Why do intellectuals hate America?

PJ Media » England: It was Fun While It Lasted:

The post details the end of Britain as we have known it - a long time foreseeable but apparently now come to pass. The post is worth the read; I have blogged about the same topic.

But this comment caught my eye:

You mentioned that the intelligentsia hates America. My favorite guru, Eric Hoffer, noted in the sixties that the intellectuals hated America because this country stands as proof that they are unnecessary for human progress. Furthermore this is one of the few countries in which they are denied power (at least until 2008).

Seems about right.

If the Left has its way with the Constitution. . .

... then

...the only large entity left able to speak will be the government. This is what statists like the sponsors of this proposal really want.

What proposal is that? The Supreme-Soviet-sounding "People's Rights Amendment," sponsored by Democrat US Rep. Jim McGovern and supported by US House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, that would amend our Constitution to define "person" or any part of "the people," as the Constitution uses the term, to mean only individual human beings. The PRA reads as follows in entirety:

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulations as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

The presumptive rationale for the amendment is a Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Comission) that invalidated the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known as BCRA or “McCain-Feingold”) that restricted corporate expenditures in elections. The amendment's sponsors say that the only way to reverse the Supreme Court's decision is to amend the Constitution. Since the Court held that corporations have Constitutional status as persons before the law (in fact, a longstanding legal principle, not a novel ruling), the amendment therefore dismisses such entities from personhood as Constitutionally defined.

Rep. McGovern explains it this way:

And Pelosi says,



What does all this mean? According to UCLA Law School Prof. Eugene Volokh, the PRA would "Strip Most Newspapers, Churches, Nonprofits, and Other Corporations of All Constitutional Rights."

So just as Congress could therefore ban the speech of nonmedia business corporations, it could ban publications by corporate-run newspapers and magazines — which I think includes nearly all such newspapers and magazines in the country (and for good reason, since organizing a major publications as a partnership or sole proprietorship would make it much harder for it to get investors and to operate). Nor does this proposal leave room for the possibility, in my view dubious, that the Free Press Clause would protect newspapers organized by corporations but not other corporations that want to use mass communications technology. Section 3 makes clear that the preservation of the “freedom of the press” applies only to “the people,” and section 2 expressly provides that corporations aren’t protected as “the people.”

Congress could also ban the speech and religious practice of most churches [boldface added], which are generally organized as corporation. It could ban the speech of nonprofit organizations that are organized as corporations. (Congressman McGovern confirms this: “My ‘People’s Rights Amendment’ is simple and straightforward. It would make clear that all corporate entities — for-profit and non-profit alike — are not people with constitutional rights. It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and non-profits, in the same way: as artificial creatures of the state that we the people govern, not the other way around.”) Congress could ban speech about elections and any other speech, whether about religion, politics, or anything else. It could also ban speech in viewpoint-based ways.

State legislatures and local governments could do the same. All of them could seize corporate property without providing compensation, and without providing due process. All corporate entities would be stripped of all constitutional rights. Quite a proposal; I blogged more generally about this issue here, but it seems to me that simply listing the consequences of Congressman McGovern’s proposal largely suffices to explain its flaws.

As clergy, I will speak (while I can, I suppose), about the effect the PRA would have on churches or other religious assemblies. Prof. Volokh is correct that it is commonplace for churches to be incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation. One big reason is because of tort liability.

As a tort lawyer explained at a meeting I attended, if a church is not incorporated and someone is injured on the property, that person can sue not the church, which is not a legal entity (being unincorporated), but the entire membership of the church, each member being named individually in the suit. Because of the established principle of joint and several liability, each member can be ordered by the court to pay a pro-rata share of the damages. Not only that, every individual church member is potentially liable for the entire amount of the damages. This has happened, said this trial lawyer, and the only way to prevent it it to make the church a legal entity, or "person," under the law.

So Prof. Volokh also points out that the only present arrangement that would escape the PRA's tentacles is a partnership. After noting that any corporation would be stripped of Constitutional rights, including, say, media conglomerates (are you paying attention, CNN?), he goes on to say,

Now this would have two effects.

First, any media organization that wants to be free would thus have to give up the benefits of the corporate form, and will have to organized as a partnership. This will make it much harder for those media organizations to raise operating capital, dealing with changes in ownership as partners die or leave, and the like.

Prof. Volohk's coblogger, Ilya Somin, Associate Professor at George Mason University School of Law, explains the tyrannical nature of the PRA thus:

Thus, the PRA would deny all constitutional rights to all entities organized as corporations. If the Amendment passes, government would be free to search corporate-owned premises at will, restrict freedom of religion at houses of worship owned by corporate entities (which includes most churches), condemn corporate-owned property for private uses and without paying compensation, and so on.

This is exactly where the Left truly wants to go and has been heading for many years. Now they do not even attempt to mask it. As Prof. Somin points out, the whole point of the PRA "is precisely to deny constitutional rights to organizations utilizing the corporate form." But as he also observes, what are corporations except an expression of the "natural persons" who own them?

A word to skeptics:


I would say to readers who are skeptical of the conclusions that Professors Volokh and Somin draw, or of the implications I identify, please just consider the record of the federal government over the past half-century (or more) and ask yourself exactly why you are skeptical:

Self restraint on the part of government officials or bureaucrats?  Based on what empirical or historical evidence do you think that future governments will be more restrained than those of the last several decades?

Good will on the part of government agencies? Again, based on what historical record and what reasons?

Try to think of a single time when government, having been granted (or having seized) the power to exercise more control or regulation of citizens' lives has failed to use that authority beyond what was ever envisioned -- regardless of which party has controlled the Congress or the White House at the time. We would do well to heed George Washington's warning, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."


In March 2010, I asked, "Shall federalism be killed and buried or shall it be restored?" We know the Left's answer more certainly now than ever. In my post, I proposed two sets of amendments for contrast. First, Set One - Amendments to Enhance the Power of the Federal Government at the Expense of the People and the States and then Set Two - The Preservation of the Rights and Powers of the People and of the States.

Update: See my follow up post, "The Peoples Rights Amendment: Follow the money."

Too high to climb in Afghanistan?

OTB founder James Joyner writes in The National Interest that there are, "Insurmountable Obstacles in Afghanistan." He starts by noting a speech made to the Atlantic Council last week by Major General John Toolan,"just returned from a year commanding NATO forces in southwestern Afghanistan."

At the same time, however, Toolan was quite blunt in his assessment of how fragile the situation is: "If we want to lose everything we've gained, then if we allow corruption to take root, it'll come crashing in."

Nor is this a distant threat. While he considers the well-publicized incidents of Afghan National Army soldiers killing NATO troops aberrations, he acknowledged that the police forces are far from competent or trustworthy. Currently, Toolan repeatedly noted, they are incapable of conducting even basic criminal investigations on their own. Further, the "police are still working through a history of corruption."

Afghanistan's system does not function despite corruption. Corruption is the system. Except by their own lights, they don't think its corruption. It's just how business gets done and how it always has been for centuries.

Big brotherism coming still faster

The federal government, with active support of both Democrats and Republicans, is making it law that various executive-branch departments be technologically enabled to know what and where we are doing practically in real time.

Introduced in the Federal Energy Act of 2005, the Smart Meter measures your energy consumption minute-by-minute, and eventually will be connected to a device known as the Home Area Network, or "The HAN" as developers in the Silicon Valley refer to it. The HAN will communicate with every electrical device in your home, including your Energy Star-approved appliances. In time, the whole shebang will be hooked up to the coming Smart Grid, and your carbon footprint will be known to the second. Eventually, a scenario like this will occur:

It's a hot afternoon in July. Your air conditioner is keeping the house cooled to 79 degrees; you're watching the ballgame on a 50-inch flat screen TV; and you're doing a load of laundry. A blip on a computer screen alerts an unseen bureaucrat that your home is consuming far too much energy, given demands. Automatically, your thermostat will shift to 84 degrees, the TV will be turned off until evening, and the washer/dryer won't work again until after dark.

But that's not all.

Known as the "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act," SB 1813 is self-described as "[a]n Act to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes" (emphasis mine).

The legislation would declare it mandatory for all new cars in the U.S. to be fitted with black box-like data recorders beginning in 2015. Known as "Mandatory Event Data Recorders," the devices would be capable of monitoring your speed, driving habits, location, and distance traveled. Removal of the device would be a civil offense.

And the government will have the power to download the data for any reason at all, whenever it wants.

Gitcher greedy paws off my grades!

If it's perfectly moral and commendable to take money coercively away from people who have earned it and give it to others, especially if the earners have made "enough" (in the takers' opinion, of course), why not redistribute high grades on college? After all, it's not fair that some students have higher grades than others. So as a matter of equity and fairness, should not some GPA points be taken from, say, the top 10 percent of each class and distributed to the other 90 percent?



Story here.

Thoughts on the Edububble | Power Line

Thoughts on the Edububble | Power Line:

Amen, amen and amen. I could add a lot more to this and probably will some day.

Gaia worshipers get no love back from Mother Planet

Celebrating Earth Day 2012 in Washington D.C. (photos) | Freetaste

At least tens of people turned out on Washington's National Mall to pay homage and give adoration to Mother Earth.

Yes, at least a few dozen people do love our planet, but the planet does not seem to love them back. It was the weather, doncha know.

I was at the national mall today for Earth Day, and man was the turnout ever disappointing. I expected 1000s of people to be there, but nope, not even close. This is especially saddening because of how important this issue really is, but oh well, I’m sure the bad (baaaaaaaaaaaaaad) weather deterred a lot of people. I went out unprepared, and by the time I was filling out a postcard to be sent to the White House, I could hardly spell my name legibly (it wasn’t), and the writing looked to be from a second grader.

Yes, they do love the earth, but only when it's clear, sunny and 78 degrees.

Housing market's lifelong decline

I wrote in 2008, "Will the housing market recover to its 2005 level? Well, not in my lifetime." I added in March 2009,

One thing I am convinced of. I am now 53, and I will not see for the remainder of my life the value of my house return to the level that identical houses in my neighborhood were selling for in 2006.

Liberalism as a Christian Heresy

Russ Douthat:

[T]he more purely secular liberalism has become, the more it has spent down its Christian inheritance—the more its ideals seem to hang from what Christopher Hitchens’ Calvinist sparring partner Douglas Wilson has called intellectual “skyhooks,” suspended halfway between our earth and the heaven on which many liberals have long since given up. Say what you will about the prosperity gospel and the cult of the God Within and the other theologies I criticize in Bad Religion, but at least they have a metaphysically coherent picture of the universe to justify their claims. Whereas much of today’s liberalism expects me to respect its moral fervor even as it denies the revelation that once justified that fervor in the first place. It insists that it is a purely secular and scientific enterprise even as it grounds its politics in metaphysical claims. (You will not find the principle of absolute human equality in evolutionary theory, or universal human rights anywhere in physics.) It complains that Christian teachings on homosexuality do violence to gay people’s equal dignity — but if the world is just matter in motion, whence comes this dignity? What justifies and sustains it? Why should I grant it such intense, almost supernatural respect?

In war, truth is the first casualty

A very combat-experienced US Army officer has submitted an 84-page report on the war in Afghanistan entitled, "Dereliction of Duty II: Senior Military Leaders’ Loss of Integrity Wounds Afghan War Effort," dated  27 January 2012.

Here is the opening paragraph:

Senior ranking US military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable. This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan. It has likely cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars Congress might not otherwise have appropriated had it known the truth, and our senior leaders’ behavior has almost certainly extended the duration of this war. The single greatest penalty our Nation has suffered, however, has been that we have lost the blood, limbs and lives of tens of thousands of American Service Members with little to no gain to our country as a consequence of this deception.

Read it and weep.

Mexicans going home

For first time since Depression, more Mexicans leave U.S. than enter - The Washington Post:

A four-decade tidal wave of Mexican immigration to the United States has receded, causing a historic shift in migration patterns as more Mexicans appear to be leaving the United States for Mexico than the other way around, according to a report from the Pew Hispanic Center. 

It looks to be the first reversal in the trend since the Depression, and experts say that a declining Mexican birthrate and other factors may make it permanent.

33 probing questions

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has an online American civics exam. The Institute reports,

The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams.

Give it a try - no cheating! No Googling answers or "phone a friend." All questions are multiple choice. Here is my score (yes, I did take the test honestly); click image for larger view:

I missed the last question.

WaPo's Rubin: Obama’s abject failure on entitlement reform

Jenifer Rubin, The Washington Post's very lonely and token conservative (though not very): Obama’s abject failure on entitlement reform - Right Turn - The Washington Post

Datum 1:

“In 2011, Medicare spent $549.1 billion on medical services for America’s seniors but only collected $260.8 billion in payroll taxes and monthly premiums. Trustees have now issued a funding warning for 7 straight years.” The bottom line: “ The cash shortfall is responsible for over one-fourth of the federal debt accumulated since 2001.”

Datum 2:

Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office put out its own report, telling the Obama administration to stop wasting $8.35 billion on a Medicare “experiment.” The administration’s “Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration” was a scheme to give bonuses to Medicare Advantage programs, largely offsetting the cuts to that program required by Obamacare. ... 

Simply put, one Ponzi scheme to hide another Ponzi scheme has been given thumbs down by the GAO.

And Ms. Rubin bemoans: "Taken together, the trustees’ and GAO reports remind us of one of Obama’s most significant domestic failing: his lack of will to address our entitlement programs that are central to a real reduction in our national debt."

I ask this: What in this president's deeds leads Ms. Rubin to think that he has the slightest desire to "address entitlement programs"? President Obama simply loves entitlement programs and the more people dependent upon them, the better. There is not a scintilla of evidence over the last three years that this president wants to reduce dependency upon government largess or that he is the slightest bit interested in reducing the federal debt or annual deficits.

One repetitive refrain from the Right is that Obama is simply inept at the presidency, that he just doesn't know what he's doing. This is an attractive hypothesis, but the question is begged: What if he knows exactly what he's doing? What if, instead of having no plan, the looming economic collapse of the United States is the plan? Surely that can't be, you protest. No president would ever deliberately lead the country into such severe circumstances. So a thought experiment: If Obama was not actually trying to steer this country into decline on the world stage and economic collapse (or nearly so) at home, what exactly would be he be doing differently if he intended to do so?

Something to think about...



Update: Victor Davis Hanson reviews Obama's foreign policies and concludes:

There is a pattern here in all these recent missteps, one of hesitancy, moral confusion, and naïveté. To the extent that Obama knows history, it is a boilerplate one of European and American culpability. To the extent that he is interested in human nature, he holds a therapeutic belief that rhetoric and good intentions, not preparedness, resolve, and deterrence, impress rivals. To the extent that he understands geopolitics, it is of the juvenile multicultural sort, in which hostile nuclear powers, traditional enemies, and troublesome neutrals are either not much worse than or morally equivalent to long-standing allies and friends.

The "boilerplate" template of "American culpability" in the world is that America is all that is wrong with the world. This ideology is eloquently explained by Lee Harris in his 2002 article, "The Intellectual Origins of America-Bashing." This template maintains as its central article of faith that the United States,

... is nothing less than “a menace to itself and to mankind” and that Noam Chomsky has repeatedly characterized as the world’s major terrorist state.

But above all it is the America that is responsible for the evils of the rest of the world. As Dario Fo, the winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature, put it in a notorious post-September 11 email subsequently quoted in the New York Times (September 22, 2001): “The great speculators [of American capitalism] wallow in an economy that every years kills tens of millions of people with poverty [in the Third World] — so what is 20,000 dead in New York? Regardless of who carried out the massacre [of 9-11], this violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger and inhumane exploitation.”

And so this president's guiding principle of foreign policy: the less influence America has abroad, the better off the rest of the world will be.

Comments on.

 

Insanity break

How to keep a healthy sense of insanity:

1. At lunch time, sit in your parked car with sunglasses on and point a hair dryer at passing cars. See if they slow down.
2. Page yourself over the intercom. Don't disguise your voice.
3. Every time someone asks you to do something, ask if they want fries with that.
4. Put your garbage can on your desk and label it "in"
5. Put decaf in the coffee maker for 3 weeks. Once everyone has gotten over their caffeine addictions, switch to espresso.
6. In the memo field of all your checks, write "for very personal favors".
7. Finish all your paragraphs with, "in accordance with the prophecy."
8. Dontuseanypunctuationmarksorpsacesbetweenwordsandseeifreaderscanfigureoutwhatyourewriting
9. As often as possible, skip rather than walk.
10. Ask people what the time is. Laugh hysterically after they answer.
11. Specify that your drive-through order is "to go".
12. Sing along at the opera.
13. Go to a poetry recital and ask why the poems don't rhyme.
14. Put mosquito netting around your work area. Play a tape of jungle sounds all day.
15. Five days in advance, tell your friends you can't attend their party because you're not in the mood.
16. Have your coworkers address you by your wrestling name, Rock Hard Kim.
17. When the money comes out the ATM, scream "I won! I won! Third time this week!!!!!"
18. When leaving the zoo, start running towards the parking lot, yelling "run for your lives, they're loose!!"
19. Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."

Agreeing with Hugh Hefner

I never thought I'd see the day when I would agree with High Hefner on matters sexual, but I do in this case.

Because, you know, America is so much better off now that illegitimate births have skyrocketed, 9th-grade girls are having babies and the marriage rate has plummeted.

Judas actor carries out role too well

Judas, a disciple of Jesus Christ, betrayed Jesus to the authorities, after which Jesus was executed. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Judas didn't foresee that happening. So he "went out and hanged himself"

History sadly has repeated:

SAO PAULO – A Brazilian actor playing Judas who accidentally hanged himself during a scene in "The Passion of Christ" has died.

A hospital in Brazil's Sao Paulo state confirms on its website the death of 27-year-old Tiago Klimeck. An autopsy is being performed Monday following his death the previous day.

The actor had been in a coma since the accident on Good Friday earlier this month in the city of Itarare.

Investigator Jose Victor Bacetti told the G1 news website Klimeck accidentally hanged himself during a scene in which his character Judas commits suicide. About four minutes passed before anyone noticed, believing he was playing his role.

Police are examining the security apparatus that was meant to support Klimeck during the scene.

It's unclear if any charges will be filed.

Any landing you can walk away from . . .

When flying a single-engine aircraft, this is not what you should see looking through the windscreen:

That propeller should be moving, doncha know. That this happened over very the rough terrain of wilderness Alaska makes it all the more alarming. When I learned to fly 30-plus years ago - over the generally flat land of Oklahoma - my instructor told me that I should constantly be scanning for three things: 1. Other aircraft. 2. A place to land if my engine quit. 3. The instruments. So, "look around, look down, look in, look out."

Here's the full clip of what happened to the plane above and its passengers, who included two 10-year-old daughters of the two men aboard.

"The So-Called Jesus Discovery"

Craig A. Evans: The So-Called Jesus Discovery:

Succinct assessment of the latest Jesus Tomb hoaxing from sensationalist digger Simcha Jacobovici. I watched the program discussed here and was very impressed with Jacobovici's technical skills and his talent for presenting a pre-biased argument in apparently  objective terms. He really is very good at what he does,

Unfortunately for him, people who have devoted their lives actually to studying the disciplines concerned, rather than television production, are altogether unpersuaded, and for excellent reasons.

Why I am a multimillionaire

There are three domain names tied for 18th. Here is one:

$1.5 million for  1,747 hits per month. At that rate, my site is worth almost $18 million. And that's why I am opposed to the Buffett Rule.

Why vodka should be more expensive

Then maybe Russia wouldn't have drivers like this:

Buh-bye, middle class

"Stupid terrorist Award" goes to . . .

This guy (click image for larger size):

Hmm . . . if the GSA had thought to hand out "Stupid Terrorists" awards, they could have held another gazillion-dollar banquet retreat in Las Vegas!

A truly "civil" war

7 Strangest Wars - Oddee.com (weird wars, shortest war...):

"After the Soviet Union collapsed, two-thirds of Moldova wanted closer ties with Romania and neighbors to the west. But the area of the country to the east of the Dniestr river wanted to stay close to Ukraine and Russia. War broke out, and the east split to form Transdniestria, which remains unrecognized by the world. 

When Moldova and Transdniestria started fighting, it was a weird war. The local military called it the Drunken War, as officers of the combatants met every night to have a drink together. They went away in the morning and opened fire on each other. At night, they got together again to drink for those they had met with the previous night and who they had killed. "

 

Why should a Jew read the New Testament?

My former New Testament professor, Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, herself a Jew, answers the question very well:

What Jews (and Christians too) Should Know About the New Testament | Biblical Archaeology Review |

Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon - All same-o, same-o

Half of All Americans Believe Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon Hold Same Truths:

An in-depth study released by the Barna Group on behalf of the American Bible Society found that 50 percent of Americans believe the Bible, Quran and the Book of Mormon hold different expressions of the same truths. The survey also found that Americans' reliance on the Bible has decreased slightly in 2012 from 2011, although the Christian holy book retains an important place in people's lives. 

The study, which was conducted in March and surveyed over 2,000 adults through phone and online interviews, found that 85 percent of American households own a Bible – although that number was down from 88 percent in 2011. Similarly, 48 percent agreed that the Bible has all the knowledge needed to live a meaningful life, while that number was 53 percent in 2011. 

Mormonism, which has been in the news lately because of Mitt Romney, the likely GOP presidential candidate and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, registered a slight gain in terms of recognition – six percent of people interviewed said the Book of Mormon is sacred or holy, which is up two percent from 2011. The Bible, on the other hand, dropped by four percent to 82 percent in the same question.

 

"We had to kill our lunch"

Cracked up at a comment on Richard Fernandez's post about the historical unawareness of young people, springing from the dismayed twits on twitter last week that the Titanic was a real ship that really sank and killed 1,500 people. Wow, it wasn't just a movie! And so this comment, following a number of people bemoaning the sad state of young people today.

I will admit that we grumpy old men have been making the same complaint since young people who grew up with the wheel showed no interest in how we managed without it. I remember the winters were worse back then and we had to trek over the glaciers to the school cave, packing 200 lbs of stone slabs to chisel our notes on. It was uphill both ways and we had to kill our school lunch during the trip.

Heh! I remember when I my boys first understood what I meant by saying that when I was in college I wrote my term papers on a typewriter. Anyway, the comment immediately made me think of this classic:

Obama and the Maldives, uh, Malvinas, er, Falklands

By now the story is well known among readers of alternative media (buried, of course, by the legacy reporters), that:

President Obama erred during a speech at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, when attempting to call the disputed archipelago [the Falkland Islands - DS] by its Spanish name.

Instead of saying Malvinas, however, Mr Obama referred to the islands as the Maldives, a group of 26 atolls off that lie off the South coast of India.

The Falkland Islands are under British dominion, lying almost 300 statute miles east of Argentina, and were the site of a brief but very violent conflict between Britain and Argentina in 1982, when Argentina invaded them. Britain sent a military expedition that ejected the "Argies" from the islands.

Argentina, however, has never renounced its claim and the status of the islands is a continual concern to its government, insisting that the Malvinas are an integral part of its country and that British settlements and military forces there are colonial in nature. Britain has maintained since the war that if the Britons living on the island (almost no one else does) ever vote to unite with Argentina then it shall happen. Argentina says that any referendum in invalid on its face because its claims are matter of existing status and fact, not opinion, and therefore not subject to a ballot. And round and round it goes.

But back to our president's gaffe. As John Hinderaker points out,

So with one word, Obama both offended the British and made himself a laughingstock with the Latin Americans. Here in the U.S., we are used to such embarrassing errors by our president, but the international press hasn’t quite caught up.

He goes on to scoff at the Telegraph's sub-headline: "Barack Obama made an uncharacteristic error, more akin to those of his predecessor George W Bush, by referring to the Falkland Islands as the Maldives."

Except, of course, that such gaffes are extremely common by this president, dating at least all the way back to his candidacy days when he said that he had traveled to all 57 states. Telegraph commenter doctorisabella enlightens the blighted British paper and its readers:

"When I meet with world leaders, what's striking -- whether it's in Europe or here in Asia..." -mistakenly referring to Hawaii as Asia while holding a press conference outside Honolulu, Nov. 16, 2011

"We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." —Cincinnati, OH, Sept. 22, 2011

"One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard." –mispronouncing "Corpsman" (the "ps" is silent) during a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., Feb. 5, 2010 (The Corpsman's name is also Christopher, not Christian)

"The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." --Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010

"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." --in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses and health care providers, Washington, D.C., July 20, 2009

"It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing." --confusing German for "Austrian," a language which does not exist, Strasbourg, France, April 6, 2009

"No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something." --making an off-hand joke during an appearance on "The Tonight Show", March 19, 2009 (Obama later called the head of the Special Olympics to apologize)


"What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith..." --in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who jumped in to correct Obama by saying "your Christian faith," which Obama quickly clarified

"I'm here with the Girardo family here in St. Louis." --speaking via satellite to the Democratic National Convention, while in Kansas City, Missouri, Aug. 25, 2008

"Let me introduce to you the next President -- the next Vice President of the United States of America, Joe Biden." --slipping up while introducing Joe Biden at their first joint campaign rally, Springfield, Illinois, Aug. 23, 2008

"Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee -- which is my committee -- a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon." --referring to a committee he is not on, Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008

"Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change." --Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008

"How's it going, Sunshine?" --campaigning in Sunrise, Florida

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" --after being asked a foreign policy question by a reporter while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." --explaining his troubles winning over some working-class voters

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions." --exasperated by reporters after a news conference

In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people

But then, give the guy a break because, after all,

This trip wasn't about diplomacy, or taking a stand for democracy or encouraging American values. The president mouthed cautious, standard U.S. stances on Cuba, drugs and free trade, but did so with little conviction.

Instead, he was really focused on winning votes back home as campaign season kicks in. Acts that can only be justified in a campaign rather than diplomatic context formed a pretty long list at this summit.

So does this president really care that he riled the Brits and made the Latins laugh at him? Nah.

EOD-assisted surgery

Guidelines issued on live explosives in battlefield surgery – USATODAY.com

One of the unique challenges of military surgery is that unexploded ordnance may be inside the bodies of wounded troops. Chilling! Fortunately, these cases are very rare.

Hat tip: Blackfive.


 

Do we really have free will?

Do human beings really have free will - the ability to make genuinely unforced choices? We believe we do. Our entire legal system, in fact, is predicated on willful obedience (or not) to the law or to freely entering into binding contracts. A neuroscientist says that the question, "Do human beings have free will?" is actually a meaningless one because,

Given a materialist view of the universe, it makes no sense to talk about consciousness or experience at all.  We have absolutely no idea what it is about the three pounds of mush between our ears that allows it to perform this trick of being conscious.

In fact, he concludes, it does not matter the slightest whether we really have free will because (1) we cannot ever know that to begin with and (2) whether the answer is yes or no nothing about human behavior will change, anyway.

There seems to be a common thread among materialists: they do not seem to understand that their entire world view sits atop nothing but fog. I am currently reading God and Stephen Hawking, by John Lennox, Oxford mathematician, who coincidentally states on the page I am at, "… it is only belief in a Creator that gives us a satisfactory ground for believing in the uniformity of nature (the inductive principle) in the first place!"

Neuroscientist Lieberman's piece is refreshing though because he understands that even if materialism is true, there is no way for us to know. The problem is that he does not take the obvious and unavoidable next steps: that if materialism is true then there is no way for us to know anything at all. We may as well assume we are living in a Matrix world.

This is just a scientific-sounding version of solipsism and if you think about it (heh!) is just a gussied up variety of Hinduism's teaching of maya, that nothing is real but illusion itself.

And yet if, as Lieberman says, the answer won’t affect the way we act – nor even what we think we know – then the smart move is to do what Robert Heinlein advised: even if the deck is crooked, cut the cards. So we’d better live as if free will is real because betting that it is not has potentially devastating, eternal consequences.

Free Will: Weighing Truth and Experience | Psychology Today

Hat tip: Wintery Knight

Death notifications via Facebook

This is a bad thing:



You should never post bad news on anyone's Facebook page but your own. Never assume someone wants to hear bad news from you electronically rather than in person from a family member or someone in an official capacity. This just boggles my mind.

Sinking Titanic's Myths

King's College London - Podcasts

A fascinating podcast about the mythology of RMS Titanic. For example, the idea that the ship was thought unsinkable was a post-disaster invention; there is no evidence or documentation to support that the claim was made before the ship sailed.

The podcast is downloadable, so I set it as voice-over of several images of the ship so I could post it here.

The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage - NYTimes.com

The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage - NYTimes.com

It is still true that cohabiting couples are more likely to divorce. I have always maintained that women agree to move in with a man hoping it will lead to marriage, while men want to cohabit because it means they won't have to get married. It's the old saying, "Why buy a cow when milk is so cheap?" And the Times author puts it this way:

 ...  partners often have different, unspoken — even unconscious — agendas. Women are more likely to view cohabitation as a step toward marriage, while men are more likely to see it as a way to test a relationship or postpone commitment, and this gender asymmetry is associated with negative interactions and lower levels of commitment even after the relationship progresses to marriage. One thing men and women do agree on, however, is that their standards for a live-in partner are lower than they are for a spouse.

Read the whole thing.

Death to MS Word!

Microsoft Word is cumbersome, inefficient, and obsolete. It’s time for it to die. - Slate Magazine Amen, amen and amen. I hate Word with every fiber of my being. I dumped it for personal use in 1997 in favor of Wordperfect and have never looked back. I perforce use Word at my work, but for all personal use I never open Word. I have used Word 2003, 2007 and now 2010. All are equally reprehensible.

Alas, the Wordperfect X5 that I am using is likely to be the last version. It's been around for a long time already and Corel, which own WP, seems uninterested in upgrading it. Neither does WP link to the cloud as Word does (both to MS's cloud and to Google Docs, which is what I use). So to my dismay, it seems that Wordperfect's days are numbered.

 

Verizon says, "Pay me for the privilege of paying me"

Since the subject of corporate greed is on so many people's lips this political season, here is the latest example from Verizon:



Exactly right: "Essentially, consumers are paying to for the privilege to get a new phone with two-year commitment."

Obama's lily-white campaign

Michelle Malkin has it pegged:

Santorum out

As I type, Rick Santorum is announcing the end of his campaign. And not a moment too soon.

Why you can't let Marines design pistols

Because you'd wind up with this:

Easter Zero

Mary Magdalene and Peter: Easter morning

The Gospel of John, chapter 20:

1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

MARY: My name is Mary Magdalene. I am a devoted follower of Jesus of Nazareth, later called the Christ. I knew Jesus very well. I owed my life to him - he cast out seven demons from me, serious disorders that would have killed had Jesus not intervened. When he healed me I decided to serve him for the rest of my life.

After Jesus healed me I became deeply aware and remorseful of my sins, which were many. Jesus told me that my sins were forgiven. It was outright blasphemy for Jesus to say that because only God can forgive sins. I started to protest, but then my entire mind and body was transfused with a sensation of holiness I had never known before, and all at once I knew my sins really were forgiven.

Looking back at Jesus' ministry I can see that his conflict with both the Jewish and Roman high authorities was almost inevitable. By the time Jesus went to Jerusalem, he could gather large crowds with no difficulty. After Jesus raised Lazarus from his tomb after Lazarus had been dead for four days, you can bet that large crowds were routine.

Everyone knew that the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, was deeply suspicious of large crowds of Jews. He had already sent his cavalry riding through crowds with swords swinging. The high priest and most of the Jewish high council became alarmed that Pilate would conclude that Jesus was a closet insurrectionist and the crowds might become Jesus' mobs. That might lead Pilate to kill tens of thousands of Jews.

Because Jesus was so popular with the people, the council's tried to figure out how to silence him without causing a riot. So they arranged for him to be sent to Pilate under accusation as a political insurrectionist, which Pilate was willing to believe. However, Pilate just sentenced Jesus to receive forty lashes. Then the Council stirred up their own followers, gathered outside, to threaten to report to Caesar that Pilate was disloyal to him. So Pilate sent Jesus to Golgotha to be crucified.

I beneath the cross when Jesus died. Several of us women disciples were there, including Jesus' mother. I have never known greater despair. Imagine how his mother felt. After Joseph of Arimathea got custody of Jesus' body and laid it in his own tomb, we women had to wait until sundown Saturday to prepare the ointments for Jesus' body and so we went to the tomb very early Sunday morning to finish the burial rites.

We wondered along the way how we would remove the very heavy stone sealing the tomb. So we were very surprised to discover the stone was gone. When we went inside the tomb Jesus' body was not there. So I ran to see Peter, whom I found with the disciple named John, whom Jesus loved.

I told them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

The Gospel of John:

3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

PETER:

I am Peter. I had a well-deserved reputation of being one who usually didn't look before he leaped. On the night Jesus was arrested by the Temple police in Gethsemane, I had a sword. I drew it and cut off an ear of a fellow named Malchus, a servant of the high priest. This was rather foolish - all us disciples had only two swords among us, certainly not enough to make a stand against the Temple’s troops.

Jesus told me to put my sword away and said that if he chose, he could summon thousands of angels to protect him. Then he let the Temple troops lead him away while the rest of us ran away. After awhile I screwed up the courage to follow. I knew that they were taking Jesus to the High Priest's house for arraignment. That was routine, but I didn't know he would face a mock court there right away.

There were a lot of people outside. I did not dare risk being identified as one of Jesus' disciples. I was not afraid of being arrested myself. If that had been true I would not have gone to the high priest's house in the first place. Only John was with me because he had the other sword. We hoped that we would have a chance to grab Jesus from his captors and make a run for it.

That was why it was crucial for us not to be recognized and why I denied three times that I even knew who Jesus was when someone said that I was one of Jesus' followers. My Galilean accent had given me away.

Jesus had told me early that very evening that I would deny him three times before a rooster crowed near dawn, and right after I denied him the third time a rooster did crow. It was like being hit with a hammer. I wept bitterly because I had failed to rescue my Lord, but mainly because I suddenly realized what a worldly man I was. Jesus was Messiah and knew it, but he was a suffering Savior, not a conquering one. He never called for an army, he never tried to lead troops. The idea that he wanted to overthrow the Romans by force was idiotic. But all night I had been acting as if I was a foot soldier in a worldly “Jesus army.” I had failed to rescue Jesus and I had failed to live and act according to his standards rather than my own.

So when Mary told me that Jesus' body was missing, John and I stared at one another a moment and then we ran to the tomb. John was faster and got there first, but he stopped at the entrance. I bounded right by him into the tomb and then John followed. Jesus' grave wrappings were lying there just as if they had collapsed when his body was taken, which was very odd. The cloth covering his head was lying where his head had lain. Why would someone disrobe his body before stealing it? It made no sense.

Mary had said that Jesus' body was gone and so it was. We had to believe her. Frankly, it did not occur to us that Jesus was raised because we didn't understand the Scriptures about that yet. Later we did, but not that morning.

The Gospel of John:

10Then the disciples went back to their homes, 11but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

13They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15“Woman,” he said, “why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

16Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher).

17Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

18Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

MARY:

After Peter and John saw that the tomb was empty, just as I had told them, they went home. But I couldn't take it anymore. I just broke down and cried. I peered into the tomb again, tears falling down my cheeks.

And there were two figures seated on the stone platform where Jesus' body had lain, each sitting on one end. They were dressed in pure white. I just stared because I could not figure out how they could have got inside without Peter, John or I seeing them. We had been standing either inside the tomb or right at its entrance. It was only later that I realized they had to have been angels.

They asked why I was crying and who I was looking for. Well, obviously, I was looking for Jesus. Why else would I be looking inside his tomb? But a direct question deserves a direct answer. So I said, “They have taken my Lord away and I don’t know where they have put him.” They said nothing more.

Peter and John had gone home and I thought I should, too. I turned away and saw a man there who looked like one of the groundskeepers. Maybe he knew why Jesus' body was gone. "If you have taken him," I implored, "tell me where and I will reclaim him."

And then the man spoke to me. "Mary," he said.

My heart melted. It could not be possible! I had helped prepare Jesus for burial! I had handled his battered body and had seen the holes in his hands and feet and the deep gash in his side made by a Roman spear. And yet there Jesus was, standing before me! I could hardly breathe. I could only gasp out, "Teacher!" and reach out to him before I fell from shock.

Jesus pulled back a little. "Don't hold on to me," he said, and then told me to go tell the disciples that he was returning whence he came, to the presence of the one God of us all.

I felt I was about to burst! I ran back to Peter and John.

PETER: Mary came blowing through the doorway out of breath, face flushed, eyes glistening and with a face utterly transformed from infinite sadness to stunned, radiant joyfulness. We didn't move for a moment and then thought that someone must be chasing her. She placed her hand on her throat and exclaimed, "I have seen the Lord!" and then told us what had happened at the tomb after we had left.

Well, we didn't really believe her. We didn't exactly disbelieve her, mind. Mary had always seemed level headed. But her story was just too incredible. Dead men, you see, do not ordinarily rise from the dead. But then, we'd seen Lazarus do it by Jesus' command. So we could not dismiss Mary's tale out of hand even though we knew that women generally were not reliable witnesses. That's why their legal testimony was worth only half of a man's.

On the other hand, she had just before then told us that Jesus' body was missing and it proved true. So we reserved judgment on her claim she had seen Jesus risen from the dead. But it certainly was the main topic of our conversation for the rest of the day. That night all doubt was put to rest. We were all together except for Thomas. Jesus appeared to us and showed his wounds.

We were overjoyed!

"I am the life of the dead."

Link.