Worldly Advice

Why do you think a girl would get a lower back tattoo that she will never see? It’s so you have something to look out while you’re doing her doggy style. She wants you to be visually entertained during sex; how thoughtful is that?!

DC Government is a joke: The ongoing church parking issue

Once again we see that politicans don't really care about residents in DC. On Sunday, Mayor Williams decided that there will be no enforcement of parking laws and that a "taskforce" should be established to study the issue. What issue and how much studying do you need? It should be clear that ticketing cars that are parked in cross walkes, in front of fire hydrates, or double parked is the way to go. Plus, the community already established a commission to study the church parking issue and came up with a plan that the Mayor is now just throwing away. Pathetic!!!

If the city wants to give churches a special place in society then just come right out and say it. Better yet lets cut out the middle man and turn this sorry a-s city into a theocracy.

Republican Party: Is it breaking apart?

This is a great article by Craig Shirley who discusses the reasons why many conservatives will be happy to see the Republican party fail. The Goldwater/Reagan wing of the Republican party has never truly won the war over who really controls the party. The liberal Rockefeller business camp has been a sore loser since 64 win they lost the Republican nomination to Goldwater. Ever since then its members have sat in waiting while Reagan came to dominate the party that they thought was rightfully theirs. Today we have a President who pretends to be a Reagan Republican when he more closely fits the Rockefeller model. Other Rockefeller Republicans still control most of the party even though they proclaim to carry the Reagan legacy. I say down with the Republican party and start over. Get rid of the tax and spend liberals and anyone else who doesn't want to enforce the law. Destroy the party and let the Democrats take over. They can't do any worse!

The immigration reform debate has highlighted a long-standing fissure in the GOP between the elitist Rockefeller business wing and the party's conservative populist base. Whether the two groups can continue to coexist and preserve the Republican majority is increasingly doubtful as conservatives begin to consider -- and in some cases cheer -- the possibility that the GOP may lose control of Congress this fall.

The two camps are deeply divided. The business elites are interested in a large supply of cheap labor and support unfettered immigration and open borders. The populist base supports legal immigration but is concerned about lawlessness on our border, national sovereignty and the real security threat posed by porous borders.

There is nothing new about this division. It is a 40-year-old fight that has its roots in the cultural, economic, regional and ideological differences between the two camps. Still, most conservatives felt that after the victory of Ronald Reagan and the Republican Revolution of 1994 their point was made and the country-clubbers would know their place. They were wrong. The Rockefeller wing is now attempting to reassert its control over the party and is openly hostile toward the Reagan populists who created the Republican majority in the first place.

Major Republicans have taken to attacking others within their own party as unsophisticated nativists. In a recent Wall Street Journal column, former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie warned populists to cease and desist from promoting "border enforcement first" legislation. "Anti-immigration rhetoric is a political siren song, and Republicans must resist its lure," he said. And in a recent editorial, the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol attacked populist Republicans for not recognizing the danger of "turning the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know-Nothing party."

Conservatives see this kind of rhetoric as inflammatory, anti-intellectual and offensive. Far from being driven by xenophobia and intolerance, conservative populists are motivated by a profound respect for the rule of law and by a patriotic regard for America's sovereignty and national security. Upholding the rule of law and protecting our country's borders is important to conservative populists and to most Americans.

To make their argument, some establishment Republicans are invoking Ronald Reagan's name. In fact, Reagan argued that it was our government's duty to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship." Reagan was pro-legal immigration, pro-patriotic assimilation and in step with other populist conservatives.

The Republican Party is now unraveling. Sept. 11, 2001, and the war on terrorism stanched a lot of wounds inside the party, but resentment is growing over steel tariffs, prescription drug benefits, a League of Nations mentality, the growth of government and harebrained spending, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, the increasing regulation of political speech in the United States and endemic corruption. On top of all the scandals, it has just come to light that the RNC paid millions in legal bills to defend operative James Tobin, who was convicted with associates in an illegal phone-jamming scheme aimed at preventing New Hampshire Democrats from voting. In doing so, the GOP appears to sanction and institutionalize corruption within the party.

The elites in the GOP have never understood conservatives or Reagan; they've found both to be a bit tacky. They have always found the populists' commitment to values unsettling. To them, adherence to conservative principles was always less important than wealth and power.

Unfortunately, the GOP has lost its motivating ideals. The revolution of 1994 has been killed not by zeal but by a loss of faith in its own principles. The tragedy is not that we are faced with another fight for the soul of the Republican Party but that we have missed an opportunity to bring a new generation of Americans over to our point of view.

All agree that the Democrats are feckless and without a plan or agenda. But most Americans are now presented with a choice between two parties that are both addicted to power -- the Democrats to government power and Republicans to corporate and governmental power. Who speaks for Main Street Reaganism?

It was the populists under Reagan, and later under Newt Gingrich, who energized the party, gave voice to a maturing conservative ideology and swept Republicans into power. We would be imprudent and forgetful to disregard this. But it may be too late, because conservatives don't want to be part of the looming train wreck. They know that this is no longer Ronald Reagan's party.

Finally, a truthful statement

9th Circuit follow up comment

Just a thought but maybe the Supreme Court needs a special Reinhardt docket, where every case that he votes in the majority gets automatic expedited review, with the Supreme Court summarily reversing after 30 days unless someone pulls it off the docket.

The debate over homosexuality

I ran across this sentence in another blog that I sometimes view and I wanted to comment on it.

Homosexuality is an enduring status or quality; attacking "homosexuality" is indistinguishable from attacking homosexuals, just as attacking "being black" is indistinguishable from attacking black people.

Although I don't think homosexuality is an immoral sin and don't care what sexual perferences you may entertain, this phrase is one of those oft-repeated saying that means nothing. There are a lot of qualities that are enduring which people find immoral. To name one, pedophilia (no, I am not comparing homosexuals and pedophiles). But it does seem to be an enduring status or quality. It's hard to "cure" these sickos just as it's hard to convert a homosexual to a heterosexual. So what if a quality is enduring if that quality is immoral?

The difference, of course, is that some believe that homosexuality is amoral (as do I) and pedophila is immoral (as do I). It doesn't make any difference that each quality is enduring and resistant to change or remedy.

Let's not kid ourselves that the opprobrium assigned to homosexuality can be dissolved with hollow slogans like "Homosexuality is enduring, it's just like race!" to convince the public that homosexuals are not gross or immoral sinners, one must address the underlying morality of the act.

The 9th Circuit has validated the concept of "Freedom of speech for me but not for thee."

Thought anyone reading this blog might have some interest in at least knowing about this case. Becaically a kid wore an anti-gay t-shirt to school and was told to remove it. Case went to court and eventually got to the 9th Circuit. According to the majority (Justice Reinhardt...ugh), "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation" -- which essentially means expressions of viewpoints that are hostile to certain races, religions, and sexual orientations -- are simply unprotected by the First Amendment in K-12 schools.

So by this ruling, the somewhat hip "Boys Suck" t-shirts would be protected (while they are a minority, our society has a past history of oppressing women) while a "Girls are stupid" shirt would be banned. As would some shirt making fun of someone for being fat. Or having glasses. That's just wildly illogical. But it's the 9th.

Civil Rights Act and Racial Preference

When the civil rights act was being debated in Congress in the 1960s southern senators opposed the bill because they said it would lead to a system of racial preferences. Most liberals regarded these senators as bigots (perhaps rightly so) and emphasized that they all were seeking was equal treatment under the law. Hubert Humphrey said he eat the bill if anyone determined it to legalize a racial preference. It seems that the southerners were right—the Act did lead to a system of racial preferences.

Global Warming: A Scientific Canard?

I am not sure if I believe all the dire predications or not, but seeing that the scientific community can't figure out what is going on I am going to hold off on take a side. Although I admit the Earth is getting warming, I wonder if this is simply a geological fluxuation rather than a permant man made symptom.

Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.

Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."

DHS Is going to get tough with Illegal Immigration

The apprehension on Wednesday of more than 1,100 illegal immigrants employed by a Houston-based pallet supply company, as well as the arrest of seven of its managers, represents the kickoff of a more aggressive federal immigration enforcement campaign intended to hold employers accountable for breaking the law, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today.

Saying the hiring by companies nationwide of millions of undocumented workers is often a form of organized crime, Mr. Chertoff, a former federal prosecutor, said the government will now attempt to combat the practice with techniques similar to those used to try to shut down the mob.

"We target those organizations, we use intelligence to define the scope of the organization, and then we use all of the tools we have — whether it's criminal enforcement or the immigration laws — to make sure we come down as hard as possible and break the back of those organizations," Mr. Chertoff said during a news conference at the headquarters of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division.

Mayor Williams gives himself more power than provided by law

There is an ongoing parking debate in the nation's capitol. Many city officials feel they don't have to enforce the law if they don't want to. Mayor Anthony Williams is the lastest to make such an assertation:

There's a zone of discretion for the executive...especially when it comes to something broad and systematic. I think it'd be wrong for me to say 'I'm walking down the street and I'm going to give you a parking ticket that I won't give you.' But as a matter of broad policy it's a different question.

So, the Mayor says he has a type of discretionary authority. Well, I would disagree. At the state level, legislative bodies do give governors the right to "fill in the details of legislation." The state executive uses his or her ordinance making power which is a type a of dicretionary authority but that is clearly limited to areas where the legislative body has given the executive such power.

In addition, in the wake of a natural disaster such as a flood or tornado, a mayor may declare an official state of emergency that empowers him or her to issue binding rules of behavior for a limited period of time. A curfew ordering persons to be off the street is an example of this. Although such orders are discretionary and the law of the land, they are limited, unusual, and termporary.

From what I can tell, neither the U.S. Congress or the D.C. City Council has given Mayor Williams any discretionary power when it comes to parking enforcement. His role is clear cut and defined not only by the law, but what the common law limits executive authorities to.

Director of National Intelligence: Another layer of bureaucracy?

I'm not too shocked to see that the House Intelligence Committee has finally come out and warned what I, and many other congressional experts said, when Congress created the director position.

In an April 6 report, the Intelligence Committee warned that Mr. Negroponte's office could end up not as a streamlined coordinator but as "another layer of large, unintended and unnecessary bureaucracy."

Adding bureaucracy might seem like a good idea (as it did with the Deparment of Homeland Security). Yet, when you actually get down to the practical operation of such a huge system, the lines of communication get cut off with so many layers and levels. America experienced this with FEMA after Katrina. It will again when the next terrorist attack occurs. Bureaucracy is a curse, not a blessing.

This quote by James Borden pretty much sums up what the DNI and DHS bring to the table: "Guidelines for Bureaucrats: 1. When in charge, ponder. 2. When in trouble, delegate. 3. When in doubt, mumble." Not too reassering.

First Black Senate Page

In 1965, New York Senator Jacob Javits sponsored Lawrence Wallace Bradford Jr. to be the United States Senate first black page. Mr. Bradford was a 16-year old honor student a New Lincoln School in New York City.

My x-mas gift has arrived

An 103 inch Plasma TV. I am in love.

Philips coming out with a DV Recorder that forces you to watch commericials

Awesome idea! Here is what one blog had to say about it:

Royal Philips is being a royal pain in the arse with a new technology to make TV watchers unable to skip commercials. Their recent patent filing indicates that broadcast flags would be inserted into commercials in order to allow supported TVs to disable channel changing during breaks. In addition, the flags would also be recognized by digital video recorders so viewers can’t fast forward even if they’ve seen the ads already. Great job on tapping into the consumer zeitgeist, Philips. Oh yeah, and we also hear you’re going to follow this patent up with one on telemarketing calls between 6 and 8PM. Good luck with that.

What to do with Iran: The Russia, China, and Europe Problem

Russia, China, Europe, et al., want the US hobbled, and so are willing to go along with Iran, as they view the US and Israel as the main target. Russia and China, at least, will exhibit their well known restraint and respect for human rights as soon as Iran turns to bite them.

As to America's problems in the world, it is a demonstration of the truthfulness of Machiavelli's maxim. America in general, and the left specifically, want to be loved. When you are successful and powerful, it is hard to be loved, especially when you are supporting so many others and doing necessary work that they can not, highlighting their inferirority. No one responds well to having their faults demonstrated, and so the US is hated and will always be hated as long as it continues to succeed.

America's position in the world and foreign policy aims would be dramatically better served by a policy that aims to be feared rather than loved. Making it so that there are very, very serious and immediate consequences to baiting the US or opposing it would dramatically reduce the popularity of cheap anti-americanism. Rather than having it win you a German election, it should see serious questions about continued diplomatic relations, reduced or eliminated military co-operation, and a thorough review of all non-commercial interactions.

Important and necessary allies do not and would not stoop to these kinds of cheap tactics. It is almost guaranteed that only enemies, antipathetical neutrals, and vestigial allies for which there is no longer any reason or purpose for alliance would engage in such contact. The best examples of this are in Europe, where the reasons for tight alliances have been removed (Russians on the doorstep/ muscular Germans), and the states slack under the shadow of a remote and benevloent giant.

Rather than simple musings about closing German bases, the Bush administration should have publicly and immediately announced that it would be closing all German bases and repositioning forces. Alliances have a purpose, and should be ruthlessly pruned when their is no longer an immediate need, so that closeness does not make the heart grow colder.

Soviet Underground Submarine Base (Part 4)

Soviet Underground Submarine Base (Part 3)

Soviet Underground Submarine Base (Part 2)

Soviet Underground Submarine Base (Part 1)

Damn stupid bills!

And I thought all that was on the house!

Comedy Central did censure South Park

I am too lazy at the moment to provide a link, but it was reported that CC officials acknowledge censuring South Park out of fear of Muslim reaction. Isn't it great to be an American!

OSU librarian slapped with “sexual harassment” charge for recommending conservative books for freshmen

Officials at the Ohio State University are investigating an OSU Mansfield librarian for “sexual harassment” after he recommended four conservative books for a freshman reading program. ADF has demanded that OSU cease its frivolous investigation, yet the university is pressing forward, claiming that it takes the charges “seriously.”

“Universities are one of the most hostile places for Christians and conservatives in America,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French, who heads ADF’s Center for Academic Freedom. “It is shameful that OSU would investigate a Christian librarian for simply recommending books that are at odds with the prevailing politics of the university.”

Scott Savage, who serves as a reference librarian for the university, suggested four best-selling conservative books for freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU Mansfield’s First Year Reading Experience Committee. The four books he suggested were The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’or, and It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Savage made the recommendations after other committee members had suggested a series of books with a left-wing perspective, by authors such as Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver.

Savage was put under “investigation” by OSU’s Office of Human Resources after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel “unsafe.” The complaint came after the OSU Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges against Savage. The faculty later voted to allow the individual professors to file charges.

On March 28, ADF sent OSU officials a letter informing them of Savage’s constitutional rights. A copy of the letter can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/OSUMansfieldletter.pdf. The university so far has declined to stop the investigation, saying in its response that it takes “any allegation of sexual harassment seriously.”

“The OSU Mansfield faculty is attempting to label a librarian as a ‘sexual harasser’ because they disagree with his book suggestions,” said French. “It is astonishing that an entire faculty would vote to launch a sexual harassment investigation because a librarian offered book suggestions in a committee whose purpose was to solicit such suggestions.”

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

49ers Mascot: Is he Gay?

The San Francisco 49ers mascot, Sourdough Sam (that is right fucking Sourdough), has been with the team since the late 1990s. Besides being a left-wing nut (favorite actor is Robin Williams), his appearence leaves a lot to be desired. Let's face it, Sam is about two spritzers away from heading down to the your local gay bar and finding himself a young buck. Not only that, but his nicknames are Sammy, Samster, Sammiester, and Samarama. What the fuck? How can a mascot strike fear into the hearts of an opposing team with names like that. I know I for one would be fearful of the Samster.

I officially place all the blame on the horrible seasons the 49ers have had on this gay mascot. His gayness has rubbed off on the 49ers and he must go!

Overheard in DC

Museum of Natural History information desk:

Two women: "Where here can we find the baby Panda?"
Information Clerk: "You have to go to the zoo to see the pandas. This is the Museum of Natural History."
Two women: "Oh? The zoo?"

Democrat Opposition to a black page in the Senate

Back in 1965, after the civil rights bills of 64 and 65, New York Republican Senator Jacob K. Javits requested that a New York kid become the first black to be a Senate page. Democratic Southern Senators were outraged by this plan, but Republican minority leader Everett Dirksen quietly informed them that if they denied the black youth the job, Javits would make a floor speech about the situation. The kid was quietly approved and the Senate's age-old color line was finally broken.

South Park and Muhammed

On July 4, 2001, Comedy Central did air a South Park show which despicted Muhammed.

South Park Censored?

Short note on the lastest South Park show. Yes, Comedy Central did censored it. After watching the re-air I thought it a nice touch to censor Mohammed; yet, show Jesus pooping on Bush, the American Flag, and a bunch of other people. I can deal with the pooping Jesus, but if that is ok then it is all ok. What is the deal with the one religion bad the other ok stuff? I understand the issue with the cartoons, but if you are going to censor that, then censor the other as well. Sure depictions of Jesus and depictions of Mohammed are not the same because of the intrinsic belief. However, I'd say pooping Jesus is a bit contrary to Christianity.

Update: It's clearly censorship, but it's not government censorship. Comedy Central is within their rights to show or not show whatever they wish, and others have the right to criticize their judgement. No one's accusing Comedy Central of violating anyone's rights, just have having poor judgement.

In this case, and assuming that CC did in fact censor the episode, CC has allowed a depiction of Jesus literally being defecated on, but an image of Mohammed just standing there was unacceptable. The obvious conclusion is that their censorship was not motivated by some highminded desire to avoid offending people, but was instead coerced by a fear of violent consequences from offending Muslims.

Does the fact that violence is being rewarded strike you as a problem? It does to me.

Fuck Allah!

The hijackers ... jerked the plane violently to the left and right during the struggle. They tried to cut off the oxygen as passengers banged on the cockpit door. In the end, as the passengers were either in the cockpit or moments from entering it, the hijackers turned the plane upside down -- and crashed it.

"Allah is the greatest!" one screamed nine times as the plane went down. The recording then went dead.

No one, no matter how hard they try, will convince me to accept that most Muslims aren't anything more than thugs and monsters. They are all to blame because indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil. Each, in their own way, gave into a culture of terrorist menality.

There is a useful quote about indifference that I would like to use: "When they came for the socialists I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. When they came for the homosexuals I did not speak out because I was not a homosexual. When they came for the Jews I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. When they came for me there was no one left to speak for me." This sums up a society that allows horrible teachings and actions to go on without good people lifting a finger to prevent them. In truth, they are not good people because indifference to pain and suffering turns them into something else.

Terrorism must be outlawed by all cililized nations -- not explained or rationalized, but fought and eradicated. Nothing can, nothing will justify the murder of innocent people and helpless children.

I will end by noting that everyday I remember 9/11, I will always remember the victims, even as I struggle to invent a thousand and one reasons to hope that the world will someday be without terrorism.

Some Songs to celebrate Passover

Who let the Jews out?

Jib Jab Matzah Video

Matzo Man

Another Reason Why McCain will not be Presidnet and is an a-s

[Speaking to the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department, McCain took] questions, including a pointed one on his immigration plan.

McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.

Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain's job offer.

"I'll take it!" one man shouted.

McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."

How can this assertion of his possibly be right? Fifty dollars an hour is $100,000 per year. I suspect the lettuce-picking season is shorter than a year, but it's still $50,000 per six months, assuming a 40 hour/week pace. It's possible that no-one in that particular crowd would think this is a good deal; among other things, they already had jobs that likely pay pretty well, and perhaps most of them were older and not terribly fit (McCain saw the crowd and I didn't). But surely there must be some substantial number of current American citizens who would be quite willing to engage even in highly strenuous physical labor for an annualized wage of $100,000 per year, no? Even if 99% of all Americans would be unwilling or unable to do the job, the remaining 1% should be plenty to fill those hypothetical jobs.

Now perhaps Sen. McCain should have just chosen a lower number; maybe his claim would have been plausible at that number, though I'm not sure. But it seems odd that he would choose a number that is so clearly out of place for his argument — that he would seemingly deliberately engage in such pretty patent overstatement.

Update: The "jobs Americans won't do" meme is shocking in many ways. It's false, bad economics, and (I think) racist. What's even more surprising is the way the use of the term breaks through party lines. You have Bush, McCain, and Moran throwing it around, while you have others arguing fiercely against it and the ideas that underlie it. There's something different going on here than normal party politics. I hope it shakes the parties up and realigns them to some extent.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to hire these upstanding young men and women

Future Voters...Maybe, but lots of future criminals and people who will drive down wages.

Best Biking Trail in DC

The Capital Cresent Trail is a great place to go walk, jog, run, or bike. Peaceful place with nice views of the water and right in the middle of a wonderful wooded area.

F.Y.I.

I have been hearing and, yes, reading about the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) during discussions about boarder security and illegal immigrates. I want to point out that there is no INS! It was reorganized by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and is currently called the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE).

The best 1st Round Picks in 49er history

1. WR Jerry Rice, 1985: The 49ers traded up to get him after winning Super Bowl XIX the season before, and he became the greatest receiver in history while extending the 49ers dynasty until the end of the 1990s. Never have the Niners gotten more value for their placement in the first round of the draft, where they were able to pluck Rice with the No. 16 overall pick.

2. DT Leo Nomellini, 1950: The very first draft choice in the team’s NFL history, “The Lion” became a 10-time Pro Bowler who now resides in the Hall of Fame as one of the greatest 49ers ever.

3. DB Ronnie Lott, 1981: Perhaps the greatest safety ever to play the game, the nine-time Pro Bowler starred at three secondary positions for the 49ers on his way to the Hall of Fame.

4. HB Hugh McElhenny, 1952: The five-time Pro Bowler earned a place in the Hall of Fame after establishing himself as one of the greatest multiple threats of his era.

5. CB Jimmy Johnson, 1961: The five-time Pro Bowler was one of greatest cornerbacks of his era and also made it to the Hall of Fame. Is second to Lott among 49ers' career interception leaders, and was second on team in receiving in 1962 before locking in as a full-time corner.

6. QB John Brodie, 1957: 1970 NFL MVP led the 49ers to three consecutive NFC West championships and ranks second in team history with 31,548 passing yards.

7. QB Y.A. Tittle, 1951: Went to three Pro Bowls with the 49ers before completing a Hall of Fame career with the New York Giants.

8. RB Ken Willard, 1965: Four-time Pro Bowler led 49ers in rushing seven consecutive seasons and ranks third in team history with 5,930 yards and 45 touchdowns rushing.

9. DT Bryant Young, 1994: Four-time All-Pro still going strong with team after 12 seasons as one of greatest defensive tackles of his era.

10. DE Cedrick Hardman, 1970: Two-time Pro Bowler is team’s all-time leader with 112.5 quarterback sacks.

11. C Forrest Blue, 1968: Made it to Pro Bowl in four consecutive seasons, starting for the NFC in three of them.

12. DT Dana Stubblefield, 1993: Three-time Pro Bowler was NFL defensive player of the year in 1997 and had a second effective stint with team in the twilight of his career.

Gospel of Judas and its implication for Christianity

The Judas Gospel has been reported as if it should be shocking to believe for Christians. Yet Chrisitans, and Catholics in particular, should be well aware that the early history of the Church consisted in large part of refuting and expelling heretics of one stripe or another and, in turn, developing doctrine more fully and precisely in response to these attacks. Most of Christology was developed in response to the Arian heresy (a belief that Jesus was lesser than G-d). Much of the free will doctrine was developed in response to the Pelagians (original sin for non-Catholics).

I think this story may be a bigger problem for Protestants than Catholics. Catholics believe that the Bible has authority and is what the Church says it is because the Church posesses teaching authority and is endowed with inerrancy (belief that the Bible is without error) when speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. So when the Church says Tom has two natures in one person, or that there is a Trinity, or that the Gospel of Thomas is heretical while the Gospel of Mark is not, Catholics can (and must) believe it. Catholics need to believe in errancy because the fountain of their faith is Christ and they believe he left the Church as his voice on earth.

But what of Protestants and the Gospel of Judas. How can they believe the Counsel of Nicea and the other early counsels that defined doctrine (including the doctrine of which texts are inspired or not)? The Bible did not come down from heaven, ready-made, and in codified form. Numerous texts floated around the early Christian Church. They were only fully codified some 300 years later, where numerous gnostic texts in particular were expelled. It's true the Gnostics thought they were Christians, but the Church said they weren't after an ecumenical (general) council (meeting of bishops). I'll explain what I mean this way -- my girlfriend believes in the Bible because she believes in the Church, therefore she must believe that excommunication was meaningful as well (as a result the Judas revelation has no impact on her religion because the Gospel was expelled centuries ago).

The real question remains: what of Protestants who have no theological basis for believing as Catholics do? Who tells them what to do about the Judas Gospel (I am not saying Catholics are told, more to the point that they take a leap of faith that many do not)? In the end, it seems, they must decide for themselves.

Jews for Alla?

This has got to be a joke website. Pretty funny before and after pictures on it.

Pope Bendict and "reciprocity"

Pope Benidict XVI has recently taken a harder line stand against Muslims than his predecessor John Paul II. Benidict feels there is an "imbalance" in the way Muslim countries treat minority religions as opposed to the way Western countries treat Muslims. The new Pope wants equal treatment of Christians in Muslim countries where they can practice freely without the heavy hand of an abusive state. Here is the article laying out the "reciprocity" policy:

There is, however, one intriguing area of contrast: Islam. To put it bluntly, Benedict is more of a hawk, pursuing a kind of interaction with Muslims one might call "tough love."

The new climate has in part been driven by widely publicized incidents of anti-Christian backlash in the Islamic world, most dramatically the Feb. 5 slaying of Italian missionary Fr. Andrea Santoro in Trabzon, Turkey, a small hamlet on the country's Black Sea coast. A 16-year-old Turk entered St. Mary's Church in Trabzon and pumped two bullets into Santoro's lungs and heart, shouting Allah akbar, "Allah is great." He later said he had been agitated by the controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons.

Though the teenager's father told reporters his son is psychologically disturbed, most senior figures in the Vatican, where the Santoro murder made a deep impression, saw it as part of a rising tide of anti-Christian sentiment in fundamentalist Islamic circles. That impression was underscored by the recent death sentence for Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert from Islam in Afghanistan.

In his March 23 session with cardinals, much conversation turned on Islam, and there was general agreement with Benedict's policy of a more muscular challenge on what Catholics call "reciprocity." In essence, it means that if Muslim immigrants can claim the benefit of religious liberty in the West, then Christian minorities ought to get the same treatment in majority Muslim nations.

To take the most notorious example, if the Saudis can spend $65 million to build the largest mosque in Europe in Rome, in the shadows of the Vatican, then Christians ought to be able to build churches in Saudi Arabia. Or, if that's not possible, Christians should at least be able to import Bibles, and the Capuchin priests who serve the Arabian peninsula ought to be able to set foot off the oil industry compounds or embassy grounds in Saudi Arabia without fear of harassment by the mutawa, the religious police. The bishop in charge of the Catholic church in that part of the world recently described the situation in Saudi Arabia as "reminiscent of the catacombs."

It's the kind of imbalance that has long stuck in the craw of many senior figures in the Catholic Church, but these complaints were largely suppressed in the John Paul years as part of the pope's Islamic Ostpolitik. John Paul, who met with Muslims more than 60 times over the course of his papacy, and who during a 2001 trip to Damascus became the first pope to enter a mosque, believed in reaching out to Islamic moderates and avoiding confrontational talk.

Benedict XVI clearly wants good relations with Islam, and chose to meet with a group of Muslim leaders during his August trip to Cologne, Germany. Yet he will not purse that relationship at the expense of what he considers to be the truth.

No doubt, Benedict intends this tougher line as a stimulus to Islamic leaders to take seriously the challenge of expressing their faith in a multi-cultural, pluralistic world. Whether it's received that way, or whether it simply reinforces the conviction of many jihadists about an eternal struggle with the Christian West, remains to be seen.

I certainly agree that Christians ought to be allowed to worship freely in Islamic countries, but I can't buy Benedict's notion of "reciprocity." This idea seems to suggest that the religious freedom extended to Muslims in the west ought somehow to be contingent on the behavior of the governments of Muslim countries towards their religious minorities.

This is a dangerous and irrational idea. We are not negotiating trade deals here. We are talking about rights based on principles of individual liberty that we consider part of a just society. Religious freedom is not a concession in a negotiation, as Benedict would have it. It is something we value in our society for its own sake. To imply - as Benedict seems to - that if the Saudis, for example, do not grant religious freedom to Christians we should restrict the freedom of Muslims is to miss this criticial point.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, I think the Pope's notion of reciprocity is an attempt to secure religious freedom for Catholics in Muslim lands. The Church seeks to preserve freedom of religion as a politcal right so that it may go about its mission and that its members may practice the faith. I do not disagree with this end, but I just don't agree with the fundamental implications for such a policy. What do you do when Muslims tell the Pope to shove it? He cannot very well ask them to not practice their religion in Western countries.

Could one compare Islam to Communism?

I would say, "yes." The only thing Islam lacks is a Stalin, other than that it is an equal opportunity murderer. One edge it has over Communism is it's longevity, give them time, as if they haven't had plenty, and the comparisons will continue to blur. It's interesting that many Soviet citizens held Stalin blameless for their situation as many Muslims remain yoked and faithful to a religion that subjugates all to doctrine.

Braves Notes

Blaine Boyer was sent down to Richmond and Joey Devine was called up. Boyer clearly wasn't ready after his injury and Devine was great in Spring Training. There's a good chance Devine will be the closer at the end of the season.

Alan Dershowitz's response to the "Jewish Lobby" Paper

Much has been written about the Stephen Walk and John Mearsheimer "Lobby" paper. To summarize, it depicts old sterotypes of Jews often seen on hateful websites. Alan Dershowitz debunks the Walk and Mearsheimer paper and offers a challenge to them. I ask anyone who enjoys the entertainment value of my blog to please read the "Lobby" paper and Dershowitz's response.

Danish Moslem: Arise and Protest

This is a great article by Ibrahim Ramadan who writes about the negative impact of some Muslim leaders on the Muslim religion. Although great to see, this gentleman may be the only voice of moderation that will speak out against the hateful leaders who run his religion (into the ground I will add).

My religion is threatened in this country.

Not because I am a part of a Moslem minority in a Christian country. Not for lack of Mosques. And not by the Danish People’s Party and their stereotypical depiction of Moslems.

My religion is threatened by people who claim to belong to the same faith as I do. Threatened by organisations such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and by people such as Ahmed Akkari, Abu Laban and Raed Hlayhel who all claim to work to spread the word of God. In reality, they’re working towards another goal entirely - to control what other Moslems should believe, think and do.

Some Moslems in Denmark have accepted the Danish Imams’ words and take strong exception to Naser Khader. They think he has sold out the Arab cultural heritage and that he’s shed Moslem values to become accepted by the Danes.

But what few Moslems in Denmark understand is that Naser Khader more than any other works to ensure that we qua Moslems are seen as assets and aren’t looked down upon as a problem in Denmark.

Is it really so heretical when Naser Khader dares say that to achieve that, we Moslems must embrace Democracy and Freedom of Speech and that it must mean that we reconsider some things in our cultural and religious background.

Lately this had some inhuman consequences for Naser Khader and his family. Some fanatical fellow Moslems have tried to threaten him into silence because they would rather not have other Moslems critically analyze the context in which our religion is seen.

But it’s time that we - the great silent majority of Moderate Moslems in Denmark - let our voice be heard and take our watch as champions of Democracy. We can’t let Naser Khader carry that burden by himself.

Because what we are witnessing at this moment in Denmark, of all things resembles most an inquisition, one which doesn’t leave out much from the horrors the unorthodox thinkers of the Christian world had to go through during the Middle Ages. In the year 2006, Moslems who don’t approve of authoritarian Islam are condemned as heretics with no right to call themselves Moslems.

Many of those who like Naser Khader champion the idea of integration of Islam and Moslems are marked by co-religionists as bad Moslems. But how did we freethinking Moslems allow this to happen?

“Read!”, was the first word of God which was revealed to the prophet Muhammed in the 7th century. But what we as Moslems do in the 21st century is the direct opposite.

Instead we turn off our brains and let ourselves be dictated to by people who call themselves religious scholars and who claim that only their interpretation of Islam is the right one.

What they omit to say out loud is that they have another agenda: to transform our religion into a political movement. The French documentary about the Danish Imams proved to be a frightening example of that.

As Moslems in Denmark we have a unique opportunity which isn’t given to our Brothers and Sisters in most of the Islamic world. We have every opportunity to get an education. For free. We’re even being paid to educate ourselves.

There is therefore no excuse in Denmark for not using the opportunities we have to seek knowledge. Here we are allowed critical questions and here we have a constitutionally secured right to speak our mind.

If we don’t use that opportunity - well, we’ll be doing the opposite of what god dictated to us. And that makes our future prospects frightening.

Not only will that entail that we as Moslems close in around ourselves, isolate ourselves from the society in which we live and passively let ourselves be led in chains back to the Dark Ages. It will also entail that we increasingle will be hated because of the words and actions which are practiced in the name of Islam without protests from us.

Naser Khader has long been a single lighthouse, leading the way in the dark, while many of us who either came by ourselves or are descendants of those who came here looking for a better life for too long have acted as if Democracy and Freedom are a matter of course which places no demands on our persons.

But its time for us Moslems to choose sides. Do we want to live in this country with all that that entails of Freedoms, opportunities and Rights - or do we really want that the intolerance, the dictatorship and the limitation of the personal freedom which we have left must also be part of our lives in the country we’ve come to?

If the latter is the case, we must take the consequence and go home the the poor neighborhoods, the refugee camps or the persecution which most of us left but which many - of both the first and the second generation - apparently have a tendency to remember in a softer light.

But if the former is the case, if we as Moslems really want this country and its principles, we’ll have to wholeheartedly and unambigously say, in a way which will leave noone in doubt, that those who speak for intolerance and fundamentalism have only a small following among Moslems in Denmark.

I clearly remember my time at the University of Cairo in the 1980s. Then there was also a small group of Islamists who tried to terrorise all of us who had an ordinary, relaxed attitude to the religion. Islamists crashed parties, destroying everything because there was music and dancing. Young men and women who were seen holding hands were beaten, humiliated and portrayed as amoral. And those who who dared criticise the actions of the Islamist students were beaten brutally.

At the end of the 80s and the start of the 90s, the Islamists took to more drastic measures. Primitive nail-bombs in the metro, in cafés and outside schools in Cairo.

Innocent children, women and men were were killed and mutilated. They were almost all of them Moslems. But for the Islamists, the goal sanctified the means and the killing of innocents was the price to pay to overthrow the ‘infidel’ governments of the Middle East in favor of the ‘true’ Islamic state.

In the years following, the Islamists’ fight was escalated to a head-on confrontation with the intellectuals who dared speak out against them. The chairman of the Egyptian parliament was mowed down with a machine gun. He had worked dilligently to modernise the Egyptian divorce laws, which had till then been run by the Sharia principle.

The aging Egyptian nobel prize winner of literature, Nagib Mafouz, was stabbed in the street. He had dared speak against fundamentalism in his hard-hitting columns.

The writer Faraq Fouda was shot dead outside his office. In books and in a debate programme he had dared suggest seperating church and state in Egypt.

The argument the Islamists made in all three cases was that they were apostates or bad Moslems who deserved death for their heretical thoughts.

We, the majority, who opposed the Islamists strongly, chose to stay silent. We bowed our heads and went about our lives out of fear of suffering the same fate. But we were many who had clouded consciences because we didn’t speak up in time.

While the Islamists were spewing hate, violence, fear and chaos, their organisations ran and organised a number of charities, free clinics, feeding the poor, school projects in blighted neighbourhoods and more. Projects which helped where the government failed and created an enormous amount of goodwill among the poorest and least educated.

But Islamism always has two faces - a mild and caring one which claims to be the protector of the poor and the true guardian of Islam and another, which in ideological phrases open to interpretation preach hate and violence, murder for the infidels and the overthrow of existing society.

That is why it is uncanny to see that the same methods employed by the Islamists in the Middle East in the 1980s and which were used to spread terror in the United States, in Madrid and in London are also being used by Imams here in Denmark.

They’re speaking with forked tongues - on one hand, the impression is conveyed that all they want to do is help those who can’t help themselves. On the other, thunderous hate speeches and calls for defending the Prophet, Islam and the Moslems in terms that by the wrong kind of people can easily be seen as a call for Holy War and killings, securing the high status of Martyr.

But the most uncanny thing is that the same unwillingness to stand up and protest this abuse of the religion which I saw in the Egypt of my youth, is predominant among the majority of Moslems in Denmark today.

The Imams who went to the Middle East with the single purpose of arousing the wrath of the Islamic World under cover of defending the Prophet have too long been allowed to be seen as representing the Moslem majority and portray all who disagree with them as deviants.

Naser Khader and the people who’ve supported his union of Democratic Moslems are generally spoken of by these Imams and their supporters as bad Moslems, as rats, as apostates, even atheists who one should warn one’s children, friends and co-religionists against associating with.

To be an apostate is one of the worst things to be in Islam. Something which is comparable to a brand, which gives every true Moslem the right to murder the apostate. So accusing the protesting moderate Moslems of being apostates is a method which makes most keep their protests low profile.

Several members of Democratic Moslems have received death threats, have been spit upon by Moslem ‘brothers’ and have been threatened to be excluded from their Moslem communities if they don’t distance themselves from Naser Khader and the cause he champions. And in the long run, the most dangerous thing about the Muhammed crisis is the consequences it will have for how we as Moslems associate with each other and our fellow Danish citizens in the future.

It’s hard to explain to people who haven’t lived in the Middle East how liberating it is to live in a country such as Denmark. A country where you’re free to say whatever you like, read whatever you like, act however you like, believe whatever you like and join any organisation or party with no repercussions for your life, career or family. But some seem to want to deny us Moslems that right and therefore we must now stand together and denounce these Men of Darkness.

The vast majority of us, the almost 200,000 Moslems in Denmark, have a relaxed and moderate attitude to our religion. Most of us have been passively observing during the Muhammed crisis, many have - rightly so - felt offended by the cartoons’ defamation of the Prophet. But few have realised that it isn’t the caricatures but those who have wielded them as a lever who threaten our religion.

It time for us to choose our sides. Will we as Moslems silently keep accepting that a herd of power-hungry people have taken Islam and the World as fearsome hostages? Or do we want to take back our religion and our right to practice it and live in peace and harmony with the surrounding world?

Our Prophet is not diminished by a handful of caricatures. But we are diminished and crippled as human beings by the hate the fanatics have tried to instill into us as a consequence of the cartoons.

The tone of the immigration debate may be hard and degrading. But have we ourselves done enough to abolish the stereotypical image of Islam as a religion of hate and the image of Moslems as people who have no wish to integrate into and much less accept the West which is persecuting us?

To become accepted and integrated in this country first and foremost demands that we as Moslems must stop pretending we are victims. Though we may be the victims of prejudices, they are prejudices which some Moslems by their behaviour have helped create and they are prejudices which all the rest of us with our passivity and lack of protests have helped keep alive.

The image of Moslems we thus help solidify is far worse than anything the Danish People’s Party have ever said.

To do well in Denmark has as a precondition that the rules of the land are supported - to educate yourself and play an active role in the community and the debate and to not only take from, but also give something back to society.

And to do that, you can’t just watch from the sidelines when someone tries to reintroduce the abrogation of our personal freedom and our freedom of speech which I think all of us left behind with a sigh of relief in the countries we once considered home.

There’s only one solution for us Moslems — use the first words that were revealed by God to the Prophet: Read! Study, be critical and take exception to those who abuse Islam.

And get out of your couch, participate actively in the Democracy because it’s not something that is just given to you along with your Danish passport. Support Naser Khader as the man who is guarantor of us and our children living as an accepted and appreciated part of this country in the future. Help make sure that our children in the future with pride in their voices can say that they are Moslems.

As Moslems we have to loudly insist that religion for us is also a personal matter between ourselves and our God. It’s not the job of any earthly being to go around with a ruler, measuring who are bad and who are good Moslems.

That measurement only God can make on the day of judgement, where all of us will answer for our deeds.

Do one brave thing today ... then run like h-ll!!!

Cool Picture

Ok, tried to weigh myself today and look what the scale said!

Don't have much to say about TO except ...

America ... Fuck Yeah!!!

When Technology goes bad

Two seconds later the dog goes missing

Remember Ladies

Draft Value Chart for all you NFL buffs

Wild Girls Released Back into Civilization

In what wildlifestyle reformation volunteers are calling a "positive step," the first group of rehabilitated Girls Gone Wild were released back into the civilized world Monday, and early signs indicate that they are adjusting smoothly, according to the director of the group responsible for their rescue.

Ali G and Trump

This is a great clip of Ali G trying to pitch an ice cream glove to Donald Trump.

Wish I had one of these in College

Talladega Nights

For those of you who have been under a rock and don't know about the new Columbia Pictures film featuring Will Ferrell and Adam McKay here is a link for all things NASCAR and Ferrell. Release date for the picture is August 4.

Italian Election Coverage

Silvio Berlusconi, the moderate to conservative Italian Prime Minister, is currently on a reelection campaign. He has been a strong supporter of the war on terrorism (how can Italians forget the Red Bridage?) so this election is big for American interests. I believe Berlusconi will win but he appears a bit overconfident. After a debate, a reporter asked Berlusconi how the vote would go. He replied that the Left can't win and I respect the Italian electorate too much to think "che ci siano cosi tanti coglioni" -- that they would have the balls -- to vote against their own interests.

Basically the entire country has reached a crisis point. First, the demographic problem has reached a critical situation. Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe and the continuous influx of criminal and terrorist immigrants have frightened even the far left. Second, the generous pension system (that has been a God-given right for generations of Italians) is bloated and can no longer be adequately sustained. Third, Italy has had an overly protectionist economy (especially for its workers and failing companies) that has restrained Italy from achieving its economic potential. Hostility toward foreign investment (i.e. foreign company buy-outs of traditional Italian companies) is common and privatization (which Berlusconi has pressed for) sets off protests and polemic debate. Lastly, Italy’s chaotic legal system is in need of radical reform (the average duration of a civil suit in Italy is between 10-30 years). Navigating through the morass of legal bureaucracy is perilous, time-consuming, and madding at times.

Having said all that, Berlusconi and his coalition have shown more promise than those in the past by attempting pension reform, such as extending the retirement age, and inviting more outside investment into Italy without fear that they are somehow losing their Italian character, among other reforms. In my opinion, a win for Romano Prodi’s coalition would be a return to the same old socialist polices.

And you think you have it bad

So I had a girlfriend for all of 9 months. She dropped by one afternoon when I was sick with a pan of brownies and a video tape with the simpsons on it (my favorite show). so I start eating the brownies and turn on the tape. midway through it, it cuts to her sucking off some dude. his nuts in her mouth, she looks at the camera, and says "you're dumped. enjoy the brownies" - and spits the mouthful of cum into a bowl of brownie mix.

Cathlic Church and adoption in San Francisco

In one of the most startling attacks on the Catholic Church coming from a governmental body in the United States in half a century, the governing body of the city of San Francisco - the Board of Supervisors - voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a non-binding resolution blasting the Catholic Church for its opposition to homosexual adoption.

If you clean an elderly woman's yard out of a sense of charity and she starts making conditions on how you do it, it's perfectly reasonable to reply "If you tell me how to do it, I will simply stop." That's all the Catholic Church is doing here. They provide a service regarding facilitating adoptions. Now they are being told they have to go against their own religion and consider homosexual couples to be just as good parents as married hetersexual couples. So the Vatican is picking up its marbles and going home. Glad to see them grow a spine.

Vermont Town-Meetings Condemn Iraq War

Does anyone in Vermont understand the difference between local, state, and federal powers? What I find highly objectionable is not the quotidian mindlessness of the content -- who expects politicians to be insightful or even original? Still, why aren't Vermonters (well, most are ex-New York liberals so they can't really be called Vermonters) angry about the spectacle of public servants spending time and money on a futile gesture that has nothing whatsoever to do with running their damn cities. You would think that if they wanted to pay good money to watch clowns throw pies at each other, they would have bought a ticket to the circus.

Guess everyone wants Jessica Alba