Vox Popoli

If you don’t get your debt under control, someone else will:

The easy money that led Americans to depend on credit cards to pay their bills is starting to dry up. After fostering the explosive growth of consumer debt in recent years, financial companies are reducing the credit limits on cards held by millions of Americans, often without warning.

I find it amazing that the official story is that we’re STILL teetering on the edge of a recession. The reality is that we’ve been in one for several quarters, but the artificially low inflation numbers have prevented the inflation-adjusted GDP numbers from shrinking. But even this egregious statistics-fudging won’t disguise the state of the economy for much longer.

McCrazy can’t stop letting the migrating cat out of the bag:

I haven’t won on every issue. I didn’t win on immigration reform, but I’ll go back at it. And I’m glad I did it.

Just one of the many reasons I wouldn’t even consider voting for John McCain. The truth is, I don’t see how either he or the Magic Negro can win, although presumably one of them has to. I suppose it will be rather like a game between the Miami Dolphins and the San Francisco 49ers; whoever manages to screw up less will win.

NateM passed this on to me. I don’t usually bother with these tagging games, but I found this one hard to resist.

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

Social autism.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Yes. Baptist.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Irrelevant.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Since many would probably classify it as a scientific endeavour, I’d say artificial intelligence even though I consider it to be a technological development rather than a scientific one. As for actual science, I’m looking forward to seeing genetic science used to create new medical technologies as well as eventually demolishing the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

What: Realizing the illusion of its supposed dedication to rational materialism and science.
Why: Because it is very, very difficult to have a rational and intelligent conversation with an irrational, maleducated individual who is convinced that he is more rational and more educated than everyone else on the sole basis of his childhood disbelief in the supernatural.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

“Are you sure you’re up for the challenge?” The Bible makes it clear that more is expected of those who put themselves in positions of spiritual leadership. It’s not for the faint of heart, and there’s no shortage of examples of weak men being all too easily destroyed in those roles.

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

The evidence argument. It’s proven to be rather difficult to refute since the vast majority of atheists have a very poor understanding of what evidence is – their tendency towards science fetishism often causes them to believe only scientific evidence is evidence – and quickly find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to deny the existence of things they quite clearly believe. Turning it around, I quite enjoy dealing with the atheist Argument by Imperfect Design.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

I’ll leave that up to others to decide.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Intellectually, Dennett. But personally, I think Harris is the most open-minded and would probably the most interesting to have dinner with.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Their beliefs in what? God? Equality? The certain triumph of the Worker’s ParadiseEnlightenment?

A Democrat sees positive signs in Heller:

Justice Scalia’s opinion, if one cuts through some of the bluster, is really quite moderate—he goes out of his way to support the legitimacy of much current federal regulation—and could easily be endorsed by Sen. Obama without political cost, save for those who wish him to continue down the politically fatal path of endorsing extremely restrictive gun control….

If one had any reason to believe that either Scalia or Stevens was a competent historian, then perhaps it would be worth reading the pages they write. But they are not. Both opinions exhibit the worst kind of “law-office history,” in which each side engages in shamelessly (and shamefully) selective readings of the historical record in order to support what one strongly suspects are pre-determined positions.

The latter paragraph is directly related to what we were discussing yesterday. Lawyers and those in the legal industry are obsessed with the “internal” aspects. They’re constantly quibbling over irrelevant minutiae when it is usually the “external” factors that drive the actual judicial process and create the inconsistencies that are subsequently interpreted and spun into the minutiae of tomorrow. Meanwhile, the former paragraph should give pause to those conservatives inclined to celebrate the decision. As one commenter mentioned, this is a decision that says: “You have the right to own a gun today. But we have laid the groundwork for taking away that right tomorrow.”

The Original Cyberpunk hosts a book discussion on Robert Heinlein’s SF classic Stranger in a Strange Land.

My own thoughts later…. In the meantime, Sean gets even stranger with this hilarious Heinlein parody.

The two semifinal games were two of the better games played in what has been a surprisingly lackluster tournament. The problem, I think, is that none of the more skilled teams has a reliable back four, which has caused most of the managers to play their midfielders in a predominantly defensive position. With a few notable exceptions – such as Lang’s game-winning goal for Germany – we haven’t seen many attacking runs forward by the defenders on the wings. Of course, it probably didn’t help that Greece managed to win the previous tournament with little more than solid defending and an in-form keeper.

1. Pre-tournament favorite Germany still looks shaky, but they’re in the finals. If Podolski and Schweinsteiger didn’t combine for that surprise first goal in quick response to Turkey’s – Germany was under non-stop assault for the first 20 minutes and hadn’t generated a single serious attack before their first score – they might have lost 4-0. But they did and kept Germany in the game long enough to get them past the point of potential collapse, proving that it’s always dangerous to count out the Germans no matter how average they appear.

2. Russia under Hiddink was definitely the most exciting team in the tournament. As in the Holland game, they threw everything they had at the Spanish, but the Spanish defense was more solid than the Dutch. Italy showed that you can shut down Villa, Torres, Fabregas and Silva by playing ten men back, but playing not to lose is foolish, especially against a squad with plenty of ace penalty-takers. Russia’s defense isn’t that good, so once it became apparent that the Spanish defense wasn’t overly bothered by the pressure, it was clear that the Russians were doomed even before the first Spanish goal in the second half. You have to respect Hiddink, though. I think he would be a very interesting coach for the US team to consider for the next World Cup.

3. Donadoni got fired, and deservedly so. He’s a great player, a good-looking clotheshorse, and a terrible manager. I seriously think I could have gotten Italy past the group stage, counting on Luca Toni in the attack was simply stupid.

4. One of the English announcers has a rather peculiar tendency towards the redundant. Is it really necessary to declare “Now it’s Torres for Spain” or “On the ball is Schweinsteiger for Germany”? Sure, in some situations clarifying any potential ambiguity would be desirable, but I’m confident that most people can figure out which side Li Yao or Marco Matterazi are playing for when China is up against Italy.

5. Spain looks very, very good. My predictions have been pretty bad, but I’ve talked up Spain all along and I think this is the year they win it all. Casillas hasn’t been asked to do much, but he’s risen to the occasion when required; for example, his save on Camoranesi’s shot in the Italy game turned out to be crucial. With the exception of the dread Italian catenaccio, Cesc and the other midfielders have had little trouble opening up and carving apart opposing defenses and the ease with which Turkey scored on Germany – to say nothing of the customary blunders of Jens Lehman with which every Arsenal fan is all too familiar – I see no reason to believe that Spain will have too much trouble with an overmatched Germany. 3-1 Spain.

Brainbiter considers some suspicious similarities between Gray and Day:

I am not seeking to promote [British philosopher John] Gray’s point of view here, but rather to provoke questions about Vox Day’s point of view. On a particular range of subjects, Day seems almost to have cribbed from Gray. Since Day’s opinions on a wide range of subjects are, by his own admission, not expert opinions but merely intelligent observations, it is reasonable to assume that his similarities to Gray are due to having read Gray or being indebted to the same sources.

Reasonable, but incorrect. This is easy. I’ve never heard of this British John Gray. I don’t know him. While I’ve been in London every so often, I’ve never heard him speak and I’ve never read anything that he’s written. The only John Gray I’ve ever heard of is the “Mars/Venus” guy, but I haven’t read any of his stuff either. That being said, he sounds incredibly brilliant! I suggest that the reason for the similarities between our conclusions about the New Atheists probably rests heavily on the fact that those conclusions are completely freaking obvious to anyone who has read the New Atheist literature, possesses a reasonable knowledge of history, is sufficiently observant, and is capable of logical analysis.

It’s kind of funny. On the one hand, atheists like to assert that I’m crazy, I’m incredibly stupid, and have no idea what I’m talking about. Then, on the other, they leap hungrily at the suggestion that I must be PLAGIARIZING from a well-respected academic philosopher. Now, how those two things add up? But then, as I chronicled so copiously in The Irrational Atheist, logic is not exactly a strong point for most of these fellows.

UPDATE – In a different post, Brainbiter managed to crack me up. While his first surmise is true, I suppose some might consider the latter to be equally relevant. “It could be that the atheists in question don’t go into the detailed reasons for their anxiety…. However, it is also possible that Vox is just too arrogant to bother.”

Well, kind of. Had they given any coherent reasons, I would have attacked them. But they didn’t, probably because they’re groundless.

We all know that the Original Cyberpunk is a visionary of particular accuracy, so if he’s concerned for the fate of humanity, you probably should be too:

My pleasure this morning at the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case — that there is in fact an individual, not collective, right to own guns — is soured by a correlating announcement from Spain: that, like humans, Great Apes now also have equal rights to life and liberty.

The supposedly big Supreme Court decision on the Washington D.C. gun law is today, and while it has the potential to be a landmark decision in defense of the Second Amendment, I fully expect the Supreme Court to pull one of their patented weasel jobs. The Court has a much greater tendency to get expansive in its interpretations when extending Federal power, not when limiting it. They’re not going to uphold the DC law because it’s too much of an obvious reach, but neither are they going to defend the Constitution as written and underline the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The most likely result is the overturning of the DC law on some meaningless technicality that will allow them to safely ignore the 20,000+ unconstitutional gun laws on the books and leave things in that nebulous state that requires more of the “interpretation” that lawyers find so profitable. I’ll be delighted to be proven wrong on this, but I’ll be very surprised if the Heller decision provides any clarification of the Second Amendment.

UPDATE – yes, we appear to have the full weasel in effect. Although perhaps that judgment is a bit too harsh since they did at least destroy the “collective right” argument. I should give them some credit for that. Ed Whelan of Bench Memos posts from the syllabus:

(a) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home.

(b) The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court’s opinion should not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.

(c) D.C.’s handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession prohibits an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any standard of scrutiny, that ban falls. The trigger-lock requirement makes self-defense impossible. D.C. may use a licensing scheme.

UPDATE II – It may be worse than I expected. Scalia is apparently denying a military purpose to militia weapons in the majority opinion. That’s both ahistorical and insane.

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

I’m guessing that a confrontation with the government is not going to fall within the aegis of this protected right, despite the historical context of the Constitution’s authors having very recently confronted their own lawful government with arms.

The BBC compiles an office lexicon:

At my old company (a US multinational), anyone involved with a particular product was encouraged to be a product evangelist. And software users these days, so we hear, want to be platform atheists so that their computers will run programs from any manufacturer.”

Speaking as a onetime “Transdimensional Evangelist” – yes, that was my actual title on the business card – I find this bit of office jargon to be very amusing. Coherently speaking, a platform atheist is in the business of denying the observable fact that platforms exist, all of the copious testimonial and documentary evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Rather like a real atheist, or around eighty percent of them, anyhow.

It seems to me that “platform polytheist” would not only be a more accurate analogy, but a more melodious apellation.