What a mess this crew is. Lot gives his daughters to the crowd, Abraham imperils Sarah to save his own hide, Jacob snakes his brother, echoing the division between his parents, then tries to make peace at the end with grampa's trick, putting the women and children in danger first. As karrde points out in the Joseph comments, the story of Dinah is pretty grim, and I haven't even gotten to Laban. When the Lord uses the traditional identifying formula later in scripture The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, it's not such a warm fuzzy. Jews of a reflective nature might well have thought Do you have to keep bringing that up? It's nice and homey that you're the family god and all that, but ouch! Couldn't you have mentioned some of our good guys?
God's intent - or one of His intents, as there are always wheels within wheels with Him - is pretty clear. Not because of who you are, but because of who I Am. Got it? Well, there's an odd comfort in it, I guess, when you are feeling lower than low, you still know you're chosen.
I'd like to give this motley band a little credit. All the tribesmen called out of Ur have grown up in a polygamous, polytheistic, card-sharping land that includes Sodom and Gomorrah as its cities of light. God pounds in a very few lessons early on, pretty much letting everything else go. Rule #1: Follow me. Just me. No one else, just me. Have you got that? I am your god, all those other gods are for other people, not you. Hands off.
This is about the only lesson that Lot ever learns. He's pretty much a scum, but he gets that one idea drummed into his head. This god. Not those other gods I grew up with. Only one.
It sounds easy to us now, but it wasn't easy for them. When Christianity came to Europe, the worship of older gods hung on for centuries. When people wanted their crops to grow, or their children to recover, they would sneak back to the old altars and make the old sacrifices. When your back is against the wall, you pretty easily slip into thinking maybe the old way is more powerful. Maybe this new religion doesn't work here, or doesn't work at all.
Including human sacrifice, which became Rule #2: no human sacrifice. But gee, everyone around here does that in a pinch, Lord. All the tribes are doing it. It's powerful. It shows commitment. The blood of a living creature appeases the uh, Other Forces, and humans are like really, really valuable. God teaches this people: But not you. This act is forbidden you. I am more pleased with other things - see Rule #1.
Hints of other rules to come are scattered in the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but these are the big two. And compared to how badly Europe and every other tribe in the world has done when God's teaching comes to them, three generations is pretty quick. It may be a record.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Bitter, Partisan
Ben Smith over at Politico feels Obama's pain on how hard it is to rise above the traditional, bitter, partisan divide he deplores.
Deplores? What would be the evidence of that? Barack's fantasy, and that of his more ardent supporters, is that this means not criticising him. Their squeals at the mildest criticism, coupled with their tolerance for vicious, divisive politics from him is astounding.
Deplores? What would be the evidence of that? Barack's fantasy, and that of his more ardent supporters, is that this means not criticising him. Their squeals at the mildest criticism, coupled with their tolerance for vicious, divisive politics from him is astounding.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Tribal Wow
This Newsweek essay linked on Insty just reeks of tribalism. Amazing that a person so condescending and insulting gets to blame others for "this coarsened sensibility."
Update: Gerbeel's comment reminded me to link to this Iowahawk post Redness of Heart.
Update: Gerbeel's comment reminded me to link to this Iowahawk post Redness of Heart.
The Joseph Group
Joseph doesn’t have to be a group. The story that takes up most of the end of Genesis is plausible and coherent read as straight history. There is no need to interpret Joseph as a composite; but there is an advantage.
The descendants of the Abraham Group reacted badly, even criminally, to the series of minor droughts and famines of the time. They cheated and warred with each other, even selling their own relatives into slavery. They were not far removed from generations that practiced human sacrifice, and the whole depressing mess with Lot, Jacob and Esau, Laban, Rebecca – the whole crew, really – is a collection of unattractive characters, only intermittently faithful. I will handle that group on its own, but for now it is enough to remember that God choosing that group must have seemed pretty unlikely to everyone around, including the family itself. No one seems to get along, and tribal loyalty is an obligation everyone tries to get out of and abuse if they can. This bunch is not reminiscent of great conquerors and wise men from the east, but of those families that used to live on the edge of town, like the Herdmans. Outsiders can't tell whose kids are whose, and cousin-marriages aren't out of the question. The police are always coming because they're always fighting, and they leave junk around everywhere. Clearly, they were not chosen for their good qualities, but to illustrate God’s good qualities.
But they must have had something going for them, because the Joseph group, sold into slavery or arriving during famines like refugees in Egypt, managed to prosper and move into positions of authority. Even though we don’t have independent historical evidence for any Josephs who really wowed the pharaohs and ended up second-in-command, it’s quite possible. Even if the story is meant to be read as a composite Joseph, the elements are there: remain loyal to the god of your fathers, do not sin, the Lord will bestow wisdom and knowledge on you. You will not only survive, but prosper in the new land. You will be a mystical people of dreams and understanding. Stick together, sacrifice for each other.
The Joseph story teaches that favoritism among multiple wives and children is a dangerous thing, that sexual sin is a great dishonor to yourself and to others, and that lives can rise or fall on a single act of obedience or disobedience to God.
The descendants of the Abraham Group reacted badly, even criminally, to the series of minor droughts and famines of the time. They cheated and warred with each other, even selling their own relatives into slavery. They were not far removed from generations that practiced human sacrifice, and the whole depressing mess with Lot, Jacob and Esau, Laban, Rebecca – the whole crew, really – is a collection of unattractive characters, only intermittently faithful. I will handle that group on its own, but for now it is enough to remember that God choosing that group must have seemed pretty unlikely to everyone around, including the family itself. No one seems to get along, and tribal loyalty is an obligation everyone tries to get out of and abuse if they can. This bunch is not reminiscent of great conquerors and wise men from the east, but of those families that used to live on the edge of town, like the Herdmans. Outsiders can't tell whose kids are whose, and cousin-marriages aren't out of the question. The police are always coming because they're always fighting, and they leave junk around everywhere. Clearly, they were not chosen for their good qualities, but to illustrate God’s good qualities.
But they must have had something going for them, because the Joseph group, sold into slavery or arriving during famines like refugees in Egypt, managed to prosper and move into positions of authority. Even though we don’t have independent historical evidence for any Josephs who really wowed the pharaohs and ended up second-in-command, it’s quite possible. Even if the story is meant to be read as a composite Joseph, the elements are there: remain loyal to the god of your fathers, do not sin, the Lord will bestow wisdom and knowledge on you. You will not only survive, but prosper in the new land. You will be a mystical people of dreams and understanding. Stick together, sacrifice for each other.
The Joseph story teaches that favoritism among multiple wives and children is a dangerous thing, that sexual sin is a great dishonor to yourself and to others, and that lives can rise or fall on a single act of obedience or disobedience to God.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Noah Group - Further Comment
No scathing comments. Perhaps my more literalist readers are just polite.
It does occur to me that I started in the wrong place. You play deity for awhile. You have a group of people who don't write, and you want them to remember what you've taught them over a few thousand years of history. How are you going to do it? You could, I suppose, insist they remember series of battles with Amalekites, Canaanites, and Assyrians. Like that worked so well even with written aids later?
You'd steer them nightly toward what we see in Genesis.
It does occur to me that I started in the wrong place. You play deity for awhile. You have a group of people who don't write, and you want them to remember what you've taught them over a few thousand years of history. How are you going to do it? You could, I suppose, insist they remember series of battles with Amalekites, Canaanites, and Assyrians. Like that worked so well even with written aids later?
You'd steer them nightly toward what we see in Genesis.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Noah Group
Christians give off the impression of being embarrassed about Genesis, especially the first 11 chapters (Abraham shows up in Chapter 12). It is certainly the section of the Bible which draws the most fire from nonbelievers; more, even than the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus. Fundamentalists get positively defensive, insisting on an all-or-nothing view of the Scriptures; their opposite number are those who would toss anything offensive in order to get folks to consider Jesus’ Incarnation & Resurrection. (Those whose goal is to get nonbelievers to consider only the moral teachings of Jesus I am eliminating from the discussion of Christianity altogether. They may be nice people who act more like Christ than I do, but their religion is not Christianity. Jesusism would be a better term for what they believe.)
I would place myself at both extremes, insisting that a) everything in Scripture must ultimately be accounted for in our teaching, but also b) willing to grant enormous tracts of territory to skeptics, ridiculous and inconsistent concessions, in order to get the core teachings of the faith onto the table. But between those two extremes of scripture insistence is where most Christians would place themselves, instead of at the extremes, which is where truth more often resides. Christian truth contains more paradox than milk-and-water compromise. At its best, the compromise approach is a cautionary statement about complexity, of refusing to apply third-grade Sunday School answers to adult questions. Well and good as far as it goes. At its worst, it is a dishonest evasion, a “Heh heh heh, we don’t really think those things happened in ah, er, a literal sense, but are meant for our edification and as examples blahdee blah blah…” This latter comes from lack of courage in our thought – which is ultimately a lack of faith.
The mental image of a God always hurriedly patching up mistakes, barely rescuing the scripture narrative from the degradation of passing through human minds, is a little revolting. Who would worship such a god? A cobbled-together scripture, which a helpless god hopes will do if folks don’t look too closely, is not very inspiring now, is it? The idea of a series of vague folk tales strung together, approximating some idea of a monotheistic deity gradually coming into focus is a look through the wrong end of a telescope: accurate but completely misguided.
God did not scramble to find something useful that might apply to our modern situation in the oral narratives of the Israelites, preserving the few threads of gold amidst the dross of a primitive tradition. The folk tale style, similar in so many ways to the parables He told when He came in the flesh, was intended since before the beginning. God’s work was not to preserve the occasional tidbit, to hide a few threads of gold in the straw, but to condense the many tidbits into a pure picture of Himself, to spin straw into gold.
There were many Noahs, not one, and few if any named Noah. They preserved the belief in the One God, they preserved many good things out of the destroyed land into the rescued land. Very likely, they knew how to build boats and had already divided the animals into the clean and the unclean and labored to preserve them. They lived in lands of wickedness but were saved from a Flood with varying degrees of miraculousness, from providential to impossible, because of their faith. God compressed their various stories like a diamond into the story of Noah, so that future generations would remember.
The condensing, the synthesis, was not a grudging allowance by a YHWH who could do no better, but His original plan, so that His story would endure in the minds of men when all others from that time had passed away.
More to follow: More Adams, more Abrahams, more Josephs. Bring your objections and your arguments, but I think I can show that this approach illuminates parts of scripture that fundamentalism has to gloss over.
I would place myself at both extremes, insisting that a) everything in Scripture must ultimately be accounted for in our teaching, but also b) willing to grant enormous tracts of territory to skeptics, ridiculous and inconsistent concessions, in order to get the core teachings of the faith onto the table. But between those two extremes of scripture insistence is where most Christians would place themselves, instead of at the extremes, which is where truth more often resides. Christian truth contains more paradox than milk-and-water compromise. At its best, the compromise approach is a cautionary statement about complexity, of refusing to apply third-grade Sunday School answers to adult questions. Well and good as far as it goes. At its worst, it is a dishonest evasion, a “Heh heh heh, we don’t really think those things happened in ah, er, a literal sense, but are meant for our edification and as examples blahdee blah blah…” This latter comes from lack of courage in our thought – which is ultimately a lack of faith.
The mental image of a God always hurriedly patching up mistakes, barely rescuing the scripture narrative from the degradation of passing through human minds, is a little revolting. Who would worship such a god? A cobbled-together scripture, which a helpless god hopes will do if folks don’t look too closely, is not very inspiring now, is it? The idea of a series of vague folk tales strung together, approximating some idea of a monotheistic deity gradually coming into focus is a look through the wrong end of a telescope: accurate but completely misguided.
God did not scramble to find something useful that might apply to our modern situation in the oral narratives of the Israelites, preserving the few threads of gold amidst the dross of a primitive tradition. The folk tale style, similar in so many ways to the parables He told when He came in the flesh, was intended since before the beginning. God’s work was not to preserve the occasional tidbit, to hide a few threads of gold in the straw, but to condense the many tidbits into a pure picture of Himself, to spin straw into gold.
There were many Noahs, not one, and few if any named Noah. They preserved the belief in the One God, they preserved many good things out of the destroyed land into the rescued land. Very likely, they knew how to build boats and had already divided the animals into the clean and the unclean and labored to preserve them. They lived in lands of wickedness but were saved from a Flood with varying degrees of miraculousness, from providential to impossible, because of their faith. God compressed their various stories like a diamond into the story of Noah, so that future generations would remember.
The condensing, the synthesis, was not a grudging allowance by a YHWH who could do no better, but His original plan, so that His story would endure in the minds of men when all others from that time had passed away.
More to follow: More Adams, more Abrahams, more Josephs. Bring your objections and your arguments, but I think I can show that this approach illuminates parts of scripture that fundamentalism has to gloss over.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Earth Day
Two heretical posts for Earth Day - one mildly so over at Fair Trade Certified
A bit of take-no-prisoners from Justin over at Classical Values, who brings back some of the predictions from earlier Earth Days - the sort of moonbat nonsense you suspected was there but never tracked down on your own.
...I would officially like to nominate "going green" as the front runner for the prestigious Most Overexposed Phrase of 2008 prize. For the love of all that as good and holy, not every single action that's not a gratuitous waste of resources is "going green". I don't care how new Al Gore tells you this is, sometimes reusing something is just that....reusing something.
A bit of take-no-prisoners from Justin over at Classical Values, who brings back some of the predictions from earlier Earth Days - the sort of moonbat nonsense you suspected was there but never tracked down on your own.
"We have about five more years at the outside to do something," ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970.Thanks for making it easy for us, Justin.
In January 1970, Life reported, "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half....
Harvard biologist George Wald estimated [in 1970] that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
Monday, April 21, 2008
QOTD
Envy never comes to the ball dressed as envy, it comes dressed as high moral standards or distaste for materialism.Martin Amis
Friday, April 18, 2008
Obama and Conservatives
I have heard that Obama appeals to some conservatives. That was a furrowed brow for me. Couldn't imagine why. My only guess was that they were so torqued off at McCain that this bright, pleasant youngish man seemed a safe harbor, even if he was unfortunately leftist.
It has come up enough online that I decided to give it some thought. I haven't met any conservatives in real life who are leaning Obama, but there do seem to be some out there.
He has the temperament of a type of conservative. His ideas are those of the antiBuckley, but one can imagine them conversing on Firing Line for weeks on end. Check that. The content-driven Buckley would gradually drive the style-driven Obama into retreat and an unannounced (but no less complete) humiliation. It wouldn't last weeks. One could imagine it lasting a few weeks, however, in the sort of conversation that conservatives imagine the world could be run by. While there are right wingers who crave red meat and confrontation, there is another sort which tires rapidly of demagogues and fire-breathers. Obama would like to be a unifier; he listens politely and responds in measured tones, holding out the possibility that the country would settle down for a bit. That natural conservatism, the desire to be left in peace, has great appeal to a certain personality type. Many conservatives hope little more than to be left alone to pursue their lives without interference.
Considered this way, I understand it. The difficulty is that it is an illusion. Barack Obama's domestic views are so interventionist and his foreign policy views so non-interventionist that his actions would lead to stark choices: go along and have temporary peace and quiet, hoping that the damage to rights and allies will not be so great that it can't be rescued later, or rise up in confrontation, crying halt. BHO puts forth a vision of men and hobbits in Bree, living peaceably and respectfully together in mutual adjustment, an example of tolerance to all travelers.
It all depends on whether Saruman or Sauron are real threats on the move. If not, why not live as Obama hints, even if it turns out to be expensive and a bit intrusive? But if so, then there is no respite on the horizon, and his association with half-orcs is a matter of great concern.
It has come up enough online that I decided to give it some thought. I haven't met any conservatives in real life who are leaning Obama, but there do seem to be some out there.
He has the temperament of a type of conservative. His ideas are those of the antiBuckley, but one can imagine them conversing on Firing Line for weeks on end. Check that. The content-driven Buckley would gradually drive the style-driven Obama into retreat and an unannounced (but no less complete) humiliation. It wouldn't last weeks. One could imagine it lasting a few weeks, however, in the sort of conversation that conservatives imagine the world could be run by. While there are right wingers who crave red meat and confrontation, there is another sort which tires rapidly of demagogues and fire-breathers. Obama would like to be a unifier; he listens politely and responds in measured tones, holding out the possibility that the country would settle down for a bit. That natural conservatism, the desire to be left in peace, has great appeal to a certain personality type. Many conservatives hope little more than to be left alone to pursue their lives without interference.
Considered this way, I understand it. The difficulty is that it is an illusion. Barack Obama's domestic views are so interventionist and his foreign policy views so non-interventionist that his actions would lead to stark choices: go along and have temporary peace and quiet, hoping that the damage to rights and allies will not be so great that it can't be rescued later, or rise up in confrontation, crying halt. BHO puts forth a vision of men and hobbits in Bree, living peaceably and respectfully together in mutual adjustment, an example of tolerance to all travelers.
It all depends on whether Saruman or Sauron are real threats on the move. If not, why not live as Obama hints, even if it turns out to be expensive and a bit intrusive? But if so, then there is no respite on the horizon, and his association with half-orcs is a matter of great concern.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Comeback
A Yankee fan at work was trying to razz the Red Sox fans with his usual line, that he has been using since 2004: "26 World Series compared to 2. Big deal." Best comeback I've heard yet:
"Yeah, I like watching ESPN Classic sometimes, too."
"Yeah, I like watching ESPN Classic sometimes, too."
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A Nation of Givers
It was almost a year-and-a-half ago that I reviewed Arthur C. Brooks Who Really Cares? The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Brooks was recently interviewed at The American, in which he summarises the data in his book. There's colored graphs, too.
If you read the interview closely, you can sound like you've read the whole book. AVI's key to sounding smart.
Brooks has two more books coming out this year: Gross National Happiness and Social Entrepreneurship.
If you read the interview closely, you can sound like you've read the whole book. AVI's key to sounding smart.
Brooks has two more books coming out this year: Gross National Happiness and Social Entrepreneurship.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Those Playoff Complaints
After all the noise about how teams in the west were going to be so badly cheated, and inferior teams from the east going to the playoffs, it eventually boiled down to only one robbery. Golden State (or outside chance, Denver) is not going to the playoffs, despite having a much better record than Atlanta. Portland also has a better record, but not hugely so - that strikes me as normal variation rather than robbery. Plus, I don't get too worked up about teams missing the playoffs when they only go .500 down the stretch.
I still follow Al Jefferson's stats over in Minnesota. I hope the T-Wolves get Beasley or Randolph in the draft. If so, they won't be a bad team next year, though they have so many teams to climb over to make the playoffs.
I still follow Al Jefferson's stats over in Minnesota. I hope the T-Wolves get Beasley or Randolph in the draft. If so, they won't be a bad team next year, though they have so many teams to climb over to make the playoffs.
Review of Biblical Literature
A friend sent along a review from this site, Review of Biblical Literature. I spent half an hour browsing, and I feel smarter already.
The review he sent along was for Misquoting Truth, from InterVarsity Press. The author, Timothy Paul Jones, I had not heard of, but the book looks like that cross between academic and popular I look for.
The review he sent along was for Misquoting Truth, from InterVarsity Press. The author, Timothy Paul Jones, I had not heard of, but the book looks like that cross between academic and popular I look for.
Easy Translation
If you want to understand Jimmy Carter, just mentally add the words "wants to be seen as.." whenever you read his name.
Participating In Unjust Social Structures
Three times in the past month or so I have heard a Christian claim the Bible in general, and the prophet Amos in specific, declares that we commit injustice when we participate in unjust social structures. (The milder version is that we are commanded to work to correct unjust social structures.)
That’s a lot of elastic words in one phrase: participate in – if I decide that lottery tickets, tobacco, pornography, cigarettes, beer & wine, fossil fuels, & high markups on food are unjust, do I have to actively try to overthrow a state government that allows convenience stores, or can I get away with just biking around that state on the way to my vacation? Unjust – is 99% good enough? If something drops below 90% justice – jeepers, romantic selection by young people is notoriously unjust, does that mean we have to forbid dating, or would merely requiring a government license be enough? Social structures – oh wow. Funerals are pretty unjust, and so is Little League. Or do you mean like Ed at the water department hiring his girlfriend?
Do I purchase justice offsets by sending money to Democrats, or just the certain ones?
Surely I jest? Sure they jest. These terms have been the principle grain of academic marxism for fifty years, but if we sprinkle some Bible-words in it all comes out of the oven Christian? (See “sacred conversation,” previous post)
Simplest first: there is no positive command from Jesus to change political structures. The examples usually given, such as Christ speaking fearlessly to various authorities, actually illustrate the opposite idea. Jesus essentially tells Pilate that politics and governments are not very important. His actions certainly had political consequences, but these were never primary.
This isn’t to say that seeking to improve justice in one’s society isn’t a good thing. It’s a very good thing. It’s just vague, and not everything called “working for justice” actually is. Prophets make sinners uncomfortable. This preacher is making you uncomfortable. Therefore, he is a prophet and you are a sinner. That is nearly psychotic reasoning, but it has been put forward in defense of Revs. Lee and Wright. But why pick on black people for this, when Jim Wallis, Rich Nathan, and John Thomas are at hand?
As for Amos, his first focus is on Israel’s worshipping other gods. There are several mentions about justice, some specifically about the poor, but none mentioning institutions or social structures, even by other names. Rich people – maybe lots of them, maybe all of them – were cheating poor people, and for these acts they were accused. Remember that the courts dispensing injustice in these verses were like our civil courts, not our criminal ones. Powerful people were fixing the outcomes of property disputes and such.
Complicated discussions of economic and social justice should certainly include understanding and repairing institutions. But there’s nothing about it in Amos.
That’s a lot of elastic words in one phrase: participate in – if I decide that lottery tickets, tobacco, pornography, cigarettes, beer & wine, fossil fuels, & high markups on food are unjust, do I have to actively try to overthrow a state government that allows convenience stores, or can I get away with just biking around that state on the way to my vacation? Unjust – is 99% good enough? If something drops below 90% justice – jeepers, romantic selection by young people is notoriously unjust, does that mean we have to forbid dating, or would merely requiring a government license be enough? Social structures – oh wow. Funerals are pretty unjust, and so is Little League. Or do you mean like Ed at the water department hiring his girlfriend?
Do I purchase justice offsets by sending money to Democrats, or just the certain ones?
Surely I jest? Sure they jest. These terms have been the principle grain of academic marxism for fifty years, but if we sprinkle some Bible-words in it all comes out of the oven Christian? (See “sacred conversation,” previous post)
Simplest first: there is no positive command from Jesus to change political structures. The examples usually given, such as Christ speaking fearlessly to various authorities, actually illustrate the opposite idea. Jesus essentially tells Pilate that politics and governments are not very important. His actions certainly had political consequences, but these were never primary.
This isn’t to say that seeking to improve justice in one’s society isn’t a good thing. It’s a very good thing. It’s just vague, and not everything called “working for justice” actually is. Prophets make sinners uncomfortable. This preacher is making you uncomfortable. Therefore, he is a prophet and you are a sinner. That is nearly psychotic reasoning, but it has been put forward in defense of Revs. Lee and Wright. But why pick on black people for this, when Jim Wallis, Rich Nathan, and John Thomas are at hand?
As for Amos, his first focus is on Israel’s worshipping other gods. There are several mentions about justice, some specifically about the poor, but none mentioning institutions or social structures, even by other names. Rich people – maybe lots of them, maybe all of them – were cheating poor people, and for these acts they were accused. Remember that the courts dispensing injustice in these verses were like our civil courts, not our criminal ones. Powerful people were fixing the outcomes of property disputes and such.
Complicated discussions of economic and social justice should certainly include understanding and repairing institutions. But there’s nothing about it in Amos.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Conspiracy Theory
The family of one of my patients has a website up on his behalf, to free him from the horrible injustices the various governments local, state, and national have visited on him by locking him in a psych hospital just because he threatened to kill people and thinks that Special Forces in Iraq put a chip in his head. We discussed the site at team today.
Our PhD psychology student surprised me by asking about conspiracy theories. After my very general answer, he started talking about the website Loose Change and the Twin Towers. By jiminy, he's a Truther! He started in about kerosene mix and jet fuel but I cut him off. "Popular Mechanics has it covered. Straightforward. Thorough. Check it out." He seemed disappointed and wanting to discuss it further. I was brief, and I am sure he thought, dismissive, but I didn't say "It's just nuts," which is what I was thinking. I noted that the evidence offered by the conspiracy theorists was unconvincing - they lean toward an explanation of single events that is barely possible. Additional barely possible explanations do not strike them as reducing the chances that their theory is correct, but confirming it. Aha! Mayor Willie Brown was warned to be cautious about flying at his Sept 10 morning briefing! You see?
But Willie Brown got those warnings about once a month. The mayor of LA didn't get a warning; the mayor of San Diego didn't get a warning; the mayors of Oakland, Sacramento, and Son Jose didn't get warnings. Mayor Brown reported his info immediately in case there was some lead there. And we never heard any more about it! That just goes to show it's possible there is a coverup...
The student shook his head worriedly and said that the scary thing is that it's even possible. Ah yes.
Simple declarative: belief in the probability that some sort of conspiracy is happening precedes all data. I have had folks protest no-no-no! I never suspected Bush in the 1990's, I hadn't even heard of him! I only gradually came to think he and Cheney might be involved. Nonsense. You've believed in some sort of conspiracy for decades, and gradually came to think that Bush might be part of it. The details have been vague and somewhat flexible, but the repeated themes of corporations...conservatives...military...intelligence agencies have been constant.
The belief precedes the evidence.
Update: the team psychiatrist, referencing conspiracy theorists, noted another explanatory bit: they regard secret information (often unsubstantiated) as more important than obvious info. The Physician's Assistant had a good example: conspiracy theorists will believe a convoluted tale about the acquisition of hammers - which can be weapons, y'know - and not ask themselves "why would they go through this when you can go down to the hardware store and buy a couple?"
It is interesting to contemplate what their life experiences have been, and how their minds work, to believe that the doubtful hidden must be more important than open knowledge.
Our PhD psychology student surprised me by asking about conspiracy theories. After my very general answer, he started talking about the website Loose Change and the Twin Towers. By jiminy, he's a Truther! He started in about kerosene mix and jet fuel but I cut him off. "Popular Mechanics has it covered. Straightforward. Thorough. Check it out." He seemed disappointed and wanting to discuss it further. I was brief, and I am sure he thought, dismissive, but I didn't say "It's just nuts," which is what I was thinking. I noted that the evidence offered by the conspiracy theorists was unconvincing - they lean toward an explanation of single events that is barely possible. Additional barely possible explanations do not strike them as reducing the chances that their theory is correct, but confirming it. Aha! Mayor Willie Brown was warned to be cautious about flying at his Sept 10 morning briefing! You see?
But Willie Brown got those warnings about once a month. The mayor of LA didn't get a warning; the mayor of San Diego didn't get a warning; the mayors of Oakland, Sacramento, and Son Jose didn't get warnings. Mayor Brown reported his info immediately in case there was some lead there. And we never heard any more about it! That just goes to show it's possible there is a coverup...
The student shook his head worriedly and said that the scary thing is that it's even possible. Ah yes.
Simple declarative: belief in the probability that some sort of conspiracy is happening precedes all data. I have had folks protest no-no-no! I never suspected Bush in the 1990's, I hadn't even heard of him! I only gradually came to think he and Cheney might be involved. Nonsense. You've believed in some sort of conspiracy for decades, and gradually came to think that Bush might be part of it. The details have been vague and somewhat flexible, but the repeated themes of corporations...conservatives...military...intelligence agencies have been constant.
The belief precedes the evidence.
Update: the team psychiatrist, referencing conspiracy theorists, noted another explanatory bit: they regard secret information (often unsubstantiated) as more important than obvious info. The Physician's Assistant had a good example: conspiracy theorists will believe a convoluted tale about the acquisition of hammers - which can be weapons, y'know - and not ask themselves "why would they go through this when you can go down to the hardware store and buy a couple?"
It is interesting to contemplate what their life experiences have been, and how their minds work, to believe that the doubtful hidden must be more important than open knowledge.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Kicking the UCC's John Thomas, White Person
As promised in a previous post.
John Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ (my childhood denomination) has declared that we should hold a "sacred conversation" about race. We should have this conversation at Trinity, Rev Jeremiah T. Wright's - and Obama's - church. When you are the president of a major denomination, people usually regard you as a serious person. Newspapers and television news quotes you as if you are someone of authority; someone who Knows Something.
Sacred Conversation is an utterly vacuous phrase. People use such words when a) their thought is vacuous or b) they wish to conceal their real meaning. It's either Susan Sarandon or George Orwell. I am torn as to which is true for Rev. Thomas, whose other exploits are reported here. He wants a "preach-in" in May on the subject. Preach-in. The 60's are over, John.
I have a pretty good idea what the conference schedule is going to look like: what sort of person will be invited to speak, what the workshops will be about, what the conclusions will be at the end. The only interesting part will be to see how many other progressive causes will be successfully inserted into the mix. Will the greens, anti-globalists, feminists, socialists with hispanic surnames, anti-militarists, and sexual orientation advocates get to crash the party, or will they have to be content with just having their causes mentioned in every speech, in the requisite litanies of oppression?
If you do not yet believe that there are intellectual sins, and that such people are evil, I recommend C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce.
John Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ (my childhood denomination) has declared that we should hold a "sacred conversation" about race. We should have this conversation at Trinity, Rev Jeremiah T. Wright's - and Obama's - church. When you are the president of a major denomination, people usually regard you as a serious person. Newspapers and television news quotes you as if you are someone of authority; someone who Knows Something.
Sacred Conversation is an utterly vacuous phrase. People use such words when a) their thought is vacuous or b) they wish to conceal their real meaning. It's either Susan Sarandon or George Orwell. I am torn as to which is true for Rev. Thomas, whose other exploits are reported here. He wants a "preach-in" in May on the subject. Preach-in. The 60's are over, John.
I have a pretty good idea what the conference schedule is going to look like: what sort of person will be invited to speak, what the workshops will be about, what the conclusions will be at the end. The only interesting part will be to see how many other progressive causes will be successfully inserted into the mix. Will the greens, anti-globalists, feminists, socialists with hispanic surnames, anti-militarists, and sexual orientation advocates get to crash the party, or will they have to be content with just having their causes mentioned in every speech, in the requisite litanies of oppression?
If you do not yet believe that there are intellectual sins, and that such people are evil, I recommend C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce.
Zombie Attack Info
I have neglected to keep my readers up-to-date on the important issue of how to deal with zombies. This site will bring you up to speed quickly on survival in the event of zombie attack. Flamethrowers: Helpful or not? Should you use firearms or melee weapons? What disguises should you be alert for?
Crash course. Top 5 Zombie Survival Plans
1. Take over a giant food/hardware type store (Walmart, Sam’s Club, Costco, etc)
2. Get out of town – as far as you can. Live off the land and conduct period raids into more populated areas for supplies.
3. Get off the land entirely. Grab a boat big enough for a small team of survivors to live on and plan to collect rainwater and supplies from periodic trips ashore.
4. Get high. Go to the greatest elevation and most remote area you can find and count on the cold temperatures and long winters to keep the undead moving slow or frozen.
5. Arm yourself and others and travel to a nearby mall. gather all the food and block off the doors. Wait for the zombies to leave to find easier prey or attempt to leave in a fortified car or bus.
Also included: a review and trailer for the upcoming movie Zombie Strippers.
Crash course. Top 5 Zombie Survival Plans
1. Take over a giant food/hardware type store (Walmart, Sam’s Club, Costco, etc)
2. Get out of town – as far as you can. Live off the land and conduct period raids into more populated areas for supplies.
3. Get off the land entirely. Grab a boat big enough for a small team of survivors to live on and plan to collect rainwater and supplies from periodic trips ashore.
4. Get high. Go to the greatest elevation and most remote area you can find and count on the cold temperatures and long winters to keep the undead moving slow or frozen.
5. Arm yourself and others and travel to a nearby mall. gather all the food and block off the doors. Wait for the zombies to leave to find easier prey or attempt to leave in a fortified car or bus.
Also included: a review and trailer for the upcoming movie Zombie Strippers.
Still Winter
Glenn Reynolds is posting spring pictures. Tigerhawk, Classical Values, and even Maggie's Farm are posting spring pictures. No, I'm not linking to any of 'em. Bastards.
I'm going up north of Bangor on Saturday though, and I imagine it's even worse up there. So I'll be better soon, because they'll resent my coming up from the sunny south.
I'm going up north of Bangor on Saturday though, and I imagine it's even worse up there. So I'll be better soon, because they'll resent my coming up from the sunny south.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)