Picking the Wrong Examples


I quite frequently read fairly absurd things on Lewrockwell.com. This is one of the more obvious examples.

Once in a great while, there is hope for the human race. At a sporting event, the security guards used excessive force on an overzealous fan who went onto the playing field. After a short while, many fans in the stadium not only recognized the outrageousness of the guards’ abuse, they decided to come to the rescue of the fan.

I replied thus:

While I believe the force was excessive, I fail to see what great hope there is.

Unless you possess more information that provided in the video. Was the stadium private property? Were the guards hired by the lawful property owner to defend their property and assure the safety of the players? Even if you want to cheer the fan's defending someone against excessive force (whether you are recognizing excessive private force or you believe this to be unjust government force) how can you justify the fans then trespassing past the point of the rescue and then themselves assaulting someone.

You see hope. I see a vast majority of people who just wanted to run wild. Only a few probably took true initiative on the initial situation. You see an overzealous fan. I see an unlawful trespasser on private property. The only part it would seem we agree on is that the nightstick use was unnecessary.

Too many on Lewrockwell.com pick marginal cases to demonstrate liberty and the principles of freedom. It demeans both.

UFC 115

UFC 115 is in the bag and I would have to give the show a solid thumbs up. More of the fighters were engaged in action with fewer periods of simply laying on the opponent (though there was some of that in the Rothwell vs Yvel fight.

Danzig got jobbed. Incredibly poor ref stoppage. Danzig did allow himself to get into that situation, but it still did not reflect a just ending to the fight.

MacDonald vs Condit provided an interesting dilemma. If the ref was to allow the fight to continue to the end then MacDonald likely takes it on the scorecards. Stopping the fight at that point (seconds left in the 3rd) awarded a TKO to Condit. Here we have a problem with scoring in MMA. With only 3 rounds and an unlikelihood of awarding a 10-8 round, squeeking out a round awards as many points as dominating a round. If the fight had been stopped in the 2nd at the same point I doubt nearly so many in the audience would have complained. How do you score these things? While a fight can turn on a dime, projecting the momentum of the fight as it was happening in the 3rd, does anyone think MacDonald would have survived a 4th round? Controversial stoppage, but I believe it was a good one. The right person won.

Rothwell vs Yvel has a great first round and some moments in the second. Both of these individuals need to step up their conditioning though. This was almost as bad as watching TUF heavyweight season. Rogan called it correctly, the 3rd round had bowling shoe tendencies. How Yvel has not upped his ground game at this point in his career is mind boggling. It continues to cost him fights that he might otherwise win. It cost him the fight against Barnett and it cost him this one. He seemingly can be taken down by simply blowing hard on him.

Kampmann vs Thiago demonstrated total domination by Kampmann. How he lost to Daley is beyond me.

Cro Cop vs Barry was interesting and entertaining. Cro Cop in his last few fights seemed to have his will broken fairly easily. If the guy didn't run away or collapse under a kick then Cro Cop would allow himself to be pushed back and mauled. In the first round of this fight he went down twice and yet battled back. By the 2nd he was primarily coming forward and in the 3rd he totally took over as Barry was spent. He showed much more versatility in his offense. I still do not think he is a contender, but he saved his job and will certainly get another fight. Barry really needs to work on his conditioning. It is getting embarrassing to hear about how hard someone's camp was and then they gas out at 7 minutes of fighting. Still, it was a fun fight to watch.

Liddell vs Franklin entertained. Two popular fighters who unlike the Evans vs Jackson main event engaged with great frequency. Liddell simply has no chin left. It isn't that he is being hit more now; he simply cannot take even a small shot to the chin anymore. Hard to say where Franklin winds up after this. His big wins against W. Silva and Liddell came after both were shells of their former selves. He lost to Machida, Belfort, Henderson and A. Silva. Given that Machida is at 205 and A. Silva is probably heading to 205 it is hard to say where Franklin fits in. Perhaps he will be used in more of an attraction role. Much like this Liddell fight, put him against a name to generate PPV buys.

Overall this card rates highly with me in terms of delivering. Refs had a tough night though.

Mailvox: give to Caesar

God Doesn't Fret the IRS

In which I have a theological disagreement with VD and the ilk.

Friday, June 04, 2010

Mailvox: give to Caesar

JB wonders when it applies:

Not sure if you've run into this, but I've noticed a pattern when debating a liberal (Christian or not) about taxes and big government. When they get to the point where they have lost the argument, they throw a grenade with the statement, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

Now, I'm not one to take the words of Christ lightly. It is true, Jesus did not go out of His way to incite rebellion against Rome, and seemed to endorse the concept of taxation with that statement. However, something doesn't sit right with the liberal's logic when they resort to that statement.

I wonder if you or the Ilk have a solid response to the Render Unto Caesar argument.

I usually run into this with regards to taxes. My response is always the same as the response that preceded the advice. "Show me the coin used for paying the tax. Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" In other words, show me Caesar! So, while you can reasonably use this verse to justify writing a check to assorted dead men or the Federal Reserve, it is a poor argument in support of state or Federal taxation.

Now, it is important to note that it is not any wiser to refuse to pay the tax money demanded by the IRS than it is to refuse to pay the protection money demanded by the Mafia. But it does mean that the Biblical justification doesn't apply.

As for government, the liberal Christian's logic breaks down because what applies to a divine Emperor manifestly does not apply to a democracy, not even a constitutional republic in which the democracy is strictly limited. Whereas the imperial subject owes the Emperor nothing but obedience, the citizen of the republic has a duty to ensure that his duly elected government acts legitimately according to the bounds of the republic's constitution.

What gave Caesar legitimacy? The military supremacy of Rome. Many of the people who fell under Rome's sphere of influence did so without the consent of the people. So what is the logic of saying that it matters one wit what the people of this nation think about taxation? The Republic has mostly been dismantled and the people who hold to the idea of the Constitution are as occupied as certain Jews believed their nation to be. Power changes the status quo. If Paul was not advising people to concern themselves with their state in the world e.g. slavery, why would we think there was a significant concern about taxation for the Christian.

Christians spend a great deal of energy fretting about the world which obviously has been given over to Satan. The kingdoms of the world belong to Satan regardless of the form of government. 5%, 10% or 100% of what the principalities and powers of this world designate is irrelevant to the soul of a Christian.

Christians are citizens of the Kingdom... the fact we devote so much emotional energy to being Citizens of nations/states/ideologies robs us of spiritual peace.

Now obviously we exist in the world and within the confines of our systems we have as much right to attempt to influence and act as anyone, but this life is passing and our focus should not be there. Citizenship has its uses. Paul used his Roman citizenship. American citizenship might be useful in ministry... but ultimately it is a tool not an end.

Phil. 3:20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;

Col. 3:1-3 If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Ephesians 2:11/Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Fighting Cans

One of the most frequent criticisms of Fedor Emelianenko is that since 2005 he has only fought 'cans'. Is this just criticism? How does he stack up against other heavyweight fighters?

The current top 10 are as follows:

HEAVYWEIGHT DIVISION (over 205 pounds)

#1 Heavyweight Fighter in the World: Fedor Emelianenko

2. Brock Lesnar

3. Shane Carwin

4. Cain Velasquez

5. Junior Dos Santos

6. Alistair Overeem

7. Frank Mir

8. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira

9. Fabricio Werdum

10. Brett Rogers

MMAWeekly World MMA Rankings last updated on June 2, 2010

On this list Fedor has defeated 2 of the top 10 and is scheduled to fight a 3rd.

Overeem, Lesnar and Mir both have wins over 1 person on this list. Lesnar is scheduled to fight another one on the list.

So, based on the current top 10 Fedor has fought and defeated the most at this point and time. If you want to discount his win over Nogueira (x2) then you have to argue that Nogueira is better now than he was back in Pride.

The 2 fights prior to Rodgers for Fedor were against Sylvia and Arvloski. Arvloski was ranked 3rd at the time of the fight and Sylvia 5. They have since dropped out due to defeats by Fedor and others. The fight against Couture was not made, but now that he is out of the top 10 wouldn't he also be considered a can? Fedor was also scheduled to fight Barnett who was ranked 2nd in the world at the time. The fight fell through due to steroids. So... the way Fedors last couple of fights shaped up.

vs # 5, vs #3, scheduled against #2, vs #8, vs #9 + prior victories over the current # 8.

Can't win... if you beat them they are cans. If you don't fight someone then you are a can...

You can look at some historical rankings.

Jan - 2008

1 Fedor Emelianenko
2 Randy Couture
3 Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira
4 Fabricio Werdum
5 Cheick Kongo
6 Tim Sylvia
7 Gabriel Gonzaga
8 Mirko Filipovic
9 Andrei Arlovski
10 Sergei Kharitonov

Fought most of those.

Dec - 08

1 Fedor Emelianenko
2 Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira
3 Brock Lesnar
4 Andrei Arlovski
5 - Randy Couture
6 - Josh Barnett
7 - Junior dos Santos
8 - Gabriel Gonzaga
9 - Tim Sylvia
10 Fabricio Werdum

Mostly the same group.

June - 09

1 Fedor Emelianenko
2 Frank Mir
3 Brock Lesnar
4 Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira
5 Josh Barnett
6 Randy Couture
7 Gegard Mousasi
8 Brett Rogers
9 Junior dos Santos
10 Cheick Kongo

Dec - 09

1 Fedor Emelianenko
2 Brock Lesnar
3 Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira
4 Frank Mir
5 Junior dos Santos
6 Josh Barnett
7 Brett Rogers
8 Cain Velasquez
9 Fabricio Werdum
10 Shane Carwin

So... who was he supposed to fight before just these past few months where you have the UFC heavyweights making an appearance? They made names beating people he had defeated.

Can the current crop of heavyweights generate a fight that defeats him? Sure. But he has fought 'competition' since 2005. He does not fight frequently and he has not fought unknown prospects... unless you consider Rodgers in that manner.

Slaughter at the Intellectual Abattoir

One need never look far for an example of heinous activities at a public school. Whether it is 'suspending' children for wearing American themed clothing during Cinco de Mayo, a black student only field trip followed by an emotional tirade by the school principal, teachers protesting for more pay and/or attempting to convert their students to the cause, bringing in convicted criminals to speak without parental notification, arranging for abortions without parental notification or consent, or snapping thousands of spy shots of students; the public school system provides ample demonstrations of its true nature.

What one does need to look far and wide to find is a sensible response from the parents of these children and the culture at large. Simply put, in spite of all the bellyaching on the comment boards and the silly protests outside the schools, you never hear of large groups of parents withdrawing their children from the system. Everyone keeps their children in the system. They do not kill the beat by withdrawing in mass... they do not even save their child by withdrawing just them. Complaint after complaint... year after year... and yet every term back these children go on the big yellow buses to the intellectual abattoir.

The argument always seems to be 'my child's school is different'. No, it is not. You simply have not had proof of its wretchedness thrown into your face in such an obvious manner. And frankly, even if it was, you would be no more likely to act than the parents in the examples above. You have forfeited your control over the molding of your child's values and mind. You have willingly turned over your child to what is readily documented to be a world trailing education system.

You are getting what you deserve... the theft of your child's soul.

Update: Nothing like the zero tolerance Jolly Rancher policy.

This is what Change Looks Like...

And so Obama or at least his party passed health care 'reform'. There really was no doubt. The expansion of the state is eternal until the nation is bankrupt. The lies used to pass this program are really no different than any lie used by the government to spend any of its money. It is always about delivering something for nothing and how once it is delivered all of the cares and concerns of the public will be taken care of.

Here is the reality check. Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources. Health resources are finite. Care will always be rationed. It will be either rationed by price or by time. Right now we ration more monetarily, though we certainly are primarily socialized medicine now. The future will ration more by time.

For your reading pleasure here are some short field trips...

• Ron Paul
• Walter Williams
• Ann Coulter

For those of you who wanted this next step in the progression of national bankruptcy congratulations... enjoy your line. For those of you who abhor this action... too bad. You lost the war at least as far back as the early 1900's and certainly before the beginning of my life.

I leave you with these words from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Very appropriate for the times.

"I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago," said Dr. Hendricks. "Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward.

I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything - except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only 'to serve.' That a man who's willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards - never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy.

I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind - yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn.

Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it - and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't"

Whatif Makes a Query about Freedom

Another member was questioning the "land of the free" quip used so often in our country. I gather he seems to believe we are not so free. It made me wonder what "free" looks like to others. I imagine there is the usual private ownership of property where the property owner should be free to do with his property as he sees fit. Translated that means no zoning laws ever. Why shouldn't a landowner be able to build an "adult movie store" next to a church? Or a school. Or in your neighborhood. That would be free. Or, why should a property owner not be able to use his property for a landfill regardless of where it is located. That would be free.

So what is free? What would satisfy people? What would it take? No taxes? Never gonna happen. Total property rights? Nada.

But, we do happen to live in a "free" country relative to many other countries albeit our freedom does seem to diminish a bit more by the year. Personally, I feel free enough to suit my lifestyle. I can pretty much do whatever I can afford to do. I can paint my house a shocking pink if I wanted to. I can drive a clunker car around town (not in Singapore--that bastion of capitalism). I can carry a gun most everywhere except to church and the courthouse.

How free is free?

'Free' will often come down to anecdotal exchanges. Between various countries there are certainly variations on what makes for 'freedom'.

I think that the issue with freedom here in this country is that there is no philisophical point where the state does not view itself as having an interest in your choice and an enforceable interest at that. Who you hire (freedom of association); who you fire (the same); how much energy you can use in your TV (California); how you wire your house; what shots your dogs have to get; any and all considerations with your children... really the list is endless because the perogatives of the state are endless.

No doubt that either by culture or statute many things were not as free (and certainly not for all segments of our society) in past times as people might think. However, the state has grown increasingly capable of getting you. We now have database upon database, list upon list, agency upon agency, rule upon rule, law upon law. We are all criminals now. Further the visciousness of law enforcement seems to be on the rise. I have no doubt law enforcement has always had a bully mentality. But it seems now that its most ferocious outlets once reserved for the black population have now spread into the rest of the country and into the schools.

I think Fred Reed points out some of the freedoms of Mexico that come about simply because people either don't care what you do or that the state is too inept to enforce its rules. I have heard the same from a commentator who resides in Italy. The Italians have plenty of laws, but having been blessed for ages by inept govt the people choose to ignore items like taxes. American's only recently seem to be moving more to a total disrespect for the state. Our compliance is high and so our real freedoms less.

So, philosophy and anecdotes. However, if you like to live as a king while being poor... enjoy high definition TV, internet access and easy sex and pornography... has there ever been a better time to live?

How to think

I was asked by the patriarch of my clan 'how I learned to think'. This whole piece is directed at answering that question and is based on the assumption that I am a thinker. I imagine most people assume that they reach their conclusions rationally instead of rationalizing their emotional reactions or simply just having an emotional reaction which then becomes fact. In the event that I could be considered a philosopher after a sort then I would say it happened in the manner I will describe.

Genetic tendency

We are born into a temperament/IQ band. Actually I believe the band includes several traits, but for the purposes of this discussion temperament/IQ is the key criteria. I believe, with no real statistical research to back it up, that probably 70% of who we are is set by this genetic mold. Parenting and input can shift around in the other 30%. This in my view explains why someone who comes from trash parents can succeed and why someone who had the advantages can fail. Some people have the tools without being 'given' them and for others it is a struggle to even convince them to find a tool.

Certain temperament types are more reflective and reserved. Certain temperaments are easier to train and teach.

Early programming

Here is the biggest impact of the family unit. Much of your life philosophy comes out of what you were around during the most formative years. If you are programmed in the Bible, conservative culture etc then it becomes a big part of your own life philosophy. Children tend to stay fairly close to the philosophies of their parents. There is that verse in Proverbs about raising the child up correctly and they will not depart from it when they are old. So, within the core of their temperament/IQ you have now added an internal philosophy which shapes how future information will be processed.

Increasing knowledge and Advanced Programming

Knowledge is not wisdom. It is simply an encyclopedia of facts. It is critical to take in knowledge though. Initially you will take in knowledge that is in agreement with your world view. You likely are in environments that are agreeable to this world view. This could be considered advanced programming. You become a more proficient reader and a stronger writer. The written word is the key to thought. No other format can convey or record at the depth necessary for philosophy. Writing is an expression of the orderly mind. The general quality of your written work reflects the capacity and capabilities of your mind.


Discernment

This is probably the step where the big break happens between those who 'think' and those who 'rationalize' begins. At some point you move out of your shaped environment and butt up against the environments and philosophies of others who do not believe as you do. You take in less controlled information/knowledge. You can be a very articulate and knowledgeable 18 year old (which I was to an extent) but lack maturity and wisdom. The latter need time and experience to develop. Wisdom is the appropriate application of knowledge. You learn to judge the quality of your knowledge and to weigh in the balance between competing claims. You likely still have your own core philosophy, but you are more informed of the competing philosophies and can describe their strengths and weaknesses. You see how your philosophy truly works when taken out of your mental lab and subjected to a chaotic world. You probably experience some degree of disillusionment with yourself in the process. You see that you were never nearly as together as you thought.

Emotional divestment

For any type of inner peace one cannot spend your life emotionally reliant on others having or expressing the 'correct' beliefs. This is not to say that the stakes are not important in some debates and that outcomes do not matter. But society is shaped by aggregate moves in thought even if the catalyst is one man. To become emotionally distraught and involved in every demonstration of another's ignorance or emotionalism is to make yourself the slave to others. You learn to be ok with not agreeing. You have the wisdom to know what you can and cannot impact. You state your case and leave it to their rational mind and the movement of the Spirit to change them. You fully accept that most will not change because they never reached the discernment phase. You can read something of an opposing party and see the complete and utter crap of their thoughts but it is more in wry amusement than in ire. You yearn more for engaging discussion with an adversary than for the cacophony of shared beliefs in an echo chamber. You are less impressed with the fact that someone agrees with you than in how they support and articulate those beliefs. You realize how boring and empty most people are and you cry.

Reading is the key to it all. It feeds everything. It lengthens the attention span. It increases the power of the readers mind. It promotes your own writing skills. And as you age and your ability to readily recall specific facts, the books act as a repository for all your beliefs and thoughts so that when needed you can go and find them again.

On how to think on any given problem... take in relevant knowledge. Focus on the resources that will give you the most bang for your buck in time (experience helps identify these). Pareto does rule here. Read the 20% of the resources that give you 80% of the knowledge. Learn who the stakeholders in a decision/problem are. Take in knowledge of the positions of those who are likely to oppose you. Apply the knowledge to the situation. Wisdom helps guide balancing between 'solving' the problem and solving the stakeholders. When you present the 'right' solution and it is not accepted don't become emotionally invested. You may not have had knowledge of all the limiting factors or constraints. Rarely do you rise up to the level in someone's eyes where it is truly personal. If you are later proven right then accept that in good graces. The facts made the point better than you ever could. You are judged not only for what you know but who you project yourself as.

Book Review #10

The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides

The popular saying 'May you live in interesting times' may not be nearly so wise a request as wishing to live in peaceful and stable times but is eminently more sensible than ever wishing someone to live in original times. If there is one thing amply demonstrated by Thucydides in his epic and timeless history of The Peloponnesian War it would be the truth stated in Ecclesiastes 1:9 'What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.'

Though the events covered occur roughly 2500 years ago it feels as current and apropos as if it had been written this year. I would freely admit that the study of Greek history has not been my most popular topic. In fact, without it having been chosen as the item to study and comment on by Vox Day it is unlikely that I would have ever picked up the text. Having read it I would place it on a top 10 list of books one must read to be considered educated. Thucydides is a master and leaves ample evidence why his work has survived for the millennia. His insightful commentary and balanced portrayal over events occurring in his own life puts to shame the commentary we are subject to in what is called 'The Information Age'. The scope of his work covers the gamut of human motivation and nature as well as political and military situations that are all to familiar.

The particular version of the text I link above, as you can find free versions online and other pay versions, was well worth the purchase price new. The notes included in the text are insightful and help tie things together as do the included maps. This version, unlike some others, does not really continue past the point where Thucydides himself leaves off. As the text comes to an abrupt halt this may be bothersome to some readers. This work receives my highest possible recommendation and I would like to think I demonstrated my own knowledge of the work in Vox Day's Final Exam.

Affliction: Banned

I purchased the Affliction: Banned MMA ppv. It had several fights that I was very interested in seeing and being a MMA fan who enjoyed Pride I hoped to see a resurrection of sort for non-UFC staged fights. What I got was a very mixed bag. While the top 4 fights on the card delivered the undercard was spotty and could have been cut to get the ppv down from a length of nearly 270 minutes to a more manageable 180. What was most disturbing was the production value. Considering Donald Trump poured some resources into this and the plethora of 'stars' and other interest this show received I really would have expected more. The average UFC show on Spike TV has much better, sound, video and announcing. The fighters walked out to awkward introductions and approaches to the ring and had to dodge a microphone set right at the top of the ramp. Why was there a microphone you ask? Great question... because it should not have been there. The microphone belonged to Megadeth. Who thought to themselves 'lets book a band no one has thought about in a decade to receive prime time exposure on our MMA event'?! They played 3 times and that only lengthened an already long show. If you are going to bring in outside entertainment (and I have never seen this work when tried in pro-wrestling or sports in general outside of the Super Bowl) at least bring someone in that people would be excited to see.

On the plus side, it is obvious that the strenght of the heavyweight MMA world lies in the Affliction camp. Fedor, Arlovski and Barnett each had impressive outings and make for some compelling matchups. With the possibility of Couture being thrown into the mix it is obvious that there is a good series of fights to be made.

I was particularly pleased to see Fedor come out and dominate in the manner he did. Of course watching Silva just destroy his competitor on the opposing UFC show will leave the pound for pound designation out there in limbo.

I hope Affliction succeeds. The competition is good for the sport and it is nice to see the ring as well as the octagon in play. They really need to up the production value though or it will simply appear to be a bush league side show to the mainstream UFC.

Layman's Theology

I fully admit to not being a theologian. However, it is a subject of interest to me. Over on the Vox Popli blog a gentleman who goes by the name Bearded Spock posed the following question...

I asked this before, but didn't get an answer. If the Bible contains errors as almost all biblical scholars admit, then how do you know which parts are divine revelation and which parts are not? How can it be the word of the perfect God if it is not perfect?

My reply is this:

I think this is a really good question. I would say that it can be the word of a perfect God in the same way as this can be the creation of a perfect God. Psalms 19:1 states that effectively this imperfect earth declares his glory. It seems logical that if His glory can be made manifest through a corrupted earth then His will could be known through an imperfect scripture.

2 Tim 4:16 indicates that all scripture is inspired from God and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It does not make a claim to inerrancy there. 2 Peter 1:21 discusses (though covering prophecy) how men spoke from God. The only thing specifically indicated as recorded from God's own hand was the 10 commandments (Exodus 32:16). It seems logical that in dealing through flawed men that degrees of error would be expected. In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter points out that distortions are occurring with Paul's epistles as they do with other scripture. I further point out that in Revelations 22:19 it is commented on regarding the penalty for adding or subtracting from the words of that book which indicates that while punishable, God would not himself intervene to prevent the action. And not everything in the Bible is directly the acts or express opinion of God. Some parts are simple recordings of what was done. In particular 1 Cor 7:6 where Paul speaks of marriage and in Matthew 19:8 Jesus talking of divorce.

The Bible is not the path to salvation. Jesus states that only he is the way. The Bible is certainly the best vehicle we have for this. This is akin in my mind to historical study; Thucydides is the best study of the Peloponnesian War but certainly has errors as being recorded by a man.

I think perhaps it would add something to have a scripture that contained no visible contradictions or issues. It would be evidence of a sort. I do not know why in this area as in others God did not choose to use it as such. My quick opinion on the subject.

As for how you know... I think the spirit in which you approach it and the desire to be led into greater knowledge is the important part. The parts of the scripture people seem to have the most trouble with involve portions that restrict behavior. If you are more interested in pursuing your own agenda, be it within a church, family or society then in maintaining fidelity with 1000s of years of tradition and Biblical commentary on the subject then you are likely on the wrong path. If your goal is to judge the scriptures through secular ideas than a spiritual heart I would say you risk the same error. Even those who walked with Jesus or who had direct relationships and contact with God never got it right. But if it ever becomes more about you then Him you are guaranteed to get it wrong.

The Insuring of the 47 Million

I like the Kiplinger Letter. It provides nice concise information. In the letter dated 20 June 2008 they provide a breakdown of the oft cited 47 Million uninsured. I often wonder how you arrive at that number. It seems a little large to go out and talk to each one. Was there a phone number to call? Some statistical study? That rarely seems to be talked about if at all. However, assume the 47M is correct and then we can try to break it down.

- 70% are in families with at least one full time worker
- 10% are in families with at least one part time worker
- The rest retired or unemployed

-8.4M are already eligible for government programs
-10.2M are non-citizens
-9.2M have household incomes > $75k
-7.5M are between ages 19-24

I realize that health insurance generates some strong opinions in people, but looking at the above, what group should I feel terribly bad about? If you are going to use a number like 47M then you are dealing with groups.

We have 8.4M who are already eligible for programs... yet they choose not to insure or cannot manage to figure out the application?

10.2M non-citizens... while granting that some of these people are certainly contributors to the economy, I doubt their would be much clamoring for them from the greater part of the citizenry.

9.2M who earn greater than $75k. Can this really be an issue of cannot afford?

7.5M between the ages of 19-24. This hardly represents the highest risk group. And having talked to this group I can assure you that health insurance does not top their lists of interests.

Without a doubt you have cases of people with preexisting conditions and other dilemmas that give them more unique problems with obtaining insurance. But this number is significantly less than 47M. And handing the reigns over even more fully to the entity that created so much of the problem to begin with seems foolish in an attempt to deal with the margins.

Us vs. Them

In which whatif makes a succinct case for why nothing ever changes and who 'they' are anyway.

"Them" government bureaucrats. The three branches of government in our Constitution control nothing. It is the federal and state bureaucrats who control most everything. They must protect and perpetuate government because that is what they do. Government pensions will ALWAYS be funded. The bureaucrat has no incentive at all to cut anything back or his own neck. This is why writing a congressman is a futile exercise by and large. The simplest and safest thing for a bureaucrat to do is to say NO to everyone, to every request for action. Once someone has been dragged into the judicial system, found guilty (whether he is or not) and put away, the government has no interest in determining if they indeed have the right man. The government has NO interest in its citizens, only in the survival of the government. The government will take away any liberties and create any new rules for its own well being. THEY ARE THEM.

Shut Up and Dance!

This is terribly silly... and yet there is a life affirming quality about it.

We Don't Need No Education

In which I involve myself in a Vox Popoli debate on the efficacy of schools and civilization...

Simply put many people do not reason well. Emotionalism and mindless support for an ideological position is no more attractive from the people I have a philosophical kinship with than from those whose philosophy I abhor.

Practical Libertarianism

I admit to having strong libertarian leanings. Simply meaning that I feel that the general philosophy of the country should be one of minimal government and individual liberty. However, I do like to descend from the mountains of ideology and attempt to apply the principles to the world in which I live. I find that is rarely something libertarians like to do. As a movement it seems to lack the ability to paint a picture of what life would be like, how certain issues would be handled or even any historical examples of its success. Ron Paul makes some headway in this area, but he is obviously more intelligent than many of the ilk.

I recently posted the following query at Vox Popli, the blog of WorldNetDaily columnist Vox Day.

This might be as appropriate a place as any to query the libertarian minded... Gary North posits that the Big 3 will soon be bankrupt and even further rushing to shed their retirement liabilities. Certainly North has been wrong in times past (Y2K), but he does put forth some good evidence... here is the question. What is the obligation of the Big 3 to the people with whom they had the contract with for those retirement benefits? How does that contract square with their obligation to their current contracted employees and the contracts (if they are viewed as such) with their stock holders? Should the companies be dismantled to provide payouts to prior workers in spite of the effect that would have on the economy? Should the prior contract workers be forced to eat the loss? It seems obvious a libertarian would not believe that the government should intervene. This is the type of bread and butter non theoretical issue that I imagine people would want addressed by those with a libertarian philosophy before turning over the keys to the kingdom.

I had hoped that someone would at least take a stab at the issue. I was not surprised when there were no takers. Certainly it may have simply been that no one was interested or that they felt it was a poor question. I tend to think it was more that people do not like to take on a challenging issue when they can employ hyperbole and ideology in big rant fests and flame wars.

I did attempt another angle in engaging an ongoing discussion that involved the trade philosophy of Pat Buchanan. I will confess to having free trade leanings, but that I find Mr. Buchanan's trade thoughts compelling and worthy of inspection. The free trade true believer of course showed up with the following tactics... a) claim that I do not know what free trade is b) link articles that are strictly repetitious theory c) avoid answering any questions about real world evidence. Intellectual giants are some of these ideologues.

I am interested in people making solid attempts to answer cultural and economic questions from the libertarian point of view with a little more depth then I commonly encounter. If there is no depth to the people... perhaps there is no depth to the movement.

Book Review #9

The Faiths of Our Fathers: What America's Founders Really Believed by Alf J. Mapp, Jr.

I found this book in the discount section at Barnes and Nobles. Paid roughly 7.00 for it. It is an engaging little book. I noted some errors in it... one of which was referencing an item in the appendix that is simply not there. However, for what I paid it provided a taste of the subject matter. I think it does reveal that the 'Founders' like many people today ranged in their beliefs. The Founders were certainly not uniformly evangelical as some church goers would have you believe and they most certainly were not all separated from faith and its role in society as some of the more secular among us would claim. They were humans with all that entails.

I think from this book I would branch out and engage in some of the other texts on the subject. I expect fully that it is a subject that will be highly effected by the personal beliefs of the author. If you only want a taste of the subject however, this would provide that in a very short form ( a mere 160ish pages). On that basis I would recommend it.

Book Review #8

The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul

Given the size of the Federal Register and the various state codes, you would think that the original Constitution and State governing documents were extensive tomes and written with the complexity of the King James Bible. As a capstone and summary of his Presidential bid and governing philosophy, Ron Paul provides a short, succinct an altogether impressive attempt to explain the politics of freedom and the nature of limited government to a new generation of Americans who has never known either as the Founder's would have envisioned.

It is always a boon when someone is able to capture the essence of a concept and movement in a compressed form. It is clear that Ron Paul is more effective with the written word than he is standing on stages delivering speeches or in our hideous and moderated 'debates'.

If one is looking for a quick yet thorough introduction to limited Constitutional government with basic libertarian principles then this book is a must read. If you somehow feel that the common political wisdom and dialog continues to yield only more of the same visibly failed policies then this book is a must read. If you only want to find out why this man was so fervently followed by those who did then you can find out with a minimal time commitment.

Book Review #7

Augustus by Anthony Everitt

If I could go back and meet just one historical person, outside of Jesus, I think I would choose Augustus. This individual sat at the fulcrum of history. If one is a Christian then it must have some relevance that Christ was born during his governance. If one man has ever truly wielded more power and wielded it rather wisely for such a length of time as did Augustus then I remain unaware of him. And that is the fascinating thing. Many have conquered and there have been more than a few empires, but nothing has captured the imagination as much as the one charted by Augustus. As August himself said when speaking of Alexander the Great being at a loss of what to do after his extensive military conquests, "I am surprised the king did not realize that a far harder task than winning an empire is putting it into order once you have won it". And order it he did.

Alfred North Whitehead once said "I know of only two occasions in history when the people in power did what needed to be done about as well as you can imagine its being possible. One was the framing of your American Constitution... The other was in Rome and it undoubtedly saved civilization for, roughly, four hundred years. It was the work of Augusts and the set around him".

Augustus' accomplishments lend themselves to study. Through his life you can see the path to power and more importantly the means to maintain it. Fascinating man, fascinating life... the measuring stick by which all who would rule must be judged.

Specifically to the book, Everitt has accomplished a very readable history. So readable in fact that I will make it a point to acquire other works by him. He fully admits that there are some portions of Augustus' life that are not well recorded. In these sections he attempts to present what he feels is the most likely scenario to have happened. The narrative starts off with a jump to the end of Augusts' life before returning and treating the subject in a more linear chronological manner. The scope of the volume, while complete, does not render it ponderous or overly lengthy. It is well footnoted and indexed. The text also presents a fair and balanced approach to Augustus detailing his failings and triumphs as a man as well as the character and motives of his main adversaries such as Marc Antony.

I wholly recommend without reservation this book.

Fatherhood

For many, symbolism and style trump substance, but not with me. Fatherhood is a calling… a calling from the spirit of God and the heart of a child to the soul of a man who cares to do right in this calling before the eyes of God and in the life of that child. As a father you will forever define a portion of your life to yourself and your very existence to this child by how you carry out your obligations. If our children are not worth our best, then what is?

I was always terribly proud of my father. I truly feel he accepted his calling. As I have grown up it has become all the more apparent how unusual the life that he and my mother were able to create for me. It was a life without instability and worry for my family and my place in it. I truly always felt he gave his best to the endeavor of raising me and have seen how greatly he exceeded the efforts of other men. Having seen the impact I have been able to have in the life of my child it is only more quantifiable the massive impact my father had on me.

With thanks always for giving me the tools to be the man I am. I think you should never doubt that you did well. Happy Father's Day.