News and commentary concentrating on foreign policy,
military affairs and religious matters.
And other things that come to mind. Click for Feedburner site or Smartphone Site
Bart Ehrman is one of the world's leading scholars on the history of ancient Judea during the time of Jesus, with a focus on the development of the early Christian community. He is by his own account not a Christian. Yet is his refutation of persons who contend that the Christian proclamation is fictional or analogical to other ancient myths is just devastating.
For example, the charge that Jesus is himself a fictional figure:
“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”
To attempt to be fair to TWS, they are only reporting what CBS's Mark Knoller tweeted, but TWS obviously thinks it is newsworthy, too (no wonder you can't leave a comment there):
In fact, there is no tradition of the commander in chief saluting uniformed armed forces personnel of any rank. As commander in chief, he doesn't have to, anyway (what part of "commander in chief" seems unclear?). Not even retired five-star general DD Eisenhower saluted military members when he was president, explaining on one occasion that saluting was a privilege of uniformed members only. President Truman did not salute for the same reason (and it's really quite impossible to imagine the patrician-minded FDR doing so).
John Kline, then Reagan’s military aide and now a Minnesota congressman, advised him that it went against military protocol for presidents to return salutes.
Kline said in a 2004 op-ed piece in The Hill that Reagan ultimately took up the issue with Gen. Robert Barrow, then commandant of the Marine Corps.
Barrow told Reagan that as commander in chief of the armed forces, he was entitled to offer a salute — or any sign of respect he wished — to anyone he wished, Kline wrote, adding he was glad for the change.
If I were president I would not salute for the same reason as Eisenhower explained.
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.
Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.
“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”
Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”
The summer solstice is only 28 days away, but in parts of Scotland yesterday, it was like winter had never left, as people awoke to a blanket of snow.
At a time of year when thoughts should be turning to sunscreen and barbeques, a blast of wintry weather swept in from the Arctic, bringing blizzards and icy temperatures to the North-east. Drifting snow closed two roads, and many more were only passable with care.
It's so easy to be correct when predicting what the Left will do or say. Earlier this week I left a comment at American Digest on the topic of the slaughter of the young British soldier on a London street, done by two Muslims who openly boasted to a passerby's running smartphone video that "you will never be safe" from future attacks. The post with video is here.
In my comment there, I wrote,
The attackers' motives are unclear. They are clearly disillusioned youth who are the victims of a racist British social structure. They have been marginalized from decent jobs. While none of us can condone or excuse this terrible killing, we must not fall into Islamophobic, simplistic explanations that merely serve to further oppress the people who are also at-risk immigrant community members.
... Just thought I'd save you the trouble of reading the Leftwing commentary that will be coming soon.
On his Twitter account, London Mayor Boris Johnson called the murder of a British soldier by two Muslims, “a sickening, deluded and unforgivable act of violence.”
Boris Johnson has said the blame for the brutal murder of a soldier in Woolwich lies with the ‘warped mind-set’ of his killers. ‘One obvious point, it is completely wrong to blame this killing on Islam.’
So Boris, why don't you drop by and ask the killers whether they think they acted in the name of Islam?
The United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) is one of the only relief organizations that guarantees that 100 percent of your donation goes directly and exclusively to relief, none to expenses or overhead.
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.
Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.
But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.
Of course not! Because climate scientists have faith!
And I love this part: "there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere."
It's not "unexplained." The scientists were wrong, pure and simple. It's like me predicting that the Braves will defeat the Twins today based on batting averages, RBIs and so forth, then if the Braves lose, I say their loss is "unexplained."
What climate "scientists" are saying is that the climate did not conform to their models. But the models are sound, it's the climate that is wrong. But since, "the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly," the climate will finally see the light and come around to doing what the scientists say it must.
On the news that Fox News reporter Jay Rosen and others were under FBI investigation for doing nothing except what reporters have been doing for a couple hundred years (asking questions):
Back in 1975, scientists blamed the previous year's huge tornado outbreak on global cooling.
The entire scanned article is at the link, but here is the key part:
Fortunately, in our more enlightened age, we know that the problem today is neither global cooling nor global warming, but the fact the the climate is not granite stable. Yes, "climate change" is what messes up our world.
I've always kind of suspected that underlying much of environmentalism is a desire for the impossible: stasis. For the earth will either get warmer or cooler, but it definitely won't stay the same.
A commenter on the FB page where I found the scans, above, said,
It's interesting that "Climate Change" has become for the left just what the "enlightened" use to accuse theists for having - a "God of the gaps" ... no matter the empirical data, it is caused by "climate change".
Which caused me to comment there a link to my 2008 post, "Environmentalist religion explained," in which I picked up and ran with renowned physicist Freeman Dyson's observation:
There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. [From, "The Question of Global Warming."] ...
My pickup theme was this:
The common themes of both scriptural Judaism and Christianity deal with deity, the natural world (existing first in a purity state), a corruption of the purity state (Augustine: "fall from grace,"), redemption and liberation/salvation. Then follows paradise. A prominent, though not universal, strain in both Judaism and Christianity is a looming apocalypse that in potential or in fact destroys enormous swaths of humanity.
Modern environmentalism has all these elements, with an emphasis on apocalypticism. I'll examine these religious elements in turn.
Interesting insights from a retiring Morgan-Stanley investment strategist. In any given year, 60 percent of managed funds underperform their market segment (I have read other sources that say it is 70 percent).
But in fact, raw numberS reveal that half perform higher, half lower - before management fees are deducted.
It's the fees that drag many funds' overall performance below their index.
The big technology-company news today is that Yahoo.com announced it will buy Tumblr.com for $1.1 billion. Apparently this is getting a lot of attention because: 1. Tumblr is a blog platform, which means that Yahoo is now (potentially) able to go head to head against Google, which own Blogspot (the platform for this blog), 2. "Tumblr gets a bunch of traffic from porn and copyright-violating content. And that doesn't jibe well with any sensible advertiser" (fromhttp://www.businessinsider.com/tumblr-porn-problem-2013-5).
I have a Tumblr blog that I used mainly to park links to read later, but I haven't used it in a long time.
Someone posted this well-known photo on FB, obviously to make a point (a good point, too), but I have always wondered two things:
1. How did they build the lighthouse to begin with?
2. Did the keeper get swept away as the enormous wave washed around?
Update: Thanks to Gerard Vanderleun for the history here (via email):
The lighthouse became well known in 1989, through a series of photographs taken by Jean Guichard during a storm and while the lighthouse keepers were stranded. The lighthouse keepers had been waiting for a rescue helicopter; upon hearing the sound of Guichard's own helicopter, one of them came out to investigate. As the enormous wave broke over the lighthouse, he was able to hastily retreat back inside (source).
Veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer just hammered White House senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer on Face the Nation this morning when Pfeiffer,
... gave stock answers to questions about the three crises facing the President leading Schieffer to first accuse his guest of taking "exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took" and finally scolding him by asking, "Why are you here today? Why isn't the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?" (transcript and commentary):
As one commenter at Newsbusters said, the IRS may now be calling Mr. Schieffer.
Talk about much ado about nothing, the Weekly Standard provides the latest example. During today's Rose Garden news conference with Turkey's prime minister, President Obama told US Marine Corps NCOs on the White House staff to hold umbrellas over his and the PM's head when rain fell.
Not even the President of the United States can request a Marine to carry an umbrella without the express consent of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, according to the Marine Corps Manual.
This is truly stupid, sorry. The president in the commander in chief of the armed forces. His orders ALWAYS supersede a mere regulation. Heck, the Commandant of the Marine Corps can order any Marine to carry an umbrella – a pink one if he wants, since the Commandant’s authority overwhelms a mere regulation. I mean, what part of "commander in chief" do they not understand?
The basic fact that must be considered here is that this was a state event and there are exacting protocols established by literally centuries of tradition. Prime Minister Erdogan was a peer visitor, head of state hosted by head of state.
So, those of you getting vapors over this, pick one of the following:
a. Obama just forgets about an umbrella and stands in the rain. Of course, the visiting head of state standing next to him also gets soaked. Yeah, that’s smart diplomacy!
b. Obama asks for an umbrella which he holds himself. A Marine hands one to the PM, too. More smart diplomacy! Help yourself, PM. I guarantee this would have ripped to shreds by domestic and Turkish media, and rightfully so.
c. Obama orders a Marine to hold an umbrella over the PM’s head but he does not use one himself. And that puts the PM on the spot – he will either have to refuse the umbrella or accept it and be shamed before his countrymen in Turkey’s media reporting.
d. Obama has a Marine hold an umbrella over the PM’s head but he holds his own umbrella. Not as bad a gaffe as (c) but still a gaffe.
ANY commentary on this event that fails to take into account that this event was alongside a visiting head of state is simply uninformed and unserious. In my first career I spent some time working with White House staff and I know there are protocols that are detailed. The PM was an equal-status visitor. When the rain began falling Obama could not treat the PM differently than himself.
(Although maybe the smartest move would have been for Obama to take an umbrella over the to PM's podium and personally hold it over both their heads.)
And Marines are not gods. Jeepers. But your hyperventilating sure does make them look fragile. OMG, a Marine is holding an umbrella! How can he stand it? I guess it’s now to onset of PTSD or something.
And there are conservatives who just can’t understand why democrats and independent voters just don’t buy their narrative about how serious a scandal Benghazi/AP phones/IRS Target/Joe Slestak is. The funny thing is, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
When every waking moment of Obama’s life is an outrage, nothing is an outrage.
Indeed.
Update: And just to inject a little humor into something that is almost beyond parody, perhaps there is a reason the Marines have to hold the umbrella, since Obama seems never to have mastered the skill:
But on this as so many other issues, Obama is merely continuing Bush's policies:
Another update: And that darn Ronald Reagan treated the military like crap:
Just how long has this been going on? Quite awhile!
This site has gone through a few iterations. Archived posts from March 2002 - Aug. 22, 2008 may be found at two URLs on the the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, 2002 and 2003-2008.
This site became active in October 2007 and most of the 2008 posts at the link above are duplicated here. We sometimes transfer earlier posts from the previous sites to this one, but we do not revalidate the links therein. Posts on this site dated before October 2007 are transferred posts.
Posts
