This post isn't going to contain any particularly insightful information that you couldn't get somewhere else. I just wanted to be another voice out there on the internets expressing my frustration and dismay that this kind of crazy, criminal, evil theft is possible.
Here's the list of those who were explicitly acting in an wrong manner or were too cowardly to do the right thing. Those from both parties who did the right thing are also listed. Props to the folks from Kansas (my home state).
yea-or-nay
Friday, October 3, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
To Serve and Protect - and Protect
A two part post based on a few things of interest to me that I saw on the local news recently.
Part 1: To Serve and Protect
This story about the Denver cops completely losing control and beating the tar out of some guy in front of Coors Field on opening day was more than a bit bothersome, particularly because of their attitude and what they had to say when onlookers instinctively tried to come to the aid of the man getting beaten. I like to think I'm pretty even keel when it comes to my thoughts and views about policemen. I appreciate the difficulty of the work they are required to do and respect the ones who are good at it but crap like this is just appalling and unacceptable. Seriously, imagine what kind of time any normal civilian would be looking at if he assaulted someone like these cops did. I'm going to make an effort to follow this story a bit. I'll be very disgusted if some kind of serious penalty is not dealt out to the cops involved. Anyone have any thoughts about what a fair punishment is for the cops involved in this incident?
Part 2: and Protect
On the same newscast that the 'cops beating the hell out of a guy' story ran, they were talking about how the Secret Service will be posting snipers on multiple (unnamed) buildings downtown and around the Pepsi Center and Invesco Field as a measure in the effort to protect Obama when he's in Denver. I found a story in the Post about this where it says they requested an additional $9.5 million in order to cover unexpected costs of protecting both presidential candidates. My question here is, why does the Secret Service protect people who are are not yet presidents (or ex-presidents)? What I'm really getting at is, why are tax payers responsible for the protection of someone they have not elected (yet)? Is there some constitutional amendment or law or court ruling that exists that gives the powers that be some warrant for simply throwing money (to the tune of $9.5 million) at situations like this? Or are the people holding the purse strings just arbitrarily assuming the power and authority to spend money in this manner?
Part 1: To Serve and Protect
This story about the Denver cops completely losing control and beating the tar out of some guy in front of Coors Field on opening day was more than a bit bothersome, particularly because of their attitude and what they had to say when onlookers instinctively tried to come to the aid of the man getting beaten. I like to think I'm pretty even keel when it comes to my thoughts and views about policemen. I appreciate the difficulty of the work they are required to do and respect the ones who are good at it but crap like this is just appalling and unacceptable. Seriously, imagine what kind of time any normal civilian would be looking at if he assaulted someone like these cops did. I'm going to make an effort to follow this story a bit. I'll be very disgusted if some kind of serious penalty is not dealt out to the cops involved. Anyone have any thoughts about what a fair punishment is for the cops involved in this incident?
Part 2: and Protect
On the same newscast that the 'cops beating the hell out of a guy' story ran, they were talking about how the Secret Service will be posting snipers on multiple (unnamed) buildings downtown and around the Pepsi Center and Invesco Field as a measure in the effort to protect Obama when he's in Denver. I found a story in the Post about this where it says they requested an additional $9.5 million in order to cover unexpected costs of protecting both presidential candidates. My question here is, why does the Secret Service protect people who are are not yet presidents (or ex-presidents)? What I'm really getting at is, why are tax payers responsible for the protection of someone they have not elected (yet)? Is there some constitutional amendment or law or court ruling that exists that gives the powers that be some warrant for simply throwing money (to the tune of $9.5 million) at situations like this? Or are the people holding the purse strings just arbitrarily assuming the power and authority to spend money in this manner?
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Go Ahead and Kill Him
"If you don't come with me, bad things are going to happen."
So, obviously - the best option here is to teach your child that no matter what, she needs to NOT go with the dude and instead scream, alerting mom and dad so they can do their thing. It is not her fault if he hurts someone in the family because of what she did, nor is it her responsibility to protect everyone - it is her parents.
That being said, I'd like to be sure I instill the will and ability in my daughter to go ahead and kill the guy, guilt free, if he puts that offer on the table.
People are evil.
Bengtsson drove her in her mother's car to the motel, where he took her into a room, locked the door behind them and barricaded it with chairs, police said. Then he gave her two options: She could kill him or have sex with him, police said. She refused and he raped her, documents said.
So, obviously - the best option here is to teach your child that no matter what, she needs to NOT go with the dude and instead scream, alerting mom and dad so they can do their thing. It is not her fault if he hurts someone in the family because of what she did, nor is it her responsibility to protect everyone - it is her parents.
That being said, I'd like to be sure I instill the will and ability in my daughter to go ahead and kill the guy, guilt free, if he puts that offer on the table.
People are evil.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Reasonable Faith
I just finished reading the book Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics written by William Lane Craig. It's not a particularly new work, the original copyright date was 1984 - it's been revised and updated a few times since then. Since my atheist friends put a few intellectual stones in my shoe regarding my faith some time ago, I've been navigating my way around the world of Christian Apologetics. I've read a good bit, and have a lot more reading to do. I stumbled upon Craig both by word of mouth from some other friends and had read about him and his organization (named Reasonable Faith as well) at numerous places online. The word is that this guy is supposed to be one of the heavy hitters in the world of Christian Apologetics and this book is his landmark work.
One thing I can say about him is that if you're the kind (like me) who can be a bit turned off by the 'pop debates' that have been out there between Christians and Atheists (I'm thinking in the vein of D'Souza vs. Hitchens here) and are looking for a bit more respectful interaction, deeper subject matter, and less mud slinging, I'd suggest reading or listening to debates Craig has had with numerous atheists. IMHO, he and his opponents are usually on a higher playing field the pop debaters I've seen. Unsurprisingly, this book was the same in this sense.
I've talked to people (both Christian and atheist) who are turned off by authors like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. I've read some stuff Strobel has written and haven't read anything by McDowell. I would guess that the people I've talked to are turned off by this type of author and style of writing because of its lowest common denominator approach. Put simply, books by these types of apologists are usually written for the layman. Because of this, many arguments being put forth are simply not as sophisticated as they are in other circles and shortcuts are often taken for the author to get where he's going. To be clear, I think these types of books and authors have their place and are not worthless. But, if you're craving is for something more in depth where arguments on both sides are developed more thoroughly and with more academic rigor, they are probably not for you.
So, Reasonable Faith... what kind of apologetic work is this? It's the other kind. The kind where the academic depth, rigor and thoroughness leads to the book not being the best kind for reading late at night when you're tired. This is usually when I read the most, late at night, after the kids are in bed, and because of the nature of this work, I found myself having to reread sections many times, just because the text requires such focus and attention.
The book was very good, although like I said it is the kind of thing that I wasn't able to just read casually right before bed when I was already very tired. After reading a book like this, I can honestly not understand the accusation I've heard leveled at Christians many a time that they are irrational for even thinking Christianity could possibly be true as if they have no good reason at all to think it was. It is fair to disagree with some of Craig's (and other Christian's) conclusions, but it is simply not fair to assert that Christians have no epistemic integrity at all when it comes to them thinking Christianity as true.
There were a few issues raised by skeptics on this blog (or in one case, on the blog of one of the commenters here) that are specifically addressed in Reasonable Faith. I'll list those that came to mind here.
-----
An assertion that an "infinite regression doesn't need an end" (or in other words, an actual infinity is possible).
The impossibility of this assertion is demonstrated in Chapter 3: The Existence of God.
-----
A question regarding claims Jesus made about himself.
Chapter 6 of this book, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament, renders this view unreasonable. Chapter 7, The Self Understanding of Jesus provides more support to show that the view is incorrect.
-----
This question is sufficiently addressed in the 8th chapter, The Resurrection of Jesus. I say 'sufficiently' because the specific question is not addressed. Specifically, the author argues for why to believe the resurrection of Christ actually occurred. This line of reasoning often finds itself engrossed the context of why Christ's contemporaries, the founders of the Christian Church believed it to be true. The short answer to the question is that Christ was resurrected from the dead. The chapter goes into the details of why we ought to think this actually happened.
-----
A chapter I personally found to be quite interesting was the 2nd chapter, The Absurdity of Life Without God. More than anything I would say I was drawn in by the title of it. I'd never considered the notion of applying the word 'absurd' as a description of life if God did not exist. This is available freely as a pdf here.
One thing I can say about him is that if you're the kind (like me) who can be a bit turned off by the 'pop debates' that have been out there between Christians and Atheists (I'm thinking in the vein of D'Souza vs. Hitchens here) and are looking for a bit more respectful interaction, deeper subject matter, and less mud slinging, I'd suggest reading or listening to debates Craig has had with numerous atheists. IMHO, he and his opponents are usually on a higher playing field the pop debaters I've seen. Unsurprisingly, this book was the same in this sense.
I've talked to people (both Christian and atheist) who are turned off by authors like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. I've read some stuff Strobel has written and haven't read anything by McDowell. I would guess that the people I've talked to are turned off by this type of author and style of writing because of its lowest common denominator approach. Put simply, books by these types of apologists are usually written for the layman. Because of this, many arguments being put forth are simply not as sophisticated as they are in other circles and shortcuts are often taken for the author to get where he's going. To be clear, I think these types of books and authors have their place and are not worthless. But, if you're craving is for something more in depth where arguments on both sides are developed more thoroughly and with more academic rigor, they are probably not for you.
So, Reasonable Faith... what kind of apologetic work is this? It's the other kind. The kind where the academic depth, rigor and thoroughness leads to the book not being the best kind for reading late at night when you're tired. This is usually when I read the most, late at night, after the kids are in bed, and because of the nature of this work, I found myself having to reread sections many times, just because the text requires such focus and attention.
The book was very good, although like I said it is the kind of thing that I wasn't able to just read casually right before bed when I was already very tired. After reading a book like this, I can honestly not understand the accusation I've heard leveled at Christians many a time that they are irrational for even thinking Christianity could possibly be true as if they have no good reason at all to think it was. It is fair to disagree with some of Craig's (and other Christian's) conclusions, but it is simply not fair to assert that Christians have no epistemic integrity at all when it comes to them thinking Christianity as true.
There were a few issues raised by skeptics on this blog (or in one case, on the blog of one of the commenters here) that are specifically addressed in Reasonable Faith. I'll list those that came to mind here.
-----
An assertion that an "infinite regression doesn't need an end" (or in other words, an actual infinity is possible).
You say god doesn't need a cause, well I reply infinite regression doesn't need an end(as in the universe was created by a big bang, and that was created by another big bang, etc-NO God neccesssary).
The impossibility of this assertion is demonstrated in Chapter 3: The Existence of God.
-----
A question regarding claims Jesus made about himself.
What if Jesus actually said I [like] ham [while sitting in] the Sun [and the eating] of cod and someone just accidentally thought He said, "I am the son of God."
Chapter 6 of this book, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament, renders this view unreasonable. Chapter 7, The Self Understanding of Jesus provides more support to show that the view is incorrect.
-----
This question is sufficiently addressed in the 8th chapter, The Resurrection of Jesus. I say 'sufficiently' because the specific question is not addressed. Specifically, the author argues for why to believe the resurrection of Christ actually occurred. This line of reasoning often finds itself engrossed the context of why Christ's contemporaries, the founders of the Christian Church believed it to be true. The short answer to the question is that Christ was resurrected from the dead. The chapter goes into the details of why we ought to think this actually happened.
-----
A chapter I personally found to be quite interesting was the 2nd chapter, The Absurdity of Life Without God. More than anything I would say I was drawn in by the title of it. I'd never considered the notion of applying the word 'absurd' as a description of life if God did not exist. This is available freely as a pdf here.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Christians playing chess
An atheist commenter on how the New Atheists are playing chess and Christians are playing checkers.
I'm sure there are more than these out there, but here are a few resources from some Christians who seem to be quite comfortable and good at taking the likes of Dawkins in his own lofty 'chess playing' venue.
I've blogged on it before, but I'll mention it again. Vox Day, in his book The Irrational Atheist, handily squashes the central argument Dawkins makes in The God Delusion.
Greg Koukl, of the organization Stand to Reason, does a fine job in exploiting the impotence of Dawkins' argument as well.
From the article...
You see here's how it works. A Christian will say that they will debate the issue using nothing more than reason and logic. With lots of confidence they'll step into the circle.
There is a back and forth but eventually they end up retreating to the land of no logic where certain things don't need to be explained and gullibility is a virtue. Often times they don't get there until they embarrass themselves. The analogy "it's like playing chess with someone who thinks you're playing checkers is a good one."
It makes you wonder why they just don't stay in the land of faith and leave it at that.
I'm sure there are more than these out there, but here are a few resources from some Christians who seem to be quite comfortable and good at taking the likes of Dawkins in his own lofty 'chess playing' venue.
I've blogged on it before, but I'll mention it again. Vox Day, in his book The Irrational Atheist, handily squashes the central argument Dawkins makes in The God Delusion.
Greg Koukl, of the organization Stand to Reason, does a fine job in exploiting the impotence of Dawkins' argument as well.
From the article...
Even if we grant (4) [Dawkins' premise - "The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. The appearance of design is an illusion."] – a highly controversial point, given the amount of contrary evidence – Dawkins only succeeds in showing that the design argument fails. It’s entirely possible that other arguments succeed. Since there is nothing in Richard Dawkins’s line of reasoning that contributes to his conclusion, the central argument of his book is irrational.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Chinese family FYI
You will be allowed to replace your child.
How gracious, they're granting new certificates.
What a turd bowl of a place to live.
Those families [with a child that was killed in the earthquakes] can obtain a certificate to have another child, the Chengdu Population and Family Planning Committee in the capital of hard-hit Sichuan province said.
How gracious, they're granting new certificates.
The announcement says that if a child born illegally was killed in the quake, the parents will no longer have to pay fines for that child — but the previously paid fines won't be refunded.
If the couple's legally born child is killed and the couple is left with an illegally born child under the age of 18, that child can be registered as the legal child — an important move that gives the child previously denied rights including free nine years of compulsory education.
What a turd bowl of a place to live.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Surrounded by Crazy People and Terrified
I haven't blogged in a long time and read a few different posts from blogs I subscribe to that struck a chord with me, so I'm getting off the blogging schneid by making one of those posts that don't have a whole lot of substance themselves and only refer to someone else's blog.
VD had a post recently named 'Intellectual maturation' that I found quite enjoyable to read. Let me first make the disclaimer to my atheist friends that read this blog that I'm actually not trying to explicitly push your buttons and piss you off. The short of it is, I liked what Rachel had to say, and I liked what VD had to say about what Rachel had to say (ooph, that makes this post a very shameless and insipid 3rd generation of pointing out what someone else said). If anyone bothers to read VD's and Rachel's posts, it'll be obvious and unsurprising why a Christian would like it... we all like being identified as not stupid and having people agree with us don't we? By the way, the title of this post is what it is because of what Rachel's post has to say.
A snippet from Rachel...
Another post I read recently, 'Atheism and Child Murder' on Dinesh D'Souza's blog made me aware of a prominent atheist I didn't know much at all about, Peter Singer. I'm going to presume that D'Souza wasn't flat out lying or constructing inaccurate and shocking misconstructions and strawmen of some of Singer's arguments and thoughts. I thought I'd post a few of them (Singer's words) here. After getting past the initial shock of what he's saying and trying to ponder it sans the emotion, it falls into the same category as assertions like "The only truth is there are no truths." In other words, it's simply bizarre and annoying that such arguments even need to be addressed... and yet they do.
On how mothers should be permitted to kill their offspring until the age of 28 days:
On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat:
On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans:
On why infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty:
VD had a post recently named 'Intellectual maturation' that I found quite enjoyable to read. Let me first make the disclaimer to my atheist friends that read this blog that I'm actually not trying to explicitly push your buttons and piss you off. The short of it is, I liked what Rachel had to say, and I liked what VD had to say about what Rachel had to say (ooph, that makes this post a very shameless and insipid 3rd generation of pointing out what someone else said). If anyone bothers to read VD's and Rachel's posts, it'll be obvious and unsurprising why a Christian would like it... we all like being identified as not stupid and having people agree with us don't we? By the way, the title of this post is what it is because of what Rachel's post has to say.
A snippet from Rachel...
The truth is that I am not exactly seeking salvation or God or anything like that, and frankly if I were, I would not talk about it with virtual strangers at this stage of the game. At this moment, my biggest aim is simply trying to relieve myself of the terrifying feeling I’ve had for years that I live in a society full of and run by people who believe a theology I don’t believe in, and that therefore I am surrounded by crazy people. It’s a bit of cognitive dissonance that I simply couldn’t take anymore.
Is my dad a crazy person? Are 90% of the people who read my blog crazy people? Are most of my friends crazy people? If I think Christianity is crazy, then the only answer to those questions is YES. But it just never added up.
Another post I read recently, 'Atheism and Child Murder' on Dinesh D'Souza's blog made me aware of a prominent atheist I didn't know much at all about, Peter Singer. I'm going to presume that D'Souza wasn't flat out lying or constructing inaccurate and shocking misconstructions and strawmen of some of Singer's arguments and thoughts. I thought I'd post a few of them (Singer's words) here. After getting past the initial shock of what he's saying and trying to ponder it sans the emotion, it falls into the same category as assertions like "The only truth is there are no truths." In other words, it's simply bizarre and annoying that such arguments even need to be addressed... and yet they do.
On how mothers should be permitted to kill their offspring until the age of 28 days:
"My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others."
On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat:
"Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at ten or even thirty-two weeks gestation."
On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans:
"The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."
On why infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty:
"Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
