...it must mean something good is about to happen!!!
Sunday, August 22, 2010
...it must mean something good is about to happen!!!
Contemplation of the divine has produced such unalloyed marvels as Schubert's Ave Maria, Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel or Pieta (below) and countless works of highest civilization.
Bernini's Ecstasy of St. Teresa, while overwrought, exhibits unsurpassed emotion:
Even godless secularists, and the most craven atheists can appreciate Platonic -- if not heavenly-- beauty in this craft.
If God is indeed still alive, He has obviously lost sway over today's artists. The promise of Jesus is better than a bone? That's enough to turn any kid toward Satan.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Jan Markell, founder and director of Olive Tree Ministries, remembers what Obama wrote in one of his books.
"This is a bit of a paraphrase: 'When ill winds blow,' he said, 'I will always stand with the Muslims,'" she cites. [Editor's note - Actual quote: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."]
"I am not one who is saying that Barack Obama is a Muslim; we don't know that," the ministry leader continues. "But the fact is his sentiment is with the Muslims of the world, and his sentiment is with the Muslims of Manhattan. I'm quite sure that he would be very okay with a mosque just a stone's-throw away from 9/11."
When I read that, I had to think back about what Obama had said in his books. This quote is from Obama's Audacity of Hope, and , of course, is taken wildly out of context. Here's the whole citation:
"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
Markell, first of all, is too lazy to obtain the entire accurate quote. Secondly, she removes the context that then-Senator Obama was referring to American Muslims who might encounter prejudice due to 9-11. (That would never happen, right?).
Why would a "Messianic Jewish leader" wish to change the context of Obama's sentiment? Is quote-mining just a form of lying? Discuss amongst yourselves... call me after the mid-term elections when all this idiocy will settle down.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
It grieves me to the bottom of my soul to think of the soldiers who bravely gave their last full measure of devotion in such a misbegotten cause. They served bravely and well; it was their leadership that let them down.
All this is due to President Bush’s naive short-sightedness about the true nature of Islam and what it does to the human spirit. I believe him to be an honest and decent man, but deceived and foolish when it came to Islam.
He genuinely seemed to believe that Islam is a religion of peace which had been hijacked by evil men. The truth is the other way round. Islam is a barbaric religion of violence and war. The only hijacking that’s been done is by those trying to fool people into thinking it’s something benign
[T]he Spirit of the Lord is absent in Islamic lands, and the dark spirit that animates Islam has extinguished the spirit of liberty in those lands and in the hearts of their people. Their spiritual DNA has been altered in such a horrible way that what they hunger for is domination, destruction, and the death of the infidels. It is impossible for such a people to harbor a thirst for freedom apart from a massive spiritual awakening represented by an embrace of Christianity.
No, it is impossible to build a free nation on a platform of Islam. It was foolish and expensive even to try.
Fischer says America has offended God by creating a new Islamic Republic in Iraq which, "without the stabilizing values and presence of the Prince of Peace," will ultimately collapse.
My revelation from the sky wizard is right, yours is wrong! So there.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Sunday, August 08, 2010
In his recent article, Science Turns Authoritarian, American Enterprise Institute scholar Kenneth Green argues that science is losing its credibility because it has let “itself be co-opted by politics.”
Green begins by referencing a Wired article written by a non-scientist who feels that the scientific community is in need of better public relations, partly in the form of celebrities who inundate media testifying to the glories of science, as if that would affect one way or another the value of science. Green says at first that he doubts science is suffering from bad PR, but rather that science “is not losing its credibility because people no longer like or believe in the idea of scientific discovery, but because science has taken on an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by pressure groups who want the government to force people to change their behavior.” He goes on and on and finally arrives at the conclusion that science is indeed suffering from bad PR. Whatever.
I can sense a huge eye-roll coming from the scientific community, as if Green, whose conclusion contradicts his initial thesis, has any clue as to what science is or does. Green's biggest criticism is that the “language” in which scientific findings are reported have become increasingly “authoritarian” with use of phrases such as “should” or “must”. He claims that science in the past simply stated the effects of, say, smoking or increased salt intake, and left the behavior modification to the rest of us. Green uses climate change as an example of a recent departure of this tradition, and decries the implication that science says we “must” reduce greenhouse gas production. Newsflash: science doesn’t care one iota what Green or the UN or anyone else does with the information.
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Friday, August 06, 2010
My litmus test for whether a Republican is truly fiscally conservative or just a poseur is his or her vote on the 2003 Medicare Part D prescription drug plan; a bill that was so clearly a blatant transfer of public wealth to private drug companies that no true conservative would have gone along with it.Paul Ryan did.
Mr. Ryan’s plan calls for steep cuts in both spending and taxes...And The [Washington] Post also tells us that his plan would, indeed, sharply reducethe flow of red ink: “The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020.”
But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.
And that’s about the same as the budget office’s estimate of the 2020 deficit under the Obama administration’s plans....
Finally, let’s talk about those spending cuts. In its first decade, most of the alleged savings in the Ryan plan come from assuming zero dollar growth in domestic discretionary spending, which includes everything from energy policy to education to the court system. This would amount to a 25 percent cut once you adjust for inflation and population growth. How would such a severe cut be achieved? What specific programs would be slashed? Mr. Ryan doesn’t say.
Republicans never say what they will cut. As Krugman concludes, they are not serious about debating budget issues yet the media feels obliged for some reason to give them deference.