Vox Popoli

If you’d like to listen to my guest appearance on Saturday’s Northern Alliance show, with the Fraters Libertas, they’ve got a podcast up here.

Sadly, Sam Tzu was a no-show. Maybe next time….

UPDATE: The Power Liberal didn’t enjoy it so much:

Made the mistake of listening to NARN while we were out doing errands today, and got to hear Vox Day…. One of his commenters adds: “You know who else has been indoctrinated? African Americans. Why, they won’t even talk to you when you suggest that maybe it was a bad idea to end slavery.”

Amusingly enough, there is actually a legitimate case to be made for that based on this New Yorker article. As always, it merely depends upon what your metric happens to be:
Slavery was a cruel and inhuman system, but more so psychologically than physically: to get the most work from their slaves, planters fed and housed them nearly as well as free Northern farmers could feed and house themselves…. He went through more than ten thousand slave manifests—shipboard records kept by traders in the colonies—until he had the heights of some fifty thousand slaves; then he averaged them out by age and sex. The results were startling: adult slaves, Steckel found, were nearly as tall as free whites, and three to five inches taller than the average Africans of the time.

Obviously someone never heard Muhammed Ali’s famous quote about his feelings regarding his grandfather’s catching the slave ship.

I found this little discussion over whether I had coined the neologism “omniderigence” to be a little strange. I don’t mind my critics, I particularly appreciate those who force me to stay sharp and keep my logic on the straight and narrow.

But I don’t understand those who appear to harbor some distaste for giving credit where credit is due. Now, it’s entirely possible that someone else invented the concept and the word as well, if calculus can be invented in two different places by two different people on this planet – to say nothing of the likelihood of its discovery by alien civilizations – then something this obvious has surely been thought of by someone else too. Of course, it took me more than three decades to think about it, so it’s also possible that no one else has ever bothered.

This exchange was on a forum somewhere in the midst of a commonplace debate on a varient of the supposed omnipotence-omniscience incompatibility:

Omniderigent…lol, at least give Vox Day the credit.

Actually, Vox Day isn’t the only source of said word

If so, then “omniderigent” is simply formed by adding the prefix “omni-” to it. Vox Day can claim they made it up all they want, but that’s like me claiming I just made up the word “omniliterate”.

This is a strange way of viewing etymology, considering that Wikipedia regularly credits neologists with inventing very similar constructions such as “homosexual”. The relevant point isn’t that anyone could do it, but that someone did and that it is useful. It is quite likely that I am the only English speaker on the planet to have made use of Umberto Eco’s word, celodurismo, so it will not likely appear in a dictionary any time soon and therefore cannot be considered an English word. “Omniderigent” may not be a word yet, but if it provides a useful linguistic service for those interested in discussing divine matters, it will eventually become a word, if not, then it won’t.

I was quite surprised when I was searching for a way to describe those who believe that God has an all-encompassing plan that dictates how many pull-ups I will do when I quit typing this and go to the gym. (My guess is that He has three sets of ten in mind, but I shall be patient and wait to discover how this perfect workout will unfold.) But I couldn’t find anything useful, so I was forced to resort to messing around in Latin.

So, woo-hoo, that’s one for me. Next song!

Abe Foxman isn’t a very good propagandist:

The A.D.L., he says, doesn’t operate that way; it seeks balance, not suppression. Foxman told me that he believes he’s challenging his adversaries to a debate, not shouting them down. But, I asked, isn’t slinging the dread charge of anti-Semitism at people like Jimmy Carter and Tony Judt and Mearsheimer and Walt really a way of choking off debate? No, it isn’t, Foxman said. This was at our lunch; Foxman got so exercised that he began to choke on his gratin. I asked if it was really right to call Carter, the president who negotiated the Camp David accords, an anti-Semite.

“I didn’t call him an anti-Semite.”

“But you said he was bigoted. Isn’t that the same thing?”

“No. ‘Bigoted’ is you have preconceived notions about things.”

The argument that the Israel lobby constricted debate was itself bigoted, he said.

“But several Jewish officials I’ve talked to say just that.”

“They’re wrong.”

“Are they bigoted?”

Foxman didn’t want to go there. He said that he had never heard any serious person make that claim.

I don’t see why someone doesn’t debate Mr. Foxman, especially if he can’t even get interviewed by a sympathetic reporter without looking like a liar, and a bad one at that. I don’t know what the truth is with regards to what the article refers to as “the Israel Lobby”, as I pay no attention to the Washington insiders game and I don’t have an opinion on things I know nothing about.

What I do know, however, is that 13 percent of the Senate and 7 percent of the House of Representatives are from a group that represents only 2.2 percent of the U.S. population. Given that 93 percent of these 43 politicians belong to a party which believes that a lack of proportionality is proof of discrimination and shady conspiracies among the powerful, it would be bizarre for Mr. Foxman, or anyone else, to attempt to claim that Jews do not possess disproportionate influence in Washington.

It is, in my opinion, a very bad idea for any small minority to attempt to amass disproportionate political power to itself. One would certainly expect a certain amount of resistance if there were 65 Black Senators or an entirely Hispanic Senate, and yet that is precisely what a similar disproportionality in favor of those minorities would indicate. And it’s particularly problematic given that the President is being openly encouraged to go to war with Iran due to the threat Iran poses to Israel.

Is this bigoted or anti-Semitic? I don’t think so, any more than it is unfriendly to tell your friend that he’s had too much to drink when he’s about to drive home. The plentitude of Jews in the 110th Congress and in the commentariat is likely to weaken the ability of America to effectively assist Israel over any period of time that exceeds two years, given the likelihood of a powerful political backlash to such assistance should things go less than smoothly.

And let’s face it, it’s the Middle East. No matter what we do, things are bound to go pear-shaped.

UPDATE: As always in these days, any mention of Jews that is insufficiently laudatory in any way is immediately taken as potential evidence of anti-Semitism:

Well, not to defend the concept of democracy, or anything, but if 13 percent of the Senate is Jewish, then those 13 percent are a group that represents 13 percent of the U.S. population. That’s what representative democracy means.

Of course, I’m playing a semantic game – what Vox means by the word “represents” is somewhat different – he thinks that a Jewish senator somehow inherently represents “Jewish interests” (whatever that means).

Not to defend the concept of math and the American Constitution or anything, but if 13 percent of the Senate is Jewish, then those 13 percent are a group that represents whatever percentage of the population happens to live in the states which elected them. Which almost certainly isn’t 13 percent… see, just don’t even bother to get pedantic with me.

And it is irrelevant how these senators happen to vote on changes to FCC regulation or sheep raising subsidies, the question is if they happen to wield an inordinate amount of influence on US foreign policy and are doing so in a manner that is contrary to American interests. (Whatever that means….)

I am not saying that they are. I am saying that if they do and are seen to do so, they are almost certainly running the risk of hurting Jewish interests and causing significant problems for the Jewish people. Since I believe the Jewish people have suffered more than their fair share of misery and persecution over the centuries, I would like to see them avoid yet another round of it.

Yes, Virginia, coaching matters…. Heh, heh, heh.

I am in preparations to watch the National Football League. I understand that some of you are not inclined to do so, and since I am seeking some good questions about the existence of God, please feel to propose them here.

What do I mean by questions? Whatever puzzles you about the concept of the Divine. Why do bad things happen to good people? How could a loving God send anyone to Hell? If God is both all-loving and all-powerful, then why didn’t a single referee throw a flag when Drew Pearson pushed off?

That sort of ponderable is the sort of thing I’m looking for, the sort of thing that genuinely troubles you. I promise no answers, you understand.

Peyton had his happy playoff feet going early against the Chiefs last week, and they’re likely going to get a lot happier today against the Ravens. The Ravens will be able to move the ball against the weak Colts run defense, as Billick isn’t dumb enough to keep smashing Jamal Lewis into an eight-man box the way Herm Edwards did last week. McNair isn’t what he once was, but he makes good decisions and he can handle a play-action fake and a ten-yard out just fine. Baltimore over the Colts in a low-scoring game that isn’t as close as it looks on the scoreboard.

(I’ll be cheering harder than usual against the Colts today, as a loss would lend some weight to the rumors that Tony Dungy is the target of those responsible for filling the Golden Gophers job. I think he’s a sub-par gameday coach in the NFL, but then, he’s had a lot more success at the top level than Pete Carroll, Nick Saban or Steve Spurrier, to name a few national title winners. I’d love to see Mr. Dungy return to the U of M and bring the program to the top flight.)

Before the playoffs started, I thought the Eagles looked the best out of the parade of frauds that make up this year’s NFC contestants. I’m not entirely comfortable picking the Saints, since there are so few playoff veterans in New Orleans while the Eagles are nothing if not a veteran team. However, the combination of age, injuries, playing an extra game, playing on the road and their poor performance against New York at home has me leaning towards New Orleans now. If the Saints get rolling early, this could be the blowout.

Everyone is leaning towards San Diego, and with good reason. Home teams in the second round of the playoffs are one of the safest bets in sports, winning nearly 80 percent of the time. They’ve got a solid defense, a very good offense and LaDainian Tomlinson is very effective running behind that offensive line. But at the end of the day, I think playoff coaching genuinely matters. I’m going with Belichick over Marty Schottheimer. Patriots win a close one.

Seattle was wildly unimpressive last week, except for their fortitude. They never quit, and you have to respect them for that. I don’t think that will be enough to beat the Bears defense… it will be interesting to see if Lovie Smith is bold enough to simply hand the ball off three times and punt whenever the Bears are in their own territory. That would be tres cool, to see a coach play the hand he’s holding with such perfect logic! It won’t happen, Grossman will throw a few interceptions, but the Bears will win anyhow.

In other NFL-related news, once a Viking, always a Viking:

The NFL analyst who shall not be named that took a picture of his penis with a cell phone camera and has shown it to numerous, uncomfortable women, then was suspended by his network for it. Absolute true story.

And The Big Lead learned this morning that the analyst in question was ESPN’s Sean Salisbury.

I suppose this is when I’m supposed to lament the difficulty of being a Vikings fan. But that’s where you’re wrong. See, even when the team is awful, they’re entertaining. And speaking of our mutual, lifelong loyalty, the man who also owned a pair of purple corderoys with a Vikings patch on the rear pocket, Big Chilly, sends this little note about one of the greatest men in all of human history, Saint Bud Grant:

I was watching ESPN2 at lunch today, and they were running a special on the theme of the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat in the Super Bowl. They showed clips from a bunch of games and also had interviews with various coaches and players who had related stories. As you might suspect, the Vikings record in futility came up and they (actually the President of NFL Films) interviewed Bud Grant. It went something like this:

BG: “In the course of a career you play a lot of games and, in the end, the wins and the losses balance out.”

PoNFLF: “But don’t the Super Bowl losses really get to you?”

BG: “Not really. Nothing would really be any different if I’d won any of those games — I wouldn’t be any happier, I wouldn’t be any richer.”

(Allow me to mention at this point that BG was wearing a plaid shirt, khaki old-man pants and tennis shoes without socks, and they were sitting in what appeared to be cheap metal chairs in the back yard of his modest house. He was obviously not trying to portray any sort of “look” in the interview.)

PoNFLF: “But you’d certainly be richer if you’d won two or three of those games. You might have your own clothing line…”

(cut to Bud Grant with this patient “What the HELL is he talking about” expression on his face)

PoNFLF: “your own cologne…”

(camera still on BG as he rolls his eyes)

PoNFLF: “your own…”

BG: “Look, I don’t care about any of that!”

Now, I can’t really claim to know what Bud said to cut him off at the end because we were laughing so hard at his expressions, but it was something in that vein.

I miss that guy.

Me too, my friend. Me too.

We’re going to be doing a second run soon and I’d like to get rid of whatever typos were in the first one. If you happen to have noticed any – and there are a few – please email me with the word “typo” in the subject. Thanks.

Apparently the Iraqi invasion and occupation is really just another aspect of the immigration issue:

Thomas Friedman in today’s NY Times writes: “Of course, just leaving would be bad for us and terrible for those Iraqis who have worked with us. We need to give them all U.S. passports.” And that’s just what’s going to happen, just as France took in nearly 100,000 Harkis after the Algerian war, though the Iraqi flow here is likely to be an order of magnitude greater. The number coming here so far has been small, but it’s going to grow rapidly. Which is why in the future we need to factor in considerations of the immigration fallout before we launch foreign policy initiatives. For instance, the immigration created by our absurd intervention in Somalia has resulted in Somali cabbies at the Minneapolis Airport trying to impose Islamic strictures on travelers there

I wonder how many supporters of the invasion would have been quite so enthusiastic about it if they knew that it would lead to an estimated 1 million Iraqi immigrants settling down here? It just keeps getting better and better….

Slapped another ebook up there to the right. I’ll get the PDF up sometime this weekend, most likely.