Vox Popoli

Powerline defends the Republican Party’s favorite affirmative action doll:

Michelle comes in for more than her fair share of abuse because of her gender and ethnicity–you could pursue this line of thought further, but I don’t recommend it–but she stands so far above her mostly-anonymous left-wing critics that their slanders reflect only on them.

I’m not anonymous. I’m not left-wing. And yet I, too, think Malkin is a media whore as full of merde as most of her left-wing critics. Sure, she comes in for some unfair criticism as do we all, but she is nevertheless an incompetent and intellectually dishonest armchair historian who is willing to lie rather than run the risk of being exposed for an ignorant sham.

As for her gender, not even those who like her columns take her very seriously. Ann Coulter is respected in part because she isn’t afraid to take on anyone, while Malkin not only ran from me but couldn’t handle that rapier wit Chris Matthews when he hadn’t even read the book under discussion.

Anyhow, I don’t know if this is a case of pimping a bigger media ho or what, but considering how the Powerline guys couldn’t be bothered to show up to defend their little friend on their own show last summer, this ringing defense tends to ring a bit hollow in my ears.

Hey, do what you do. Win awards. Whatever.

For shame! I have to say that TNT does have a point of genuine grievance, in that his initial question was wholly legitimate, and while it was laced with some of the usual assault verbiage, it nevertheless demanded a fair response. And while it’s true that he did not provide the definition of genius that was required in order to reasonably respond to his question, in my opinion the only correct response was: “how do you define genius?”

You can do better than that, people. Have I taught you nothing? As I’ve repeatedly written, emotional and evasive responses that fail to address the relevant issue are inherently defensive and indicative of a low level of confidence in one’s position. FIRST answer the question, THEN mercilessly mock the questioner, his physical shortcomings, preferences in sports teams and sexual inadequacies!

However, I’m also disappointed in TNT’s subsequent responses. Why bother to ask the question if you’re determined not to accept any answers? The question, properly framed, was very simple: name a Christian whose IQ is over 160. I named two, men with whom I am personally acquainted and about whom I know the relevant detail.

The correct response is, okay, thank you, apparently my hypothesis is incorrect and needs to be refined. To sail off into existential questions of “what defines a true Christian” and “how can I be sure that what you believe to be true actually is true” is as silly and indicative of an absence of confidence as the previous example. It’s remniscent of trying to talk to a college freshman after his first Philosophy 101 class. “But how do I know you really exist… wait, how do I know I even exist!” (The answer, of course, is to punch him in the face. If the incipient philosopher is female, removing her bra is recommended instead.)

Now, keep in mind that at no time did I indicate that I accept TNT’s definition of genius. I don’t, and I was simply playing his game by his rules. To me, genius is determined post-facto by the originality and difficulty factor of the intellectual achievement by the individual, while a high IQ, however glorious, represents nothing but potential. I suspect that one reason there are fewer Christians among the openly high-IQ set is that the current system of academia encourages the our finest young minds to spent an inordinate amount of time in an environment that is awash with hostility to Christianity.

However, the fact that this very same group has a powerful tendency to subscribe to obvious economic and political idiocies means that I consider their general disdain for Christianity to be a substantial sign that the intellectual foundation for my faith is strong.

I would even go so far to argue that despite their lack of impressive educational degrees, the average Christian is more literate and historically educated than the average masters degree holder. I know several Ivy Leaguers whose collective libraries wouldn’t add up to more than 50 books. Even your stereotypical Bible thumper has at least read the Bible.

I saw a bit of a 50’s period piece today. It was Mona Lisa Smile, a movie about Wellesley College girls starring Julia Roberts. After seeing a few minutes of byplay between Kirsten Dunst – the defender of the traditional women’s roles – and the heroine iconoclast Roberts, I was left with the very great desire to engage in a public debate with the writers, or at least the director.

The story follows progressive art history teacher Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts), who is starting a new job at the most conservative school in the Northeast. She must battle against the wills of her students (including Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles and Maggie Gyllenhaal ) whilst proving herself to the stuffy faculty….

Ultimately, “Mona Lisa Smile” isn’t written for today’s audiences. In this liberated world we have today, preaching against the conservative 1950’s “Leave it to Beaver” attitudes seems pointless. Too many strawmen are used to illustrate the “Stepford Wives” behavior of the characters, which left me feeling uninspired.

I happen to have dated a few Wellesley girls back in the day, as did Big Chilly and a few other friends, and it’s too bad that the movie didn’t explore what actually happened in the decades after those poor oppressed girls of Wellesley were liberated. Sure, perhaps they’re only using their physics degrees to teach courses about Queer Theory in Indian Film instead of using them to estimate the weight of the pork roast after they complete their “highly charged” erotic educations – despite the furious response to the infamous Rolling Stone article, not even the President of the college dared to deny its basic accuracy – and maybe the world really doesn’t need another few hundred lawyers and social scientists, but what’s the matter with a sub-replacement birth rate anyhow. We can always import more third worlders, right? Look how well it’s working for England!

Anyhow, the movie was interesting timing considering the subject tomorrow’s column.

Cedarford tries to equate Islamic apologetics with the Christian sort:

1. Despite dozens of centuries of scientific learning, the Book describes the lessons for living life better than any other system. That is why so many believers need only follow the Book’s teachings to enrich their lives. And why so few of our true believers are top scientists. Even our famous mathematicians began agnostic and only embraced faith after their most creative years were done.

This is arguably as true as my statement, but only because life under Sharia is societally healthier and more robust than modern secular culture. See Europe for details; there’s a good reason why childless Europeans have to import Muslims in order to prop up their decaying societies and not the other way around.

2. Despite attempts by Godless scholars, truth after truth has been scientifically revealed. Journeys, events, cities…described exactly as the Book says. As time goes by, the certitude that every word of The Book is literally true rises.

Of course, I gave several historical examples and could have provided dozens more to support my assertion. This one is baseless. When science has attempted to directly challenge the Bible, it has usually turned out to be wrong. As for the most famous counterexample, it’s worth recalling that the Ptolemaic system was not Biblical, it was the modern science of its day.

Ironically, the entire ancient timeline as recorded by secular science is likely wrong because one eminent archeologist equated a certain pharoah with the wrong Biblical pharoah. So, we currently have a situation where secular archeologists are arguing that the Biblical record is mythical based on one Christian’s apparently incorrect interpretation of a single Biblical character.

3. The Book is magnificently written, with the best poetry – surely the authorship was inspired by the One God. Who said this? VD? No, just a typical Muslim commenting on the Koran.

Note that I was content to allow a secular writer or poet to make judgment, as indeed many have, imitation being the most sincere form of appreciation. The Book, on the other hand, is was laid out according to length; try that with any book of fiction or non-fiction and see how it reads. Michel Houellebecq is not the only author to be deeply disappointed with its literary quality.

TNT wants a more precise answer:

Listen, either you can offer the name of a genius (160 IQ or higher) who is a xtian, or you can’t.

So far you haven’t.

I’m not interested in debating with you how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or how long a day is, or whether domestic animals were created before humans were there to domesticate them, or whether plants were growing on earth before the sun was in existence.

I’m only interested in the existence of a genius (160 IQ or higher) who is a Christian.

I suspect the reason no one offered any names initially is because they were uncertain of your criteria. Anyhow, I know at least two. The 31st Marine Corps Commandant General Charles C. Krulak and my friend and occasional partner-in-crime Big Chilly. Both have IQ’s north of 160 and both are devout Christians. And while I have never had occasion to ask Dr. Gregory Boyd, the author of LETTERS FROM A SKEPTIC and pastor at Woodland Hills Church, about his IQ, he likely possesses one that meets your requirements. I will ask him the next time I speak with him.

I suspect the problem is that while one often knows that an acquaintance is intelligent, one may not know precisely how intelligent. Unfortunately, as you rightly suspected, I’m on the south side of 160 myself. This gives Big Chilly, who qualifies for 999, no end of amusement. “Do you need me to explain that to you?” However, there are one or two blog regulars here, one definitely a Christian, who I suspect are 160-plus.

As for the historical examples with whom you take issue, I don’t see how it’s possible to dismiss Newton given his writings and interest in eschatology. He may not have been, as you say, a Biblethumper, but that is no requirement to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Would you consider me to be a Biblethumper? I don’t think so, but I claim to be a Christian nevertheless.

TNT raises a solid point:

Anyone who can believe the bible is anything but a bad book of poetry can believe absolutely ANYTHING. I once challenged some xtians on a blog to provide evidence of a modern xtian genius – my point being that they are exceedingly rare – if not non-existent….

For all of the sense that Vox makes in discussion of most subjects, I have not resolved this one. How can Vox (or any intelligent xtian) truly believe the Noah’s ark fable, Jonah’s 3 day bath in stomach acid (with nary a rash), the trip Ezekiel made on the flying, burning chariot, (pulled by a flaming, flying horse), or the silliness of Genesis, where the plants on earth were burning for eons before the sun was created?

First, let me point out that for over two decades, I felt exactly as TNT did. For the most part, the Christians I knew were anti-intellectual idealogues, interested only in that which confirmed their beliefs. I was too young, naive and surrounded by Christians to realize that this is the normal state of all humanity at the time.

First, true geniuses of any kind are extremely rare. But considering who the Nobel Laureates have been over the last thirty years, I doubt you’d find more than one or two geniuses in the lot. I can only speak for my discipline, economics, and I can assure you that most of the prize winners in economics are dedicated to economic theories that are not only demonstrably incorrect, but require far more blind faith than the Bible ever could.

The truths of the Bible that I found ultimately convincing were two-fold. One, it stunned me then and it stuns me still that the life advice from an ancient book should prove to be markedly superior to that of experts operating with the benefit of two thousand years of additional human experience and the scientific method. The very notion sounds absurd, and yet anyone who is paying attention well knows that it is true.

Second, as an armchair historian, it is fascinating to see how the scientific “proofs” that the Bible is errant have continued to fall by the wayside over the years. Once, it was common to cite the mythical Assyrians as an obvious falsehood, now you can read the chronicles of their kings on the Internet, a people as psychotically savage as the Bible had reported. Then it was the nonexistent Hittites, until the excavations at Tel-Amarna chronicled their war with Egpyt which climaxed with the Battle of Kadesh.

We know so little about that which surrounds us – we still can’t even find 90 percent of it – that I consider the assumption that we have not yet understood or been able to detect the supernatural to be far more logical than to assume that it does not exist. I never, ever, expected to see clones in my lifetime, and yet I can drop $50k and get my dog cloned.

What it boils down to is intellectual humility and faith, I suppose. The Bible describes the world that I see and understand much better than do scientists who argue that life is accidental and morality does not exist with one breath then make morality-based pleas to save the environment with the very next. Perhaps some of them are geniuses, I don’t know. I do know, however, that one should never make the mistake of confusing intelligence for wisdom.

One final note. The Bible is masterfully written. Ask any accomplished writer or poet. It is also demonstrably solid historical document. On those grounds alone, it would be a book well worth respecting, regardless of your religious faith.

Jesus Freak Larry reviews THE WAR IN HEAVEN on Amazon:

AN ABOMINATION

I’ve never seen a bigger load of crap than this before. This author has no spritual sense at all. He wrote about some low-life 16-year-old kid is supposed to be the “key” to storming the Gates of Heaven. First of all the Gates of Heaven would be guarded better than anything else and it is. Second of all JESUS CHRIST is the only key to Heaven. And also this man can’t possibly claim to be a “Christian” if he writes about the Gates of Heaven being stormed and he also uses quotes from some evil Heavy-Metal rock bands. Parents I strongly suggest you don’t allow your children read this if you want them to keep on the right path. That’s all I have to say.

I hope this guy hasn’t tried to read the new Harry Potter. His head might explode right on the spot. And that crazy Lewis guy – he said animals can talk and EVERYONE knows they don’t. In case you’re wondering why some Christian writers seem strangely determined to hide all signs of their faith deep within their fiction where almost no one can detect it, this sort of thing is one of the reasons.

Anyhow, if you’ve read TWIH or TWIS and haven’t reviewed them yet on Amazon, I’d encourage you to do so. It really does help, as publishers do check out these things. And be honest; there’s nothing wrong with criticism as long as it’s got some foundation in sanity and addresses the text, not the author.

Just in case you’re interested, THE WRATH OF ANGELS is still on for publication by Pocket Books next spring, and I may have an announcement about a new fantasy trilogy that will be published by a new publisher in the next month or so.

From Mogambo:

John Crudele of The New York Post reports that “American Auto Association calculates that gasoline prices have risen 21.5% since this same time last year. But the government swears gas prices are only 6.9% higher over the year.” What a discrepancy! The upshot is “That little trick alone saved the CPI from being 0.53% points higher.”

And it is not just about gas, as he goes on to write, “Despite all you’ve read, the government thinks housing is only 2.2% higher over the past year. Others, including the National Association of Realtors, calculate that housing is up at least 12.5%.”

In short, your government has screwed things up royally, but instead of fixing the problems they caused, they prefer to lie about it.

There’s really no reason to pay attention to the mainstream economists any more. Their analytical efforts are so hopelessly compromised by the increasingly delusional statistical data that even if their models were perfect – which they aren’t – the garbage being fed into them guarantees garbage coming out on the other end.

Jason Whitlock takes on 30 years of feminist propaganda:

Why do I bring this up?

Because for a long time, the myth has existed that female sports reporters are able to conduct themselves inside a male team’s locker room more professionally than men could do inside a women’s locker room. And that’s stupid.

I repeat: A woman’s sexual moral values can be just as low as a man’s.

Male reporters, generally speaking, don’t have unfettered access to women’s locker rooms. The reason is simple and obvious: For the most part, we’re perverted scum. We couldn’t handle it. Turned loose inside a locker room with Serena and Venus Williams and Maria Sharapova and Anna Kournikova bouncing in and out of showers … well, deadlines would be missed. All hell would break loose.

Women don’t belong in male locker rooms.

This should be interesting. He’s absolutely right, of course. And why is it that men aren’t allowed in women’s locker rooms anyhow? Surely they can be just as professional as women, I mean, to suggest otherwise would be sexist!