Carl's Maundering Blog

I took Professor Groseclose's survey, and got my "Political Quotient."
(Linky)  
Here's my PQ: 12.4
 
Politicians with similar PQs are:
 
James DeMint (R-S.C. 1999-2009) PQ=5.1
Newt Gingrich (R-Ga., 1979-94) PQ=11.4
Richard Nixon (R-Calif., 1947-52) PQ=12.5
Lindsay Graham (R-S.C., 1995-2009) PQ=14.9
John McCain (R-Az., 1983-2006, 2009) PQ=15.8
Joe Scarborough (R-Fla., 1995-2000) PQ=16.4
Jack Kemp (R.-N.Y., 1971-86) PQ=20.4

Professor Engram documents the evidence.

I don't subscribe to cable television and won't until I can choose channels a la carte. I rarely watch the broadcast television news, and although I sometimes catch hourly radio newscasts from ABC or CNN, I find them biased and forgettable. The coupons in the Sunday edition is the local liberal newspaper's only tenuous hold on my subscription, and even the value of the coupon inserts is plummeting.

Today I found the article "Identity Crisis" by Philip Pullman, in the context of a discussion about an upcoming movie based on one of his fantasy novels. There's some controversy about it over claims that its content is pro-atheist and anti-Christian.

Some of my thoughts after reading Identity Crisis:

Pullman claims, "What we are is not in our control." I can only partially acknowledge that as true; I claim that, in the pre-existence before this life, we were very much in control of what we became in this life.

Pullman claims, "What we do is morally significant. What we are is not." I claim that we are spirit children of God, and that fact by itself has moral significance.

Pullman claims, "Belief or faith is partly the result of temperament. I may be temperamentally inclined to scepticism, you to belief in supernatural forces. As far as the temperamental component of our beliefs is concerned, I am not to be praised or blamed for my scepticism, nor you for your faith. It's when we act on a belief that praise or blame comes in." (That's the first time I noticed that the British spell "skepticism" differently.) I sense danger in this philosophy regarding "temperament," in that I sense that Pullman is implicitly assuming our temperament is an immutable component of "what we are." It isn't. Faith in Jesus Christ leads to repentance, which is something we do, and which modifies our our temperament. Of course, there are other ways to express faith, but repentance is the fundamental way we Christians "act on a belief." The notion that temperance is an unchangeable aspect of what we are is a cowardly crutch leaned on by the unrepentant. Also, what is the analogue to repentance for the skeptic? Just as faith leads to repentance, does doubt also lead to temperament-modifying actions? Or perhaps, temperament-cementing inactions? Anyway, as far as praise or blame regarding our temperament, it is our opportunity to change, improve, and refine our temperament that makes us responsible for it. In other words, I am accountable for my temperament, and Mr. Pullman is accountable for his, despite is claims otherwise.

Pullman claims: "So, 'being,' in the eyes of many people, apparently has its own moral quality, which may be good or bad, but which is resistant to any form of change except the miraculous (being born again). 'Being' trumps 'doing.'" My response: I include my eyes among the many people. Furthermore, repentance is the key to reversing it to "doing" trumps "being." Yes, the resistance to change is there, so repentance is hard work, but that doesn't make repentance any less miraculous.

Pullman refers to a religious lobby in Britain that uses the word "faith" as an adjective instead of a noun. This etymology is completely foreign to me; I have always been taught "faith is a principle of action," "faith is a principle of power," "faith without works is dead," and "I will show thee my faith by my works." These teachings have always led me to consider faith as a verb. (Grammatically, it's clearly not a verb, so I guess I'll call it a "verb in disguise").

Obviously, Pullman and I see the matter differently. I think his essay is very valuable; it's lucidly written, and I found a lot of thoughts in it to agree with (the paragraphs above are points of disagreement). It motivated me to organize my own thoughts to write this rebuttal.

The dialogue improves: A week after getting the AAUP's spam, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit links to another critique of their academic freedom essay advertised via spam.

This one's entitled Truths R Us, and its authors, Peter Wood and Stephen Balch, did a much more admirable job of responding to it than I could have hoped to do in my previous post. (Um, what can I say, I'm still a novice writer...)

Their complete point-by-point response to the AAUP's essay is here.

Here's a link to another Net Neutrality propaganda video. Although the graphic image used to advertize the video is off-putting, I still recommend clicking and watching it.

Again, this illustrates a cause that I agree with, but with supporters of the cause that use violent imagery, emotion-based "activist" rhetoric, and the glorification of mobocratic behavior to spread their message. It's hard because I feel strongly about the issue, but absolutely do not want to be identified with the uncouth "activist" grandstanders and attention seekers, even though they tend to share my views on this issue. I do not want a return to the improprieties that made the '60s infamous.

A followup to my thoughts on "activism:"

It should be and is a last resort. It signals to those you are trying to influence that you believe all other options at your disposal are exhausted, and the only remaining course of action is to make a nuisance and jackass of yourself.

This is why Joe Killian's report covering an activist demonstration was interesting to me.

I recently attended a conference where I heard what otherwise may have been a good presentation about net neutrality, by a very articulate man named David Isenberg. The last 25% of his presentation was devoted to a silly screed-in-verse in which he actually tried to get the audience chanting as if they were at a protest demonstration. (I think the chant went something like, "fat pipe, always on, get outta the way.") It was as if he was an aging hippie hoping to capture the emotionally-charged mobocracy prevalent in the 1960s. It temporarily turned me off from what otherwise was a persuasive presentation in favor of the restoration of net neutrality principles to our legal code.

I just enjoyed another awesome baklava dessert at Jerusalem Restaurant by the University of Denver. It's still the best baklava I've ever eaten.

Andrew Robb, according to a story from "Australia's biggest-selling daily newspaper," said this to a conference of 100 imams:

"We live in a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name of your faith."

and

"Because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem.

"You can't wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by others.

"Instead, speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all share here in Australia."

Very courageous remarks. If heeded (everywhere, not just in Australia), the result would bring the world a lot closer to justice and peace than the silly America- and Bush- bashing that so-called "Peace Prize" winners indulged in at yesterday's PeaceJam.

Here's one from the venerable Spike Milligan:

Bazonka

Say Bazonka every day
That's what my grandma used to say
It keeps at bay the Asian Flu'
And both your elbows free from glue.
So say Bazonka every day
(That's what my grandma used to say)
 
Don't say it if your socks are dry!
Or when the sun is in your eye!
Never say it in the dark
(The word you see emits a spark)
Only say it in the day
(That's what my grandma used to say)
 
Young Tiny Tim took her advice
He said it once, he said it twice
he said it till the day he died
And even after that he tried
To say Bazonka! every day
Just like my grandma used to say.
 
Now folks around declare it's true
That every night at half past two
If you'll stand upon your head
And shout Bazonka! from your bed
You'll hear the word as clear as day
Just like my grandma used to say!

I don't understand it either, but I like it...

I usually enjoy reading Orson Scott Card, both his fiction and his politically oriented columns at The Ornery American. But his recent essay -- What Is This "Crime," Really? -- is a disappointment, full of bad analogies, false assumptions, and straw man arguments. He paints defenders of national sovereignty and the rule of law, among which I count myself, as bigots, which I certainly am not.

Fortunately, here's a much more thoughtful essay on the issue of illegal immigration. Somebody using the handle "croak" posted this link in the forums on the Ornery website (and was promptly castigated for doing so, for some kind of arbitrary procedural faux-pas): Seeing Today's Immigrants Straight. Excerpt:

The proponents of amnesty have manufactured an artificial crisis. They say that it is imperative to legalize the millions of illegals here now, so that the illegals can come out of the shadows. In reality, the minor inconveniences imposed by illegal status are nothing more than what the illegals bargained for.

Spat may be too tame a word for this situation. Here's what I understand is happening:

One of the blogs I like to read occasionally, Protein Wisdom, is suffering under a couple of denial-of-service attacks. This is on the heels of some pretty nasty comments aimed at PW's proprietor, Jeff Goldstein, by a psychology department lecturer (adjunct professor) at the University of Arizona named Deborah Frisch.

The report at Euphoric Reality suggests that the situation is a lot more serious.

I found an August 27th, 2005 post citing media coverage of Abraham Lincoln's presidency and making the obvious comparisons to the MSM's coverage and attitude toward the administration of George W. Bush.

I think it is worthwhile reading. I also think the blog's title is cute.

I read this on the web, a comment attached to a blog entry. I found it poignant. I try to be a polite listener in conversations, and it's surprising how often polite silence is incorrectly interpreted as acquiescence.

"Last year I was at a Christmas party where the most celebrated leftist in the city was loudly ranting on and on about the government and his desire to leave the wretched evil US.

"The very polite guest he happened to blabbing to, sort of nonchalantly reached inside his coat and while politely listening pulled out his checkbook. Still politely listening he started to write in the checkbook. Finally the blabber asked the polite listener (even if he wanted to engage in the conversation the blabber wouldn't have given him an opportunity -- if you get what I mean) what he was doing.

"The polite listener said deadly serious "I am writing you a check for a first class one way ticket to the country of your choice, really, anywhere you want" The loud blabber suddenly went completely silent."

A blogger who uses the pseudonym RoastedTomatoes posted some thoughts under the heading Critical Biblical Scholarship and the Definition of Scripture: President Gordon B. Hinckley. Roasted found it noteworthy that President Hinckley would read a secular work that challenges the origins of Biblical texts, and then talk about it in a church-wide general conference.

I searched and found a couple of conference addresses with similar content:

"All of our sacred records have come to us at high cost. When we consider the fiery furnace of conquest and persecution through which the Bible has passed, the great wonder is not whether it is complete or translated correctly, but a miracle that it has survived at all! (Bishop J. Richard Clarke, "My Soul Delighteth in the Scriptures," 1982 Annual General Conference)

"We are grateful that this sacred record of God's dealings with the people of ancient Israel and of His mortal ministry has been preserved and passed to us to enlighten our minds and strengthen our spirits. The fragmentary nature of the biblical record and the errors in it, resulting from multiple transcriptions, translations, and interpretations, do not diminish our belief in it as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." (Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin, "Christians in Belief and Action," 1996 Annual General Conference)

I don't think I ever supposed that the Bible came to us as some kind of "immaculate publication." Questions regarding the sacred writings' origins, or apparent irregularities in their collection and dissemination, haven't diminished their contribution to my faith and testimony. Furthermore, my study of Latter-day scriptures has only increased my belief in the Bible. I'm convinced that most of the historical custodians, copiers, and translators of the books of the Bible did a remarkably competent and faithful job. I also find that Latter-day scriptures reinforce the Bible's authenticity and repair its flaws and omissions, whether introduced accidentally, or purposefully by corrupt custodians, which I believe were few.

I don't court my wife enough, so it was good to make Friday night a date night again.

We saw Saints and Soldiers, and we both enjoyed it, even though my wife said it is definitely a "boy movie." It flows like a good war tragedy, and the actors, directing, and screenplay are top notch. One of my favorite scenes I call the "it's funny" scene, because that's the punchline at the end of the scene. It features a dialogue between two soldiers; one believes in God, the other disbelieves. Each recounts the horrible war experiences that reinforce his stance toward God. It affected me powerfully, and I told my wife afterward that the same dialogue would have come across as smarmy under less competent acting or direction.