Category: Uncategorized

For that which we have been given.

Rick Brookhiser of National Review:

While the Huckabees swarm, keep an eye on Ron Paul, whom I predict will do better than any poll shows. I don’t know how many wicked idiots there are in Iowa, but every single one of them will come out.

The neocons are already openly bitter about not being able to cram any of their various Hillary-lites down Republican throats and potentially being forced to make do with a Bush-lite. While I hope Ron Paul significantly outperforms the polls for many reasons, among them is the prospective pleasure of seeing treasonous, liberty-hating fake conservatives gnashing their teeth and being forced to publicly eat their dishonest words about his unelectability.

I find it intriguing that National Review openly considers supporters of the most pro-liberty, pro-Constitution Republican candidate to be “wicked idiots”. Apparently they’re following the CNN/New York Times business model these days.

In which we all learn something, even your humble host. An act in one part:

Atheist Science Supporter: God simply doesn’t exist! There is no evidence for God’s existence!

Vox Day, intrepid forensic ideologist: Erroneous! There’s loads of evidence for it.

ASS: What? There is not! Prove it.

VOX: Okay. Which type of evidence would you like? Testimonial evidence, real evidence, documentary evidence, demonstrative evidence or scientific evidence?

ASS: Say what?

VOX: Technically, scientific evidence falls under demonstrative evidence. From a legal perspective, it’s actually less inherently admissible than a guy who testifies that God appeared to him and spoke to him in the form of a burning bush.

ASS: Well, okay, so there may be evidence, but it’s not very good evidence. It’s not the kind that would stand up in court, because the fact that it’s spectral evidence or hearsay is relevant.

VOX: Spectral evidence refers only to dreams and visions, not eyewitness testimony, and you apparently don’t know what “hearsay” means. If I testify that you told me God appeared to you, that is hearsay evidence which is perfectly admissible in court, although it is admittedly less likely to stand up, especially if you deny it. However, that’s not what we’re talking about with regards to testimonial evidence; every competent individual who believes they have had a personal encounter of one sort or another with God is a legitimate provider of testimonial evidence.

ASS: Well, what about the other kinds of evidence?

VOX: The Bible is documentary evidence, just as Arrian’s manuscript written on the basis of non-existent texts is documentary evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great and Commentarii de Bello Civili is documentary evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar. Rainbows and the Jewish people are real evidence of God’s existence, as, theoretically, is the Cohen gene. “The Passion of the Christ” is demonstrative evidence, as would be a three-dimensional chart explicating the improbabilities posed by the Anthropic Principle.

ASS: I don’t find any of that convincing. Not even taken in the entirety.

VOX: You don’t have to. But your subjective opinion of the value of the evidence doesn’t change the fact that it is evidence and it undeniably exists. You cannot honestly say that evidence for the existence of God does not exist, you can only say that you do not find the evidence for the existence of God to be convincing. You see, the scientific method is not the only generator of evidence.

ASS: Ah, but here you are confused. Science isn’t a “generator” of evidence, it’s an evaluator of evidence from a pragmatic standpoint. The scientific method generates DATA, which is then used to reject hypotheses ABOUT a particular observation. If unable to reject based on the data gathered, the hypothesis is tentatively supported until more or different data are gathered that end up rejecting the hypothesis or not.

VOX: I stand corrected. Is there then no such thing as scientific evidence?

ASS: No, there is, but it’s not what was generated by the application of the scientific method. Data was what was generated. The labelling of that data as “evidence” afterwards is subjective.

VOX: You’re saying that scientific evidence is subjective, then?

ASS: Er… yeah. But a lot of smart people are in agreement on it. For example the “evidence” in support of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is gathered from literally tens of thousands of lab and field studies that generated similar data in response to similar hypotheses, all based on variations of Darwin’s original hypothesis of natural selection. Those studies didn’t generate evidence, they generated data, which is then interpreted AS evidence.

VOX: A lot of people interpret that data?

ASS: Yep.

VOX: More than the 2.1 billion Christians on the planet?

ASS: Ah, no.

VOX: More than the 1.5 billion Muslims?

ASS: Well, no. But see, the method, it’s really effective. It produces reliable data. It works!

VOX: I have no doubt it produces data very effectively. The relevant question regards the validity of the subjective interpretations required to transform the data into evidence. But regardless, when you talk about “scientific ‘evidence'”, you actually mean “the subjective interpretation of data”, right?

ASS: “The subjective interpretation of data produced by the scientific method”, actually.

VOX: All right. So when one says “there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God”, one is actually saying “there is no subjective interpretation of data produced by the scientific method for the existence of God.” And this is quite clearly false, as there are tens of thousands of examples to the contrary floating around the Internet. Therefore, by your own definition, there is not only evidence for the existence of God, there is also scientific evidence for the existence of God.

ASS: But.. but those subjective interpretations are by total morons, religious nuts, not professional scientists!

VOX: And at last we reach the inevitable Atheist Science Supporter’s Appeal to Authority! I do so enjoy the circular irrationality of the self-professed rational materialist. But I have one more question. When you say “total morons”, is that a set including the subset of individuals who declare that evidence doesn’t exist, when it quite clearly does, and that subjective interpretations of data don’t exist, when they quite clearly do?

ASS: [Insert ad hominem here.] [Insert logically inexplicable and out-of-context reference to past blog post or column here.]

VOX: Excellent! If that doesn’t make your case, what could? Now would you like to try explaining how religion is responsible for all the war and bloodshed in human history? Or would you rather have a go at making the case for the likelihood of a Japanese invasion of the West Coast in 1942?

There are few things more amusing than atheist intellectual arrogance. Excuse me, I mean Athiest, of course.

The other thing I noticed here is that the quote sounds remarkably more like a modern atheist argument and not at all like one that would have been made by a pre-Christian philosopher living in a polytheistic society. I’m no expert on Epicurus, but I suspect that the quote is a fake as I’m always suspicious of any quote that is frequently quoted without any reference to the work in which it first appeared. But if the quote is genuine, than it demonstrates quite clearly how atheist-thinking has not progressed at all despite having more than two thousand years of human history upon which to draw. Anyhow, I’m quite curious, as no source was provided on the first five sites I checked and the statement doesn’t appear in any of the following texts: Principal Doctrines, Vatican Sayings, Letter to Menoeceus, Letter to Herodotus, Letter to Pythocles, Letter to Idomeneus, or Last Will.

A genuine quote from Epicurus that few atheists will appreciate is #51 from the Vatican Sayings: “I understand from you that your natural disposition is too much inclined toward sexual passion. Follow your inclination as you will, provided only that you neither violate the laws, disturb well-established customs, harm any one of your neighbors, injure your own body, nor waste your possessions. That you be not checked by one or more of these provisos is impossible; for a man never gets any good from sexual passion, and he is fortunate if he does not receive harm.”

I like #58 even better: “We must free ourselves from the prison of public education….”

To give another amusing example, one will still hear atheists natter on and on about the terrible Dark Ages, that awful period of Church oppression during the Medieval era that, according to the historical consensus of the last 70 years, never actually existed.

This is an interesting point to demonstrate that the Bible indeed has a legitimate claim to inventing the scientific method. I should be interested to know if there is an older one; there may well be. But the evidence of Daniel 1:1-16 demonstrates that use of the scientific method long pre-dates the scientific era and professional scientists:

1:10 And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.
1:11 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,
1:12 Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.
1:13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.
1:14 So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.
1:15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.
1:16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.

The most interesting thing about the greater part of the atheist case against religion is how reliably unscientific it is, in absolutely every single way. There is a massive cornucopia of evidence to demonstrate that atheists rely primarily on philosophical logic for both their attacks on religion as well as their defenses of atheism’s historical evils.

That being said, I’d prefer to stick with the meat and wine myself. It’s interesting to note that several thousand years before nutritional science and the FDA managed to get it straight, the prophet Daniel had already proven that it’s carbohydrates, not protein and fat, that fattens one flesh. Yet another point for religion over science.

If a member of a self-declared minority reports a “hate crime” that is enthusiastically covered by the mainstream media, it is a hoax perpetrated by a member of that minority, usually the “victim” who reported it:

A firefighter who reported finding a knotted rope and a threatening note with a drawing of a noose in an East Baltimore station house last month had placed the items there himself, city officials said yesterday.

The man was suspended last week for performance-related issues and will likely face additional punishment, fire officials said. Sterling Clifford, a spokesman for the Police Department and for Mayor Sheila Dixon, said the man admitted to the hoax and will not face criminal charges. Officials identified the firefighter who they say acknowledged writing the note as Donald Maynard, a firefighter-paramedic apprentice who is black. Maynard could not be reached for comment.

The rope incident sparked outrage two weeks ago and prompted a federal investigation into possible civil rights violations. It was the latest in a series of incidents that have cast the Fire Department in a poor light over the past year, including the death of a recruit in a training exercise and accusations of racism.

This is an interesting confession of the existence of thought crime in the USA. Had a white firefighter in that firehouse done precisely the same thing, he would have been charged with a crime. Thus it is the improper thoughts which are the criminal factor, so watch out, those of you who read the linked story and find yourself thinking, “gee, I wonder if it was the improper grammar was the FBI’s first clue…..”

American society is a place where everyone wants to be a victim. Poor black gangstas in the ghetto are victims, rich housewives in the coffeehouse are victims, everybody’s a victim. Given that, it should come as no surprise that those who feel they are insufficiently victimized should occasionally take steps in order to justify a better public claim on victimhood.

Adrian Peterson is back! I have to say, I’m impressed with how Childress kept the team together after the shellacking at Lambeau. Tarvaris is playing very well in a conservative capacity, the offense is multi-dimensional and they really look like like the solid, wild card-caliber team that DVOA has basically been asserting all along.

And one can’t complain about the rookie haul this year. Peterson and Rice have already made their mark, now Allison is proving himself to be a genuine contributor as well. Maybe Zygi knew what he was doing when he announced that Childress’s job was not imperiled… I’m starting to suspect that Childress may simply be too conservative until it becomes clear that his back is up against the wall. The Vikings almost look like a different team now, and they’ve done it in part without their best players on either side of the ball.

UPDATE – Great game between Cleveland and Arizona, one with playoff implications no less! But the review rules are insane, there’s no question that Kellen Winslow was forced out on that great last-second non-catch for a touchdown. Terrible decision by the ref, absolutely terrible.

National Review gets rocked:

The new poll from the Des Moines Register shows some dramatic changes in the Republican race in Iowa. The headline is that Mike Huckabee, who was 17 points behind Mitt Romney in the paper’s October poll, now leads Romney by five points. The second headline is that Fred Thompson, who was in second place (behind Romney) in October, is now in fourth place, with half the level of support he had last month. The third headline is that Ron Paul has moved up to a level just behind Thompson and equal with John McCain.

29 Huckabee
24 Romney
13 Giuliani
09 Thompson
07 Paul
07 McCain
06 Tancredo

That poll has got to make Joe Carter happy, anyhow. I’m interested to see who will drop out first, Thompson or Romney. If Romney doesn’t win either Iowa or New Hampshire, he’s done. Thompson is already done, but who knows when he’ll notice. Paul will stick around regardless, and Huckabee’s apparent strength tends to demonstrate the complete incompetence of those so-called analysts who think that social conservatives should be ignored.

But it’s early yet. I don’t put much faith in modern polling and I find it very, very hard to believe that Obama can actually beat Hillary in Iowa. We’ll find out soon enough.

Washington isn’t even pretending to be legitimate anymore:

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects. The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

I’m just curious to see how much longer those who try to deny that the USA is a criminal and dictatorial empire will be able to hold out. Just what would it take for you to accept the concept? Now that kidnapping is “legal”, what’s next, disappearances?

Do you still wonder why the citizens of so many other Western nations scoff at the idea that America is a “free country”? They already can’t believe that Americans aren’t allowed to take their own money out of a bank or pay cash for a car without being reported to the Festapo; this asserted right to kidnap takes it to a whole new level.