First. The Dodgers scare me. I wish the team would have shown up yesterday to force a Mets/Brewers shootout.
Second. Regarding "tie goes to the runner:" Bull. Malarkey. Meshuggah. McCain won Friday's debate hands down. The only reason that Obama walked away with a barely perceptible limp is because McCain let him. Mac should have nailed Barry on his graft from mortgage lenders the moment the latter tried to pin it on "the failed policies of the Bush administration." Mac didn't and it was a mistake.
How small Barry looked is only beginning to come out: we now know for instance that the late Sgt. Jopek's bracelet, which Obama trotted out during his "me-too" moment, is worn contrary to the wishes of the dead soldier's family. But what would you expect from a guy so classy he'd try to seek out a rape victim for an ad.
Finally, this "bailout" still makes no sense to me.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
O(ut of touch)bama
Hugh Hewitt calls it on Obama's Marie Antoinette moment.
Yesterday McCain chose to put his slogan "Country First" into practice, while Obama in effect chose to say "don't bother me with the problems of the peasantry. I've got an election to win."
Yesterday McCain chose to put his slogan "Country First" into practice, while Obama in effect chose to say "don't bother me with the problems of the peasantry. I've got an election to win."
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Which Candidate Is For Change?
Here are John McCain's remarks from over two years ago, in which he expressed concern about the way Fannie and Freddie were run, and in which he signed on as a co-sponsor of S.190--a reform bill that might have averted this whole mess, were obstructionist Democrats like Sens. Dodd and Obama not in the pocket of FM&FM.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Racist!
Dennis Prager writes eloquently about a topic that has for some time been under my skin. No pun intended.
I am getting sick and tired of the meme that the only conceivable cause of an Obama loss is white racism. It's such a ubiquitous mantra of the liberal establishment (media, hollywood and the ivory tower, (I'm sure liberals feel shame that such a title for academia has stuck)) that white Americans are racists, one almost forgets that one is being insulted. But it is an insult, and anyone who questions my motives for how I vote can go scratch and mind their own business while they're at it.
As a conservative, it is just a given that I am an agent of satan to the left. (Or I would be, if in fact the left believed in God and the devil and all that). I am resigned to this. But there is something about this racism slander in particular that just drives me up the wall. My "intolerance" for this nonsense is no small part owing to the fact that I went to college during the 90s, which was the great awakening of white liberal guilt (and the fact that I was a man as well meant that I was a candidate for lethal injection). I quickly grew tired of being considered morally suspect then and I have absolutely no time for that crapola now.
I should point out that white liberals consider themselves morally suspect as well. I remember a visit with a very liberal member of my wife's family after she had just seen the movie "Crash." "It's amazing how racist we all are," she remarked. As with most conversations with my wife's family, I let that one slide for the sake of domestic tranquility. But as I left the room, I seem to recall muttering "speak for yourself, dear."
I am getting sick and tired of the meme that the only conceivable cause of an Obama loss is white racism. It's such a ubiquitous mantra of the liberal establishment (media, hollywood and the ivory tower, (I'm sure liberals feel shame that such a title for academia has stuck)) that white Americans are racists, one almost forgets that one is being insulted. But it is an insult, and anyone who questions my motives for how I vote can go scratch and mind their own business while they're at it.
As a conservative, it is just a given that I am an agent of satan to the left. (Or I would be, if in fact the left believed in God and the devil and all that). I am resigned to this. But there is something about this racism slander in particular that just drives me up the wall. My "intolerance" for this nonsense is no small part owing to the fact that I went to college during the 90s, which was the great awakening of white liberal guilt (and the fact that I was a man as well meant that I was a candidate for lethal injection). I quickly grew tired of being considered morally suspect then and I have absolutely no time for that crapola now.
I should point out that white liberals consider themselves morally suspect as well. I remember a visit with a very liberal member of my wife's family after she had just seen the movie "Crash." "It's amazing how racist we all are," she remarked. As with most conversations with my wife's family, I let that one slide for the sake of domestic tranquility. But as I left the room, I seem to recall muttering "speak for yourself, dear."
Home field advantage thru NLCS
Congrats, Cubbies.
Also congrats to that legendary slugger Jason Marquis on his first career grand slam.
Also congrats to that legendary slugger Jason Marquis on his first career grand slam.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Timeline of a crime
Kevin Hassett's incredible, perspective-putting-into column, which has been ubiquitous today. I read one account of how the author has been receiving "death threats." I'm honestly not sure if that was meant as a joke.
Lest Bloomberg take the column down five minutes from now, relegating all memories thereof to the figments and fiction heap, here it is quoted in its entirety (emphasis in bold mine):
Lest Bloomberg take the column down five minutes from now, relegating all memories thereof to the figments and fiction heap, here it is quoted in its entirety (emphasis in bold mine):
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org
Last Updated: September 22, 2008 00:04 EDT
Friday, September 19, 2008
Sickness Scrutinized
A review of a new documentary about the trial and flight from justice of Roman Polanski.
From what I gather, the film portrays events (if not as damning as I would have) as they occurred, without attempts to mitigate what in fact happened.
I'm glad that films such as this are made. Society needs to be reminded. Else we forget, or lose interest, and films are made to lionize the likes of the sexual predator, research falsifier, employer of pedophiles and of nazi war criminals, Alfred Kinsey.
From what I gather, the film portrays events (if not as damning as I would have) as they occurred, without attempts to mitigate what in fact happened.
I'm glad that films such as this are made. Society needs to be reminded. Else we forget, or lose interest, and films are made to lionize the likes of the sexual predator, research falsifier, employer of pedophiles and of nazi war criminals, Alfred Kinsey.
So about these financial crises (you know, the ones Bush is to blame for)...
For the lowdown on what this is all about, read here and here.
For how to fix it, here.
Money quote (as it pertains to this election) from Goldberg's article:
For how to fix it, here.
Money quote (as it pertains to this election) from Goldberg's article:
In 2005, McCain sponsored legislation to thwart what he later called “the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.”
Obama, the Senate’s second-greatest recipient of donations from Fannie and Freddie after Dodd, did nothing.
At least she brings decorum to the debate
Sandra Bernhardt had the following to say about Sarah Palin.
The only thing that amazes me about the looney left anymore is that nothing amazes me about the looney left anymore.
The only thing that amazes me about the looney left anymore is that nothing amazes me about the looney left anymore.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Oh No! They've got him now!
Obama mocks McCain for being "computer illiterate," whatever that means.
Yes, this is a serious problem, considering how much time the President spends at the computer displayed so prominently on his desk.
Here is the Oval Office during Clinton's administration
Here is President Bush in the Oval Office.
Yeah, Mac is screwed.
Yes, this is a serious problem, considering how much time the President spends at the computer displayed so prominently on his desk.
Here is the Oval Office during Clinton's administration
Here is President Bush in the Oval Office.
Yeah, Mac is screwed.
Ten years ago today
On September 12, 1998, the loveliest woman on earth became my wife. Through her, God has made me a better man every day since. In spite of me, she has grown more lovely every day since.
Duhhhhhhhhhh....
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what
respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to
be?
PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine,
enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.
PALIN: I believe that
what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism,
terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders
along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership,
and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with
new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush
doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory
self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country
that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?
PALIN:
Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence
that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every
right to defend our country.
Yes, it's clear the woman has no concept as to what the Bush Doctrine is, or whether or not she agrees with it.
The leftist media is hailing this as the new "potatoe," and somehow on par with Joe Biden's daily gaffes. Clearly elucidating, yet again, how pathetic and clueless the leftist media is.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Monkey?
Did Begala just call Sarah Palin a monkey?
Can you conceive of the backlash if Obama had been Hillary's running mate, and someone had made that remark about him?
Can you conceive of the backlash if Obama had been Hillary's running mate, and someone had made that remark about him?
Arrogance on display
The Great and Powerful Obama has spoken.
What an arrogant jerk. What Obama fails to realize is that displays such as this are exactly why he's losing this election. People who see this on the news tonight will remember the "presidential" seal, the Greek columns et al, and think, "yep. That fits."
I don't know whether Obama was taking a swipe at Palin with his initial remarks or not. But if he thinks he's helped himself with this arrogant peacockery, he's sorely mistaken. Nowhere in his remarks was any sort of dismissive "sorry if you took that the wrong way." Not even lip service. Just indignation that his subjects in the press would dare draw arrows between Palin's initial remarks in her convention speech and this the Dalai Bama's latest gaffe.
I have mused several times over the course of this election as to how Obama's arrogance reminds me of Rodrigo Santoro's exceptional portrayal of the Persian emperor Xerxes in the movie 300. His assumption of victory. His benevolent hand extended toward his prostrate subjects. His unbridled narcissism.
"I, Obama, am a just and merciful god..."
What an arrogant jerk. What Obama fails to realize is that displays such as this are exactly why he's losing this election. People who see this on the news tonight will remember the "presidential" seal, the Greek columns et al, and think, "yep. That fits."
I don't know whether Obama was taking a swipe at Palin with his initial remarks or not. But if he thinks he's helped himself with this arrogant peacockery, he's sorely mistaken. Nowhere in his remarks was any sort of dismissive "sorry if you took that the wrong way." Not even lip service. Just indignation that his subjects in the press would dare draw arrows between Palin's initial remarks in her convention speech and this the Dalai Bama's latest gaffe.
I have mused several times over the course of this election as to how Obama's arrogance reminds me of Rodrigo Santoro's exceptional portrayal of the Persian emperor Xerxes in the movie 300. His assumption of victory. His benevolent hand extended toward his prostrate subjects. His unbridled narcissism.
"I, Obama, am a just and merciful god..."
And yet..
And yet, the Cubs are still 4.5 ahead of Milwaukee.
Many people are fearful that this is 1969 all over again.
It's not. It's 2007.
The Brewers are handing--HANDING us a playoff berth. And it's driving me nuts. If I read one more article telling me to relax, that it's a virtual lock for the Cubs to make the playoffs...I guess I'll be that much more annoyed.
A virtual lock is no lock at all. And I don't want the Wild Card. I want to steamroll the remaining very beatable teams that we have yet to face.
Pinella exploded to the press yesterday. Good. Not good enough. Explode to the players. Tell Soto that he doesn't deserve rookie of the year if he can't bunt. Tell DLee that he makes too much money to hit into double plays when a sac fly will win the game. Tell Zambrano that he's a spoiled punk kid who doesn't deserve to be a bat boy, until he can get his behavior under control, and henceforth and until further notice, his new nickname is "diapers." Scream at 'em. Break some stuff. Bruce Kimm, the interim manager when Don Baylor was fired, had more fire in his belly than Lou has. Enough of this.
Many people are fearful that this is 1969 all over again.
It's not. It's 2007.
The Brewers are handing--HANDING us a playoff berth. And it's driving me nuts. If I read one more article telling me to relax, that it's a virtual lock for the Cubs to make the playoffs...I guess I'll be that much more annoyed.
A virtual lock is no lock at all. And I don't want the Wild Card. I want to steamroll the remaining very beatable teams that we have yet to face.
Pinella exploded to the press yesterday. Good. Not good enough. Explode to the players. Tell Soto that he doesn't deserve rookie of the year if he can't bunt. Tell DLee that he makes too much money to hit into double plays when a sac fly will win the game. Tell Zambrano that he's a spoiled punk kid who doesn't deserve to be a bat boy, until he can get his behavior under control, and henceforth and until further notice, his new nickname is "diapers." Scream at 'em. Break some stuff. Bruce Kimm, the interim manager when Don Baylor was fired, had more fire in his belly than Lou has. Enough of this.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
So, the Cubs.
I don't know. I just keep going back to that 4 game sweep of the Brewers. How huge was that.
And the Biermeisters just gave us another gift last night. We're 4.5 up on them after losing 7 of our last 8. This is just wrong. I hate feeling indebted to the Brewers. They gave us a playoff berth last year and that ended REAL well.
Lou needs to lose his freaking mind and scream at these guys. He needs to take Zambrano over his knee. He needs to smash some lockers in.
And the Biermeisters just gave us another gift last night. We're 4.5 up on them after losing 7 of our last 8. This is just wrong. I hate feeling indebted to the Brewers. They gave us a playoff berth last year and that ended REAL well.
Lou needs to lose his freaking mind and scream at these guys. He needs to take Zambrano over his knee. He needs to smash some lockers in.
Build your own R2-D2
This is so cool.
My sons are getting into Star Wars for the first times in their (eight and five year old) lives. Which has been just a joyous and magical experience for me.
Well, my oldest has been on my case to build him an R2-D2 for the past two weeks. So a quick google search and lo and behold. If I manage to accomplish this feat, it will be for far fewer greenbacks than what some of these people have shelled out, lemme tell ya.
My sons are getting into Star Wars for the first times in their (eight and five year old) lives. Which has been just a joyous and magical experience for me.
Well, my oldest has been on my case to build him an R2-D2 for the past two weeks. So a quick google search and lo and behold. If I manage to accomplish this feat, it will be for far fewer greenbacks than what some of these people have shelled out, lemme tell ya.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Tee Hee...
Read Frank Rich. And giggle.
Frank Rich strikes me as the poncey, snivelling little know-it-all who liked to tattle on other kids in grade school (which is why he tended to get beat up a lot).
Frank Rich strikes me as the poncey, snivelling little know-it-all who liked to tattle on other kids in grade school (which is why he tended to get beat up a lot).
Friday, September 5, 2008
Thank God for the Brewers.
That's all I've got to say. If they hadn't taken a four game dive against us the last time we met, the Cubs would be screwed. And Milwaukee lost again for us yesterday. Thanks, Guys.
This is sickeningly reminiscent of last year, when the Brew Crew basically handed the playoffs to us. It will be freaking humiliating if that happens again.
Ah well, think positive I guess. Really, how can we lose to THIS guy?:
Hey buuuuuuuuuuuddy. After the game you wanna like,
get some munchies at 7/11 and just hang out in the parking lot and like, talk and stuff?
This is sickeningly reminiscent of last year, when the Brew Crew basically handed the playoffs to us. It will be freaking humiliating if that happens again.
Ah well, think positive I guess. Really, how can we lose to THIS guy?:
Hey buuuuuuuuuuuddy. After the game you wanna like,
get some munchies at 7/11 and just hang out in the parking lot and like, talk and stuff?
Well Done, Sir.
After Sarah Palin's awesome performance Wednesday night, all McCain had to do was get through his speech without falling over. And for the first 2/3 of his speech, that seemed to be the plan. Lines delivered clearly, if robotically, stayed on point, remained calm and actually delivered a halfway decent zinger through the protesters and drownout chants of "John McCain!" (Or "USA!" Or maybe it was both.) It was shaping up to be a safe speech. Not one for the ages, but enough to get the job done.
Which made it all the easier for him to floor us with the last third. He didn't just recount his experience as a POW in Vietnam, but shared how he drew from that hellish experience a humility and a reverent love for his country. And for all the talk of Obama's taking on the mantle of JFK, I don't think Obama has ever said anything as JFK-esque as these words, with which McCain drew his speech to a close:
My friends, if you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist…
Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an — an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed.
Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier, because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.
I’m going to fight for my cause every day as your president. I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank him, that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on Earth. And with hard work — with hard word, strong faith, and a little courage, great things are always within our reach.
Fight with me. Fight with me.
Fight for what’s right for our country. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.
Fight for our children’s future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all.
Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up for each other, for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.
Stand up, stand up, stand up, and fight.
Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up.
We never quit.
We never hide from history. We make history.
Thank you, and God bless you, and God bless America.
GING: The Final Post (or: "Free at last, free at last...")
Let's cut to the chase: Hitchen's most compelling arguments in the whole book (in no small measure because he doesn't need to lie in order to make them) can be summed up by the statement "religious people do bad things."
Examples of immoral behavior by the devout permeate the entire book, and are certainly the locus through the remaining chapters, beginning with CH's take on the beginning of religions (to control people and bilk them out of their dough), to their decline (abandoned for the newer, shinier model), to the question of whether religion makes people behave (many examples to the contrary), and the summation of religion's crimes in forcing impossible expectations on the faithful (augmented by horrific visions of hell), its Stalinist mind control and exploitation of children, complicity in the nightmares of atheist totalitarian regimes, and suppression of free inquiry.
"Religous" people have been participants in, if not instigators of, all of the above. No one would even debate this and I wonder if it's insecurity in the weaker arguments of his treatise that compelled Hitchens to compile example after example after example of people behaving wickedly, often in the name of God.
One is particularly befuddled (though this may be a product of my 21st cetury lifestyle and the freedom that comes with it) by CH's tirade against church suppression of free inquiry. Indeed, his book closes with a rallying cry for a new enlightenment and to "know the enemy and prepare to fight it." Excuse me, fight whom? Does the grand inquisitor knock upon your door, sir? Granted, one wonders if Hitchens would be so bold if his publishing house and place of residence were located in Jakarta, but given the circles in which Hitchens travels, his admonitons against theocratic control strike one as a little tired. Indeed this is a straw man. Rather than the faithful living in fear of the Papacy, or other religious institution, it is the brave and determined likes of Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, William Dembski, Guillermo Gonzalez, Michael Behe, and Phillip Johnson who face ridicule and ostracization, and loss of livelihood--and who nevertheless stand ready, nay chomping at the bit, to meet the likes of Hitchens in public debates.
But again, this is all smoke and mirrors to obsfuscate the fact that Hitchens cannot answer the one and only challenge that brings his house of cards crashing down. The question isn't whether religion can, does, or should "make" people behave better (although there is an argument to be made that someone adhering to the tenets of a benevolent sort of system will do better than others (ie, someone sincerly living by the Ten Commandments will be more likely to be a nicer person than someone living out the tents of a religion based on human sacrifice)). The primary question is, is there "better." Is there "worse." Is there any objective moral code at all. Hitchens writes as a man who passionately believes that objective values exist. The second question is "how is that possible in a meaningless universe," a question that Hitchens never addresses honestly. He wants to say that one can be moral by virtue of their reason, and leave it at that.
But as I said before, reason is the mechanism by which you apprehend the morality that exists outside of you, not a machine by which you create morality internally. And Hitchens clearly believes that morality exists outside of one's self. At least he doesn't write as a moral relativist would. He thinks that the evil things that men do really are Evil, capital E, and not just evil for Christopher Hitchens. And yet he never addresses how objective morality exists in a Godless universe, and how such a proposition is not like hammering a nail into thin air. There's no way around a metaphysical inquiry if you want to get to the heart of this.
From there you can have all sorts of discussions and inquiry about if God exists, and why, if He exists, does He not do this or that to our liking, and why do some people confuse good and evil and all that. But attempting to posit morality as a given without further inquiry seems to me to require a more dogmatic "submission" than any commonly identified organized religion.
And about this word, Religion. This word is not a very helpful or useful one (particularly for the argument Hitchens is trying to make), as it means many different things to different people. For example, this word has fallen into serious disfavor with the evangelical Christians in recent years, because many of them associate the term with a rigid, cold, rules-based system for staying out of trouble, which they feel sells Christianity far short. A common slogan that I've heard is that Christianity is about "relationship, not religion."
Examples of immoral behavior by the devout permeate the entire book, and are certainly the locus through the remaining chapters, beginning with CH's take on the beginning of religions (to control people and bilk them out of their dough), to their decline (abandoned for the newer, shinier model), to the question of whether religion makes people behave (many examples to the contrary), and the summation of religion's crimes in forcing impossible expectations on the faithful (augmented by horrific visions of hell), its Stalinist mind control and exploitation of children, complicity in the nightmares of atheist totalitarian regimes, and suppression of free inquiry.
"Religous" people have been participants in, if not instigators of, all of the above. No one would even debate this and I wonder if it's insecurity in the weaker arguments of his treatise that compelled Hitchens to compile example after example after example of people behaving wickedly, often in the name of God.
One is particularly befuddled (though this may be a product of my 21st cetury lifestyle and the freedom that comes with it) by CH's tirade against church suppression of free inquiry. Indeed, his book closes with a rallying cry for a new enlightenment and to "know the enemy and prepare to fight it." Excuse me, fight whom? Does the grand inquisitor knock upon your door, sir? Granted, one wonders if Hitchens would be so bold if his publishing house and place of residence were located in Jakarta, but given the circles in which Hitchens travels, his admonitons against theocratic control strike one as a little tired. Indeed this is a straw man. Rather than the faithful living in fear of the Papacy, or other religious institution, it is the brave and determined likes of Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, William Dembski, Guillermo Gonzalez, Michael Behe, and Phillip Johnson who face ridicule and ostracization, and loss of livelihood--and who nevertheless stand ready, nay chomping at the bit, to meet the likes of Hitchens in public debates.
But again, this is all smoke and mirrors to obsfuscate the fact that Hitchens cannot answer the one and only challenge that brings his house of cards crashing down. The question isn't whether religion can, does, or should "make" people behave better (although there is an argument to be made that someone adhering to the tenets of a benevolent sort of system will do better than others (ie, someone sincerly living by the Ten Commandments will be more likely to be a nicer person than someone living out the tents of a religion based on human sacrifice)). The primary question is, is there "better." Is there "worse." Is there any objective moral code at all. Hitchens writes as a man who passionately believes that objective values exist. The second question is "how is that possible in a meaningless universe," a question that Hitchens never addresses honestly. He wants to say that one can be moral by virtue of their reason, and leave it at that.
But as I said before, reason is the mechanism by which you apprehend the morality that exists outside of you, not a machine by which you create morality internally. And Hitchens clearly believes that morality exists outside of one's self. At least he doesn't write as a moral relativist would. He thinks that the evil things that men do really are Evil, capital E, and not just evil for Christopher Hitchens. And yet he never addresses how objective morality exists in a Godless universe, and how such a proposition is not like hammering a nail into thin air. There's no way around a metaphysical inquiry if you want to get to the heart of this.
From there you can have all sorts of discussions and inquiry about if God exists, and why, if He exists, does He not do this or that to our liking, and why do some people confuse good and evil and all that. But attempting to posit morality as a given without further inquiry seems to me to require a more dogmatic "submission" than any commonly identified organized religion.
And about this word, Religion. This word is not a very helpful or useful one (particularly for the argument Hitchens is trying to make), as it means many different things to different people. For example, this word has fallen into serious disfavor with the evangelical Christians in recent years, because many of them associate the term with a rigid, cold, rules-based system for staying out of trouble, which they feel sells Christianity far short. A common slogan that I've heard is that Christianity is about "relationship, not religion."
Hitchens on the other hand uses the term as a catchall for all faiths/dogmas (with the exception, I'm sure, of atheists and evolutionists, and perhaps, in moments of nostalgia, communists): "religion poisons everything." Myself, I think the word is quite useful for it's basic purpose, ie, as a describer/identifier of a system as faith basedor for serving to demarcate the ontologies of various systems (ie, once an ostensible christian denies the deity of Christ, they have moved themselves outside of the religion of Christianity). In my humble opinion, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Communism and Darwinism are all religions. Even Agnosticism seems to me to have a quasi-Hindu vibe to it, with it's alleged "open minded" willingness to grant that their "might" be something out there, it's just that we can't be sure. (Don't upset the Karma, dude.) It's sort of like the Bizarro version of Pascal's wager.
So if we're all religionists, I can find a fairly large amount of room for agreement with Hitchens when he denies that there's any power in "religion" to influence behavior or says things like "religion is man made" (it is my conviction that all but Judaism and its fuller revelation of Christianity are). I can agree that most religions have been founded out of sinful if not exploitative motives. I can also find agreement with him that religion, generally speaking, is not a prerequisite for moral behavior, and I concede the numerous examples that he gives to illustrate that people of faith (most people) behave quite wickedly, a lot of the time. I wish that Hitchens could likewise concede his own dogma, but I suppose that's a vain hope.
Well, I'm glad I read this book. Hitchens is an exceedingly bright man and an engaging writer, and (despite all of the ad hominem and slander with which the book is replete and which serve to make it more base) expresses an openness to engage in the marketplace of ideas with those of differing points of view--as evidenced by his willingness to engage in a three hour debate with Mark Roberts on Hugh Hewitt's show. I thank Mr. Hitchens for reiterating to me that I have nothing to fear from the best arguments that can be conceived in the mind of a brilliant atheist.
And the GING rolled on... slowly...
The more read of Hitchen's God Is Not Great, the closer I come to understanding what it must have been like to be Martin Luther.
Who is said to have suffered from agonizing and prolonged constipation throughout his life.
I have little to say about his attack on Islam (Chpt. 9). It is interesting that, despite the ostensible focus of his ire, he still finds plenty of ways to attack Christianity in this chapter. I must also say that I've never witnessed someone go to such lengths to kiss the backside of a faith, as Hitchens does to Islam, before proceeding to tear it a new one. One wonders why such an exclusive honor is reserved for this particular system, and why Hitchens offers no such charity toward the others. (Could it have something to do with the dearth of beheadings at the hands of disgruntled Christian, et al, "extremists?")
Moving on to his next chapter, on miracles and hell... This was just too good to let pass:
Page 150: "The 'argument from authority' is the weakest of all arguments."
Page 151: "...the sciences of textual criticism, archeology, physics and molecular biology have all shown religious myths to be false."
This chapter relies on a strange "miracle" involving Mother Teresa, a few more potshots at NT accounts, and the stupid, regrettable remarks of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell regarding 9/11 to "prove" that miracles don't exist. You might say Hitchens is appealing to "non-authority."
Let me share an account of an event that was witnessed and confirmed to me by at least two people who I know personally and in whom I have infinitely more reasons to trust than Mr. Hitchens. Years ago, a group from a church I used to attend went on a missions trip to a country in Africa. One night, at a church meeting, one of the men on that trip, a man whom I know, felt like God was moving him to pray for the physical ailments of the people at that meeting. Well, one thing led to another and before long a number of people (I forget if it was scores or literally hundreds) were lined up waiting to receive prayer for this man.
Every. Single. One of them. Was. Healed.
I'll address his next three chapters, about how religions start, end, and whether they are necessary for moral behavior, in the next post (on this book).
Who is said to have suffered from agonizing and prolonged constipation throughout his life.
I have little to say about his attack on Islam (Chpt. 9). It is interesting that, despite the ostensible focus of his ire, he still finds plenty of ways to attack Christianity in this chapter. I must also say that I've never witnessed someone go to such lengths to kiss the backside of a faith, as Hitchens does to Islam, before proceeding to tear it a new one. One wonders why such an exclusive honor is reserved for this particular system, and why Hitchens offers no such charity toward the others. (Could it have something to do with the dearth of beheadings at the hands of disgruntled Christian, et al, "extremists?")
Moving on to his next chapter, on miracles and hell... This was just too good to let pass:
Page 150: "The 'argument from authority' is the weakest of all arguments."
Page 151: "...the sciences of textual criticism, archeology, physics and molecular biology have all shown religious myths to be false."
This chapter relies on a strange "miracle" involving Mother Teresa, a few more potshots at NT accounts, and the stupid, regrettable remarks of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell regarding 9/11 to "prove" that miracles don't exist. You might say Hitchens is appealing to "non-authority."
Let me share an account of an event that was witnessed and confirmed to me by at least two people who I know personally and in whom I have infinitely more reasons to trust than Mr. Hitchens. Years ago, a group from a church I used to attend went on a missions trip to a country in Africa. One night, at a church meeting, one of the men on that trip, a man whom I know, felt like God was moving him to pray for the physical ailments of the people at that meeting. Well, one thing led to another and before long a number of people (I forget if it was scores or literally hundreds) were lined up waiting to receive prayer for this man.
Every. Single. One of them. Was. Healed.
I'll address his next three chapters, about how religions start, end, and whether they are necessary for moral behavior, in the next post (on this book).
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Just because...
We could all stand to stop and look at beauty more often than we do. Therefore, feast your eyes on a 1960 Les Paul Standard Sunburst:
Grand Slam.
I must confess, I missed the first five minutes (or so) of Sarah Palin's magnificent speech because I was busy witnessing the Cubs working so hard to undo all they've accomplished this year.
What I saw was unreal. She knocked it out of the park. Conservatives everywhere are wandering around today with a dopey grin, humming Eddie Money's "I think I'm in love."
Even the libs in the media were forced to concede through strained smiles that this was a tour de force.
One thing I couldn't help noticing, however, is that one particular camera was trained at such an angle as to show the words of her speech moving on the teleprompter. Now, this was the first convention speech for either party that I watched live, so I can't comment on how the cameras were trained for Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Fred Thompson, Rudy, et al. And of course, we all know that these people all read their speeches off of teleprompters. Still, isn't it interesting that the cameras made sure that we all noticed that Palin was reading her speech off of a teleprompter. What message do you think that was intended to convey?
At least ABC 7 Chicago's Alan Krashesky kept it classy in his opening remarks for the delayed 10pm news (I paraphrase): "Absent from her speech, any mention of her pregnant daughter."
Favorite line of the speech: "That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on Ebay."
Best line of the speech: "And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely. There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you."
Best dig at Obama: all of them. But I think the one that says the most is: "This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign."
My hat is off again to Senator McCain. With Palin gracing the spotlight, it's very easy to lose sight of every slight inflicted upon conservatives by this man. It's easy to forget that with him will come draconian global warming legislation. That with him come de facto open borders. That with him comes possible further assaults on free speech a la McCain/Feingold, and a lot of other leftward tendencies. With Sarah Palin on the ticket, McCain becomes better than the least worst option, which is what he was before. She has become the hope for the future of conservatism, and we'll take McCain along with her if that's what it takes.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The WSJ...
Explains why Obama...sucks.
Money quote. Literally:
Money quote. Literally:
About 38% of U.S. households pay no income tax today. Under a President Obama (whose policies would shave 15.3 million households off the tax rolls) that share would grow to nearly half of all American households.
Your point was?
Barack Obama is running an ad which warns that McCain wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
And...?
McCain is Pro-Life. So am I. McCain wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned. So do I. So do a lot of people. So do millions and millions of people. Liberals have used ads like these in elections ever since Roe v. Wade became law, as if they're going to shock or surprise, or outrage anyone other than those who are already shocked and outraged by the pro-life position.
The implication of course is that all "reasonable" people will be outraged and offended. "Reasonable" people like Obama, who three times either refused to support or voted against a bill designed to protect babies who survived botched abortion attempts. "Reasonable" people like Obama, who opposed the ban on partial birth abortion, a procedure in which a baby carried to or near term is delivered breach (feet first) so that all but the baby's head is outside the mother, whereupon a pair of scissors is rammed into the child's skull and gouged around to create a hole big enough for the hose that will suck the child's brains out (eventually bringing this satanic torture to an end).
"Reasonable" people like Obama, who views a child born out of wedlock as a "punishment:"
I'll stay in the unreasonable camp, thanks.
And...?
McCain is Pro-Life. So am I. McCain wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned. So do I. So do a lot of people. So do millions and millions of people. Liberals have used ads like these in elections ever since Roe v. Wade became law, as if they're going to shock or surprise, or outrage anyone other than those who are already shocked and outraged by the pro-life position.
The implication of course is that all "reasonable" people will be outraged and offended. "Reasonable" people like Obama, who three times either refused to support or voted against a bill designed to protect babies who survived botched abortion attempts. "Reasonable" people like Obama, who opposed the ban on partial birth abortion, a procedure in which a baby carried to or near term is delivered breach (feet first) so that all but the baby's head is outside the mother, whereupon a pair of scissors is rammed into the child's skull and gouged around to create a hole big enough for the hose that will suck the child's brains out (eventually bringing this satanic torture to an end).
"Reasonable" people like Obama, who views a child born out of wedlock as a "punishment:"
I'll stay in the unreasonable camp, thanks.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
I Question the MSM's "judgement..."
A common meme I'm hearing from the MSM today is that the revelation of Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter casts aspersions on McCain's "judgement."
Is it because she's supporting her daughter's decision to have the child, rather than driving her to the nearest abortion clinic? You want to bet on whether or not the MSM would be singing the praises of McCain's "wisdom" if Palin had in fact driven her daughter to the abortion clinic?
Bad enough that Palin decided to keep her own DS baby. But allowing another unborn baby to make it into the world...intolerable.
Is it because she's supporting her daughter's decision to have the child, rather than driving her to the nearest abortion clinic? You want to bet on whether or not the MSM would be singing the praises of McCain's "wisdom" if Palin had in fact driven her daughter to the abortion clinic?
Bad enough that Palin decided to keep her own DS baby. But allowing another unborn baby to make it into the world...intolerable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
