Is Not Great.
Last I recall I was in the chapter in which the Author sings the virtues of pigs, and how certain religions' dietary prohibtions thereof serve as incontravertible evidence that God doesn't exist (it's so simple, how could I not see it before?).
But a word on the previous chapter, "Religion Kills." Confining himself exclusively to cities and countries around the world that begin with the letter "B," (Belfast, Belgrade, Bosnia, Baghdad...) Hitchens gives example after example of how individuals of different faiths (or denominations) have done horrible things to each other. And at the end of each example (all of which are truly abominable, by the way) he recites the mantra, "Religion poisons everything."
Leaving aside for a moment the question of atheism's track record (100 million dead at the hands of Communists in the 20th century alone, according to the Black Book of Communism, Hitler's Holocaust, etc.), the claim that religion poisons "everything" is absurd on its face. Does Hitchens consider poisonous the numerous institutions of higher learning throughout this land that were founded by people of faith--among them Harvard, Princeton, and Yale? How about all of the hospitals that were and continue to be founded by faith-based organizations? How about Alcoholics Anonymous, which contains among its twelve steps the following:
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
I also noticed something that Hitchens hints at in the first chapter, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out later: He suggests that Dietrich Bonhoffer was less a christian and more of a humanist, which (it is implied) prompted his courageous and altrustic conspirings against Hitler. Aha. So when christians do good things, they're not christians, but humanists. I wonder what atheists who do bad things are called...
Finally, I find myself having to ask why a passionate Darwinist like Hitchens should recoil in horror at the violence that dogmatists commit against each other, or against the non-faithful. In all cases, is this not natural selection at work? Is this not the strong weeding out the weak, whether by the jihadist cutting the foreign journalist's throat, or the Israeli fighter jet cutting the jihadist to shreds, or the Irish Protestants and Catholics deciding once and for all who God likes best, or the imbecillic suicide bomber blasting himself to smithereens? Should not Hitchens be cheering on the human animal's brutish refining of its gene pool?
Last I recall I was in the chapter in which the Author sings the virtues of pigs, and how certain religions' dietary prohibtions thereof serve as incontravertible evidence that God doesn't exist (it's so simple, how could I not see it before?).
But a word on the previous chapter, "Religion Kills." Confining himself exclusively to cities and countries around the world that begin with the letter "B," (Belfast, Belgrade, Bosnia, Baghdad...) Hitchens gives example after example of how individuals of different faiths (or denominations) have done horrible things to each other. And at the end of each example (all of which are truly abominable, by the way) he recites the mantra, "Religion poisons everything."
Leaving aside for a moment the question of atheism's track record (100 million dead at the hands of Communists in the 20th century alone, according to the Black Book of Communism, Hitler's Holocaust, etc.), the claim that religion poisons "everything" is absurd on its face. Does Hitchens consider poisonous the numerous institutions of higher learning throughout this land that were founded by people of faith--among them Harvard, Princeton, and Yale? How about all of the hospitals that were and continue to be founded by faith-based organizations? How about Alcoholics Anonymous, which contains among its twelve steps the following:
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
I also noticed something that Hitchens hints at in the first chapter, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out later: He suggests that Dietrich Bonhoffer was less a christian and more of a humanist, which (it is implied) prompted his courageous and altrustic conspirings against Hitler. Aha. So when christians do good things, they're not christians, but humanists. I wonder what atheists who do bad things are called...
Finally, I find myself having to ask why a passionate Darwinist like Hitchens should recoil in horror at the violence that dogmatists commit against each other, or against the non-faithful. In all cases, is this not natural selection at work? Is this not the strong weeding out the weak, whether by the jihadist cutting the foreign journalist's throat, or the Israeli fighter jet cutting the jihadist to shreds, or the Irish Protestants and Catholics deciding once and for all who God likes best, or the imbecillic suicide bomber blasting himself to smithereens? Should not Hitchens be cheering on the human animal's brutish refining of its gene pool?
Friday, July 4, 2008
Happy Independence Day
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776.
THE UNANIMOUS
DECLARATION
OF THE
THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyranny only.
HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining, in the mean Time, exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our Legislatures.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection, and waging War against us.
HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with Circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
HE has constrained our Fellow-Citizens, taken Captive on the high Seas, to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes, and Conditions.
IN every Stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every Act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them, from Time to Time, of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our Connexions and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the Rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connexion between them and the State of Great-Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of Right do. And for the Support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honour.
John Hancock.
GEORGIA, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, Geo. Walton.
NORTH-CAROLINA, Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn.
SOUTH-CAROLINA, Edward Rutledge, Thos Heyward, junr. Thomas Lynch, junr. Arthur Middleton.
MARYLAND, Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone, Charles Carroll, of Carrollton.
VIRGINIA, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Ths. Jefferson, Benja. Harrison, Thos. Nelson, jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton.
PENNSYLVANIA, Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. Franklin, John Morton, Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, Geo. Taylor, James Wilson, Geo. Ross.
DELAWARE, Caesar Rodney, Geo. Read.
NEW-YORK, Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frank Lewis, Lewis Morris.
NEW-JERSEY, Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson, John Hart, Abra. Clark.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE, Josiah Bartlett, Wm. Whipple, Matthew Thornton.
MASSACHUSETTS-BAY, Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry.
RHODE-ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE, &c. Step. Hopkins, William Ellery.
CONNECTICUT, Roger Sherman, Saml. Huntington, Wm. Williams, Oliver Wolcott.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Rock on, Newt!
I like everything he says except for the bit about "punishing" speculators. In a free, capitalist market, speculators buy futures. Now if they lose their shirts as a result of flooding the market with strategic reserves, that's not my problem...
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The illusions guitars provide
You ever jam on your guitar for a while, and you're rocking, and in your mind's eye you totally look like this guy...
Only to put your guitar down, pass by a mirror, and suddenly be reminded that you really look like this guy?
Yeah, me too...
Only to put your guitar down, pass by a mirror, and suddenly be reminded that you really look like this guy?
Yeah, me too...
Hitchens
Just finally getting around to Christopher Hitchens' recent polemic, God Is Not Great.
Will post comments, thoughts as they come to me, definitely not a full critique, bound to miss some things.
I like Hitchens a lot. It's hard for me not to like him (perhaps that it's from a distance helps). There's something charming about his placid arrogance. I always look forward to his regular slot (first thing Wednesdays) on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Really the only common ground between us is our unwavering support for the global war on terrorists (I can't quite bring myself to attack "isms" the way he can).
About the book, there's not much yet to say. I've really just made it through the first chapter, which is full of grandiose broad brush strokes and sweeping accusations--his attempts to justify with specifics in later chapters should prove engaging. Hitchens writes "there still remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking."
Excuse me? I... er, sorry. I was about to mount a counterargument there, but I forgot, Hitchens' objections are "irreducible." Forgive me.
He's served himself a pretty tall order with that paragraph. But on I will read.
Counterbloviations to follow as formed...
Will post comments, thoughts as they come to me, definitely not a full critique, bound to miss some things.
I like Hitchens a lot. It's hard for me not to like him (perhaps that it's from a distance helps). There's something charming about his placid arrogance. I always look forward to his regular slot (first thing Wednesdays) on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Really the only common ground between us is our unwavering support for the global war on terrorists (I can't quite bring myself to attack "isms" the way he can).
About the book, there's not much yet to say. I've really just made it through the first chapter, which is full of grandiose broad brush strokes and sweeping accusations--his attempts to justify with specifics in later chapters should prove engaging. Hitchens writes "there still remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking."
Excuse me? I... er, sorry. I was about to mount a counterargument there, but I forgot, Hitchens' objections are "irreducible." Forgive me.
He's served himself a pretty tall order with that paragraph. But on I will read.
Counterbloviations to follow as formed...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
