Author: VD

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” – John 20:1-2

Orac misses it again:

Deep down Vox is chikcenshit. He’ll wait a few days and then call Orac a girl without linking so his followers can read for themselves. That’s just his way.
Posted by: LB | April 15, 2006 09:34 AM

Actually, Vox only does that when it’s about a topic that he thinks he knows something about, for example, when I made fun of him for using bad Nazi analogies. When faced with incontrovertible evidence showing that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he usually stays silent. When I fisked Vox for his comments on Dan Olmsted’s article about a population in Chicago that was supposedly unvaccinated and had a very low rate of autism, he never responded.
Posted by: Orac | April 15, 2006 09:55 AM

Good point, Orac. I stand corrected. He is a bigger chickenshit than I gave him credit for.
Posted by: LB | April 15, 2006 12:26 PM

Or maybe not, ladies. A simple blog search shows past links to Orac’s blog. And as I have stated numerous times in the past, my opposition to the current vaccine schedule is not due to any adherence to existing theories as to WHY particular vaccines are harmful or precisely HOW they are harmful, but due to the political and legal structure behind the vaccine schedule which logically suggests that vaccines are far more harmful than parents or doctors understand.

This, combined with the way that obviously unnecessary vaccines are aggressively marketed to politicians and school districts, is far more persuasive to me than the many unscientific surveys of surveys that are used in the absence of genuine double-blind experiments with a control group to “prove” the safety of mercury in particular and various vaccines in general. The studies that Orac criticizes may well be scientifically questionable; it is certain that many of those which are cited to contrary purposes are. If Orac would like to try “fisking” away the logic of VAERS, the various related Congressional acts and the millions of dollars paid out in damages, I’ll be happy to respond to that.

What’s amazing about these logic-free lightweights is that they seem to think I have some inexplicable motive for opposing the vaccine schedule, when the reality is that it was the obvious dishonesty of health officials and others defending the need for the schedule that first got me interested in learning why those who were delivering what I considered to be an obvious public good should need to hide behind Congressional immunity and lying press releases.

Keep in mind, too, that unlike most Americans, I have spent a good deal of time outside of the country. So, I happen to be privy to the opinions of a number of European doctors, none of whom are in accordance with the idea that giving 20+ shots to children under the age of two likely to be entirely harmless.

My apologies to Pretty Lady and Rainman, but the promised posts will have to wait at least a day, as I was bushwhacked by a bit of a cold that seems to have clogged up my synapses as well as the sinuses. I’m just going to lay around reading Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, a Nebula-nominated novel by Susanna Clarke that is really very good indeed.

From National Review:

Comedy Central Censored Mohammed

I’m not sure if it’s been reported yet, but for what it’s worth, I just got off the phone with a Comedy Central spokesman. I asked him about last night’s episode of South Park in which, at a moment right before the prophet Mohammed was supposed to make a cameo, the words, “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network” appeared on the screen.

I asked him whether this truly was Comedy Central’s decision or whether this was just another gag (with South Park, you never know). He said: “They reflected it accurately. That was a Comedy Central decision.”

Just in case there was any confusion, that settles it. Comedy Central censored the image.

It seems pretty obvious now that the only effective resort Christians have in the face of the many blasphemers determined to mock their faith and their God is threaten to lop a few heads off. Beheadings certainly appear to be more effective than boycotts. This would likely benefit the arts, too, as one probable benefit would be to focus artists on producing actual art rather than merely attempted shock schlock.

By the way, whatever happened to all that posturing about defending my free speech to the death and whatnot? How am I supposed to take that seriously when they won’t even defend their own?

Jeroboam is one of the men in the Bible who’s been saddled with a reputation as a godless idolater. Throughout the books of 1st and 2nd Kings, the phrase appears like an ominous drumbeat with the description of almost every kingly reign; “He did evil in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn away from any of the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit.“ What a terrible legacy to carry down throughout the ages!

And yet Jeroboam had once known the favor of God’s hand, in a way that few ever had. Like David, he had been anointed as king over Israel by one of the Lord’s own prophets, and his ascendancy was promised at a time when it must have seemed impossible. Solomon was a powerful king, the greatest leader Israel had known in its history; he was rich, his armies were strong, and his kingdom was at peace with all the surrounding neighbors. Considering his seven hundred royal wives, he certainly could not have lacked for royal heirs. The thought of Jeroboam succeeding to the greater part of his kingdom would have no doubt seemed laughable, except for the promise of God.

Nor did the prophet Ahijah leave Jeroboam in any doubt as to why God was going to take most of the kingdom away from Solomon. “…because they have forsaken me and worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites….” Jeroboam knew, long before he became the king of Israel, why the Lord had withdrawn his favor from Solomon’s line, and what he had to do if he wanted to found a dynasty that would endure. “…do whatever I command you and walk in my ways and do what is right in my eyes by keeping my statutes and commands….”

So it seems like truly epic stupidity for Jeroboam to go and build the golden calves at Bethel and Dan right after the prophesied events came to pass. Why would he turn to the worship of the pagan gods almost immediately after witnessing the power of the Lord’s hand bringing the prophecy to completion right before his eyes? The answer is that he didn’t.

Jeroboam’s first sin was a lack of faith. Despite the accuracy with which the prophecies of Ahijah had come to pass, Jeroboam still feared that the people of Israel would revert to their previous loyalties if they continued to go to Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices to the Lord. So he made it easier for them, by building the two golden calves at Bethel and Dan, intending that the people could go there to worship the Lord instead of to the Temple. The calves were not intended to represent any foreign god, they were a symbol of strength and fertility, and in the pagan religions, served as a foundation upon which the idols of the pagan gods would stand. Jeroboam did not build an idol to any of these gods, and in building only the calves, was attempting to abide by the commandment not to represent the Lord as an idol. The foundational symbols of paganism were there, but not the pagan gods nor their worship.

Building a new place of worship to the Lord outside of the Temple could not have seemed like a transgression to the people of Israel at the time. In all the years from Joshua’s leadership until the end of David’s reign, they had freely offered sacrifices to the Lord in many places, subject only to the command not to sacrifice on the “high places”, where the pagan Canaanites worshipped their unholy gods. Jeroboam was only continuing in the older tradition, which must have seemed more familiar to many people, and easier since it didn’t involve a trip into what was now enemy territory. But Jeroboam did violate the Lord’s commands by building shrines on the high places, and appointing priests from tribes other than the Levites. Nevetheless, it must be remembered that these shrines were to the Lord, and these priests were dedicated to the Lord as well. His second sin was of disobedience, not the worship of the pagan gods.

That Jeroboam thought he was still faithful to the Lord is indicated by two things. First, the name of his son Abijah is translated as “My Father is the Lord”. Also, throughout the book of 2nd Kings, a clear distinction is made between kings who did evil in the eyes of the Lord by worshipping pagan gods, as Ahab, king of Israel, did by setting up altars for Baal and Asherah, and those kings, such as Azariah, king of Judah, who did what was right, but still failed to remove the altars to the Lord that were located in the forbidden high places. Of all the kings, only Hezekiah, king of Judah, did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, “just as his father David had done. He removed the high places” and even “broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made,” because the people had been burning incense to it. So Jeroboam’s sins, though serious enough to justify the eradication of his line and forfeiture of all that God had promised him, did not consist of the return to paganism that most people assume.

But what do Jeroboam’s sins have to do with us today? More than one would think, because the root cause of his sins is a temptation faced by most Christians today. Tolerance is a byword for virtue these days, but it was Jeroboam’s tolerance for that which was wrong which led to his disobedience, and ultimately culminated in the kingdom’s full-blown rejection of the Lord God of Israel. The Israelites did not immediately turn to Baal and Asherah, indeed, it took them many years to reach that state of apostasy. But the seeds of evil had already been sown by Jeroboam, in his willingness to tolerate forms of worship that God had expressly forbidden.

It is wrong and misleading to suggest, as many do, that Jesus Christ preached tolerance. He did not. “He who is not for me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.” One finds no call to tolerance in this teaching. Jesus preached forgiveness, for all men, but first he called for the repentance of sin. Tolerance is not the same thing as love; the Christian must love the sinner, but neither tolerate nor condone the evil that the sinner commits.

Even in the oft-referenced case of the woman about to be stoned, Jesus told her, “Go forth and sin no more.” It is not for the Christian to judge, as Jesus himself refused to judge while on Earth, but we have been given our commands, just as Jeroboam was given his – to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

It is not easy to do this in a world where even those who claim to be Christian leaders dare to criticize those who would attempt to follow Jesus Christ’s commands, call them intolerant and accuse them of somehow perpetrating hate. But Jesus told his disciples that they would be blessed when the men of the world hated them, and called them evil. If the world labels us intolerant because we preach that there is no way to the Father but through his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, we should rejoice and continue to speak the truth, not cower in fear and silence. And yet most of us fail to do as we have been told; we show the same lack of faith and obedience to the words of Jesus Christ that Jeroboam had for the commands of the Lord God of Israel.

The sins of Jeroboam make it clear that it is no virtue to be tolerant in a world of evil, and that it is no vice to be called intolerant by those who reject the Son of God. Jeroboam feared men, not God, and so brought down upon his house a devastating curse of death and destruction. Instead of following his example, let us emulate instead that of the Apostle Paul, who fearlessly preached the good news of Jesus Christ to all mankind.

It’s not all that surprising that Morgan subscribes to such nonsense:

Perhaps that wasn’t the sole reason, but his message was deemed as dangerous to the status quo then as it is today. I’m convinced if Jesus were to come back and preach the same message of love and acceptance, he’d be branded a liberal and hated for it by some of the very people who now claim to follow his example.

That’s such absolute nonsense it smacks of willful ignorance. Jesus Christ was crucified because he directly challenged the sovereign ruling power with his claims of kingship, not because of any subversive aspect of “love and acceptance”. If he had merely preached what Morgan apparently thinks was some sort of ancient hippie message of diversity, tolerance and higher taxes, the Pharisees, King Herod and the Romans would have been quite content to leave him alone. It was that small matter of CLAIMING TO BE KING, claiming to be God and having the indecency to do both while attracting a following that got the power structure down on him. The Sermon on the Mount had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

You may recall that Herod was trying to kill Jesus before he could preach any message at all, for exactly the same reason. As for the spiritual reason he had to be crucified, well, that should be obvious.

Furthermore, his message was not one of tolerance, but one of bigotry, separation and division. “No one comes to the Father but by me” is incredibly and quite literally judgmental. And if Jesus Christ came today, he’d likely be considered a rebellious potential militia member, a traitor calling for the violent overthrow of the government. I doubt he’d be marching for abortion rights, universal health care and higher salaries for public school teachers.

Considering the sharpness of his responses to nearly everyone who asked him a stupid question, I can’t figure out what Bible those who believe in a Sweet Cuddly Jesus have been reading. “How long do I have to put up with you morons?” is one of the continuing themes of his ministry. That, in itself, should be enough to convince the more intelligent among the skeptical of the veracity of the Bible as a historical document.

Republican leaders are only interested in law and order when it comes to spying on and prosecuting American citizens:

The two top Republicans in Congress, confronted with internal party divisions as well as large public demonstrations, said Tuesday they intend to pass immigration legislation that does not subject illegal immigrants to prosecution as felons.

That makes a lot of sense. If the Republican leadership made felons out of incoming Mexicans, they’d never be able to vote for Democrats and the abandonment of US sovereignty when they are eventually naturalized.

Difster doesn’t need me to abuse Jonathan Rauch’s poorly reasoned case against polygamy:

In the strict sense he is correct. Where he begins to go wrong is where he states that “monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage.” If a woman chooses not to get married at all, she is also denying some man the chance to marry her. Why is that a problem? We are free to choose our spouses. That some woman would choose a man who already has one or more wives does not deny any other man a shot at marriage, just the reality of it. The reasons that the woman chose a polygamous arrangement are hers alone and should not be presumed upon by legislators in the interest of fairness to other men. Rauch digs himself in deeper by saying that “…some men marry at the expense of others.” Technically, he’s quite right but things are that way now. When a woman I would want to marry chooses another, that other man has married at my expense. From a legal and social policy perspective it’s a ludicrous argument to make against polygamy.

About the only thing he left out was to contrast the high crime and imprisonment rates in the monogamous USA with the lower ones in current or historically polygamous societies in response to Rauch’s final point, but that would have amounted to kicking the man when he’s already down and bleeding and Difster is too much the gentleman to add that last contemptuous exclamation point.

Okay, so maybe I do still have something to teach him….

Dustin Hawkins engages in some wishful thinking on Townhall:

But the pretend-conservative act is being carried onto a whole new playing field, one that has become wildly influential over the past few years and one that does not stand to be instantly recognized as a fake. That playing field is the blogosphere, which is then used in conjunction with massive e-mailings to “spread the word” (as one e-mailer insisted I do to my readers/e-mail list) to other conservatives.

The concept is the same: the blog or e-mail claims, first, that the said writer has been a conservative for years and that they have “had it with Republicans.” They then point to an issue that conservatives would likely be upset about such as excessive spending, immigration, or the expansion of government. Their supposed rage over the issue has convinced them to either not show up to vote in 2006, or, in order to really show Republicans, vote for the Democrat instead.

I am not a conservative and have not been for many years, but I don’t think anyone, on the Right or Left, would deny that I am a hard-core right winger. But I am a former Reagan Youth with fond memories of the Gipper and I despise Dear Jorge and the Bush Republicans every bit as much as I loathe Hillary Clinton and the UN-First Democrats.

There are many people here who voted for Bush in 2000 and did not vote Republican in 2004. (Raise your hand, you know who you are.) I suspect there are even more who voted Bush in 2000 and 2004 who will be sitting out 2006 or voting third party. (Another show of hands.)

This Three Monkey engages in some petty dishonesty of his own, by the way. “In general, my acquaintances take the position that it is better to vote for someone who is good on 8 out of 10 issues than bad on 9 out of ten.” I’m sure they do, but how does that apply here? If the Democrats are bad on 9 out of ten issues – I’d give them a ten myself – the Republicans are bad on at least 7 out of ten to anyone genuinely holding to conservative principles.

I’ll email the results to Mr. Hawkins at the end of the day.

UPDATE: I wonder if Mr. Hawkins also sees Tony Blankley as a fake.

I admit that it is hard to find a political professional who doesn’t see public opinion trending toward a decisive Republican defeat in November. On the other hand, nothing in those public surveys suggests that Republican and conservative ideas have lost their popularity. What the public is turning sour on is the Republican Party as an effective vehicle for delivering those ideas.

Occam’s Razor strongly suggests the public has reached this conclusion because it isn’t.

Hang it up, Mr. Favre. And many thanks for all the interceptions…. I know the realization that the gunslinger who loves to play football more than anyone else ever because he has more fun out there on the field than any human being has ever known is headed for retirement will likely cause Peter King and John Madden to be prostrate with grief throughout the summer, but perhaps by the time the season rolls around, the founding members of the cult of Favre will be able to accept the idea that the NFL just might survive his passing.

Seriously, it’s ridiculous. What he should have done is announce that he was going to play, taken a pay cut and arranged for a two or three year contract extension mentoring Aaron Rodgers as a backup. Why stars can’t manage to realistically assess the situation and arrange for a graceful and lucrative exit strategy is beyond me.

Dennis Bergkamp is the perfect example. Over the course of his career he transformed himself from a speedy striker accustomed to being the focus of the attack into a quasi-midfielder primarily creating opportunities for the younger, faster guns, especially Thierry Henry. He hasn’t played as much since Wenger bought Van Persie – his long-term replacement – last year, but he’s still a valuable weapon in the Gunners’ arsenal.