Someday

Some day, I will be less busy, I hope. And when that day comes, I hope I am still able to think, and to write, and to combine the two. Maybe some day I will be able to write like David Warren, for example, in my own idleness:

It is a fascinating history, perhaps too often traced, but never with sufficient irony. In addition to his campaign against slavery, William Wilberforce & his entourage had campaigned against domestic immorality, founding innumerable societies for the reformation of manners & the suppression of public vice. Not only slavery was outlawed, but through high-toned beseigement, Parliament was persuaded to pass various proclamations against “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing & cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day,” & other “dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” (I am inclined to call this, “Christian Shariah,” reflecting as it does the old Koranic, if not also Presbyterian admonition, to “command the good.”) They installed the “nanny” in our Nanny State, with that heroic commitment to perpetual Reform & Improvement that seized the imagination of the Victorian Age — & which still echoes in the battle cry for Progress, long after their Protestant God was held to have died. (So that now I call it, “Progressive Shariah.”)

For through Darwin, Huxley, & their avant-garde, they also discovered Evolution, or perhaps more exactly, Evolution discovered them. What on the Continent was received as a tentative scientific hypothesis, full of holes, was in England — & then throughout the English-speaking world — taken for a refutation of Scripture. The Bloomsbury set were the vanguard of what became in effect a new secular religion. Darwin’s Origin of Species became the foundational document for the new scientistic faith — its replacement for Genesis. Evangelical religion was not so much abandoned, as transformed. By the more talented of Bloomsbury it was turned into aestheticism & “art for art’s sake.” The moral earnestness continued with polarities reversed. The old obsessions over sexual vice, for instance, flipped into sexual experimentation. Meanwhile, the science types assembled their New Inquisition, hunting down & eliminating from the possibility of employment those who strayed from Darwinian orthodoxy in the academic worlds they increasingly controlled.

"Progressive Shariah" and "New Inquisition" are not unfair descriptions, though both are still in their infant stages. The progressives rose to prominence for a time and continue to drive our culture off the cliff. But when they seize also the reins of government, we can expect worse things to come. They have done this, though not completely. Similarly with many of the other institutions--from the academy to the entertainment industry to the media--these are dominated by the Left, though it's fair to make a dichotomy between liberals (however misguided in policy and action) and progressives (however benign in intentions).

As for the New Inquisition, well, there's a reason why I am blogging here semi-anonymously as opposed to at my old blog under my own name. It's not the idea of the evolution of species that I disagree with per se, but the materialistic dogmas of scientism which are pervasive, and the fact that one practically has to swear by Godless "Progress" in the sciences and beyond as a condition of being a "scientist in good standing." I'm not an ID man, nor (worse!) a geocentrist (yes, they do exist, no, I will not provide a link).

However, I am a Catholic, and so I affirm that man's soul is not descended from the beasts, and I affirm that the world is in some sense the metaphysical center of the universe. I also hold all sorts of unpopular moral positions which are frowned upon by the scientific establishment: everything from the insistence upon a free will to the insistence that certain sexual acts can be evil in kind or degree; and from insistence that contraception (to say nothing of its dark spawn abortion) is evil to the fact that we can't solve all of the world's problems through science alone.

It is fascinating, in any case, to see how "Progress" has changed from an attempt to use social and even political power to curb man's vices, into seeing the use of the same power now to promote those same vices. The former might work in a good way with a society which largely accepts that it is good to curb man's vices, though using political power to so so for such things as swearing and profanation of the Lord's Day would be problematic, especially when ideas like subsidiarity are removed from the political equation.

The Boredom Killing Revisited

So, it turns out that the killing of Christopher Lane by three "bored" teens was at least partially racially motivated:

Edwards, who has been charged with first-degree murder, posted racist tweets saying he hated white people in the months before the shooting. 

Edwards posted statements on his Twitter feed including a comment on April 29 where he tweeted "90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM". 

Edwards also weighed when George Zimmerman was acquitted over the death of Trayvon Martin. 

"Ayeee I knocced out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:) lol sh*t ima keep sleepin sh*t! #ayeeee." 

"Woods" is derogatory slang for white people. The feed also contains tweets glorifying violence, guns and gangs.

And their alleged next target, a black boy, was allegedly being targeted because he wouldn't join the Crips.

More Maps...

Some more interesting maps of the world. Some interesting points in them:

• Despite the best efforts of Al $harpton (and his ilk), the U.S. is actually relatively racially tolerant (#8).
• It would appear that many of the most ethnically diverse countries are also the least racially tolerant and vice-versa (#9), though there are some exceptions. Not sure what to make of that, other than that it suggests that attempts to force diversity on a population might tend not to make that population more tolerant.
• Panarin's map (#11) seems laughable today. If the US actually did break up into smaller countries, and barring actually conquests, I'm thinking that it's unlikely that any inland western states would want anything to do with California/Oregon/Washington as political entities, or that the Carolinas, Tennessee, and Kentucky would want anything to do with the Northeast, or that most of the "flyover" state would want anything to do with Illinois/Minnesota/Wisconsin.
• The world mostly likes us, and the world mostly likes us more than China (#12-13)
• The "gay rights" around the world map is depressing, but is interesting when juxtaposed with the map below it (#15-16).
• What is the point of the economic inequality map (#20)? To show that most places which have less of it are relatively affluent but bankrupt?
• A lot of these seem politically motivated and are biased.
• The common law vs civil law map (#25) is kind of cool.
• Apparently, most European countries like the EU, including the ones that hate it (#30)
• Apparently, a lot of Americans are optimistic about our economy, which is really a commentary on how well the media has covered for Obama (#34), or else a very sad commentary on the state of the rest of the world.
• The satellite map (#40) is pretty cool.

On Boredom Killings

The Ace of Spades blog pretty much summarizes my thoughts on the recent shooting of an Australian man by three teens:

• The murderers were black, the victim white, and therefore the media will ignore race entirely. You'll hear no condemnations from hucksters like Al Sharpton. It only matters if it's a white guy (or white Hispanic guy) killing a black guy, never the other way around.
• The killing may or may not have been motivated by racism--just as in any case where a white man kills a black man, the murder may or may not have anything to do with racism. However, there has bee a spate of race-related black-on-white crimes.
• Piers Morgan, may he be deported someday as a foreign threat, has essentially called for a gun ban following this. At least, stricter gun laws, and an uprising against the NRA (who are really behind this, doncha know). As the blogger Andy says, the right response to this is, "Piss off, Piers. The perps were 15, 16 and 17, hence underage under existing US gun laws."
• Finally, what does it say about the culture that a group of teens would come to the conclusion that killing somebody is a legitimate form of entertainment when bored?

This frankly has nothing to do with gun control, but it might have something to do with racism. Therefore, the people who need to be "stood up to" are not the NRA, but rather Obama, Holder, Al $harpton,, and the rest of the race-baiters.

Guilty Pleasures

So, I've been trying (and often failing) to not write too many rants on this blog. Of course, I give free reign to my co-blogger if he wants to do so. Anyhow, just because I try not to write too many of them doesn't mean that I avoid reading them. They are therapeutic to write, but also therapeutic to read (so long as I agree with them, of course).

Call it a guilty pleasure of mine. It's like putting a boot up somebody's butt vicariously: and there are quite a few people out there who seem to need that swift kick in the pants.

Nevertheless, I kind of go back and forth a bit as to whether I should avoid writing them altogether (difficult, especially at times) or not, and I certainly do my best to avoid writing rants elsewhere (I get the impression that they aren't helpful for catechizing or evangelizing anybody who doesn't already agree with me, usually).

On the other hand, there are some people who are so entrenched in an obvious set of lies that honest dialogue tends to break down no matter how tactful. Thus, a rant is as effective (perhaps more so) as any other attempt as debate, discussion, or dialogue. Indeed, they might even perceive a kind and tactful post as being every bit as abrasive as a rant (perhaps more so, if they are assuming that I am not writing and acting in good faith). In those case, I wonder, why bother with tact? Perhaps for the sake of third party readers?

In any case, the Ace of Spades blog has long been a guilty pleasure of mine (and I notice my co-blogger likes to link to them, too) because of this. At times, P.J. O'Rourke had a few fun rants, and John C Wright as well. Oh, and here's one I've discovered more recently: Matt Walsh, whose blog I don't frequent, but I have seen a few posts linked by my greater circle of internet friends. Here he is tearing into an abortion advocate who opined that Planned Parenthood "is not an 'abortion business."

It speaks to the level of self-delusion in our culture that some people actually believe this. Then again, so does the fact that some people support abortion at all--let alone for the various frivolous reasons they do--and that they oppose any restrictions whatsoever. I mean, I know that there are whole departments (or even colleges) which seek to replace education with propaganda and thinking (independent, critical, or otherwise) with outright brainwashing, but really?

So yeah, it's a bit of a guilty pleasure to read these kind of rants from other people.

Tolerance

Tolerance was long a watchword (of sorts) for the homosexualist movement. Tolerance, as Bishop Sheen noted, applies to persons but not to doctrines, so to the extent that there was a movement about tolerating persons, good for it. But that's not what the movement is about now, nor (if one reads the writings of the radical gay liberationists) has it ever really been.

And thus, as the homosexualist movement takes up the reins of power, both "soft" and "hard" power, we see the marginalization of and then the intolerance against anyone who opposes this movement. Thus there are the gay bullies who wish harm and death to the injured Thomas Peters, the "public hearings" which resemble nothing so much as kangaroo courts, the myriad lawsuits against conscientious protesters (I won't even both to link all of these, since they're both numerous and well-known). Then there is the military commander (soon I expect this to be plural) who asked her subordinate his views on homosexuality and then demoting him when he gave the "wrong" answer, which is enough to make the Christians in the military hope for some version of "don't ask, don't tell" concerning religion and their personal view on homosexuality.

A Few Good Links (vol. 7)/Seven Quick Takes Friday (vol. 2)

If the other guys can combine posts, then so can I.

1. Darwin's descendant is Catholic.
   
2. I have a few friends in Austin, so they might be interested in BurntOrangeReport's endorsement of a certain coffee shop. By endorsement, I mean they say to boycott it because of its stance on abortion, but since this is coming from BurntOrangeReport, I can think of no stronger a political-motivated endorsement.
   
3. I've heard tell that even recently, many (perhaps most) Catholic Bishops are registered Democrats. Apparently, that number included Rhode Island's Bishop Thomas Tobin, who has nevertheless been a critic of the Obama Administration's promotion of the culture of death. After 44 years, Bishop Tobin is leaving the Democratic Party:
   

   "The a-ha moment for me was the 2012 Democratic National Convention. It was just awful," Tobin, 65, told the Rhody Young Republicans during an event at the Holy Rosary Band Society Hall in Providence. The leader of Rhode Island's roughly 621,000 Catholics said he had been a registered Democrat since 1969. 

   "I just said I can't be associated structurally with that group, in terms of abortion and NARAL [Pro-Choice America] and Planned Parenthood and [the] same-sex marriage agenda and cultural destruction I saw going on," Tobin said. "I just couldn't do it anymore."

   It took him until 2012 to decide on this, and even then only after the party's national convention? The ongoing support for the Culture of Death, for NARAL and Planned Parenthood and the gay agenda and the Obama Administration's contraception/abortion/sterilization mandate didn't even do him in? Well, better late than never, I guess, but I wonder how many more of the bishops (to say nothing of the priests) are still Democrats. As Fr. Zuhlsdorf asks, "Aside from the fact that the GOP is not perfect, how can any cleric be a member of a political party that is so clearly pro-abortion?  How can a cleric be a member of a party that actively, openly undermines the true definition of marriage?" Yeah, talk about choosing the greater of two evils, it's no wonder that there are so many Catholics who support Obama, Pelosi, Biden, and the whole lot of pro-death politicians.
   
   
4. Now for a palate cleanser after that: a zoo in China is attempting to pass of a dog as a lion.
   
5. What is it about the child-free movement that says we have to celebrate them?
   

   

   The world's greatest threat, according to some.

   "The hypocrisy of it all is probably obvious to everyone but Time magazine and its subjects: Many of the “child-free” couples mentioned in the Time magazine article lament that others are proudly parents and wish other people were parents, too.  Yet, these very women are proudly child-free and wish more people would be child-free, too."

   They sure seem to resent children, and those who choose to have them.
   
   
6. The Statistician to the Stars gives that atheism/religion IQ study thing a thorough fisking. National review has a shorter and sweeter rebuttal.
   
7. The Obama Administration really is tyrannical, even to their loyal lapdogs the media. Case in point: they attempted to re-write the Washington Post's interview/story on NSA violations. I guess we get the government (or the rulers) that the majority of the people deserve.

This week's Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted here. A Few Good Links is our thing, though.

Simcha Fisher Savages Karla Erickson

For the humor-impaired, the title of this post is a joke. Anyhow, here's Erickson's post against breastfeeding, and here is Simcha Fisher's rebuttal. Encapsulating quote from Erickson, a "Gender Studies" instructor: "Next time I won’t breastfeed because it sets up a gendered division of who does what early into parenting. It provides an infrastructure for an unequal distribution of the work (and rewards) of parenting." Also, "One of the fathers [who came to talk to this lady's class] said that after their first child they bottle-fed their children because it was the only way to work against the gender disparities in the parenting process. At the time it sounded kind of harsh – like social engineering in the face of the well-proven benefits of breastfeeding."

Might I suggest that her gut instinct here is actually correct: this is, in fact, social engineering, but then, that would be the point of the various "Gender Studies" programs which have latched onto universities the nation over. Now let's see what Fisher says in response:

"She is telling us, with her tone, so much more than she realizes: that she feels comfortable with motherhood, that nurturing comes naturally to her, that she enjoys taking care of a baby, and the baby loves her with all his baby heart, because she is his mama. 

But all of her training tells her that these things add up to error.  She's been implanted with all sorts of false sensitivities, which tell her something is wrong -- even when everything is, by the standards and instinctive delights developed over the entire course of humanity, going just like it's supposed to go."

Yes. This, after unpacking a few "faulty assumptions" (and they are indeed faulty) such as "that a child's preference for one parent over the other, at any particular stage of development, is a sign that someone is the victim of sexism, rather than evidence that men and women are different -- and that kids need both." Again, the point of gender studies is not to study the feminine and the masculine and the celebrate their differences, nor to see how each one completes the other, but (as with so many other diversity-driven programs) to subvert, ignore, blend, destroy, or engineer and propagandize away those differences.

Yet, as Fisher notes well, this ends up being all an act, and the differences can be repressed and subverted, but they still hide under the surface for anyone who's willing to look. To use an alliterative statement of the sort employed by my co-blogger: that subversion ends in sadness.

Surely Just a Coincidence

One of the pushers of perversity in Canada has been arrested on charges of child pornography (no conviction, yet). Specifically, Benjamin Levin, Ontario's deputy minister of education from 2004-2009, the man who pushed a rather too comprehensive form of sex-education for children:

An indication of the man’s importance and closeness to Canada’s leftist elites was shown at the gay pride parade in Toronto, held just a few days before his arrest, where he stood in line with Wynne, federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, and former interim federal Liberal leader and former Ontario NDP Premier Bob Rae – the leading trio of Canadian Liberal Party.... 

Levin hasn’t been convicted of anything of course, but we cannot fail to mention that he has been at the centre of educational politics and power for a generation, and was a major figure in the educational establishment that gave us the most recent extreme and perverse sex education curriculum....For those who have forgotten just how sordid and provocative this trash was, it proposed that 11-year-olds learn about gender identity, homophobia, personal satisfaction, and discover their bodies through masturbation and vaginal lubrication. At 12 and 13 years of age they were to be taught about anal and oral sex. At all times they would be told that there were numerous genders, that we were the gender we wanted to be or thought we were, and not necessarily what we were born. There was also a concentration on homosexuality, bisexuality and gender transfer, and a weird, grotesque obsession with loveless and fringe sexuality that has no place in education, and certainly not in the education of such young children.

With people like this running education in Canada (and really in America too) is it any surprise that the country's sexual mores are in a continual state of freefall?

The Coolest Thing You'll See Today

It's a shark, inside another shark:

After casting a small fish called a menhaden, a small shark called a dogfish was quick to snatch the bait, only to be swallowed by the much larger sand tiger shark. “The dogfish was about 3 feet long and completely swallowed by the sand tiger shark,” states a post on the university’s ORB Lab Facebook page.

Sharks are awesome. Also, is this the seafood equivalent of Turducken?

A Few Good Links (vol. 6)

It's been a busy week at work, so I haven't had the chance to do much in the way of writing.  The reading I do during lunch and dinner breaks (I'm here from morning until midnight most days when I get laser time):

1. Two links on Millenials: we're adrift in the cosmos and don't really know what we want from churches, or really from anyone. A lot of this has to do with the general wrecking job the 'Boomers generation did on the culture. "What one finds among Xers and millennials alike is a second-order decay of American idealism: the Boomers tore up the world of June Cleaver, but what the Boomers built wasn’t a liveable replacement."
2. Fear of the Lord (and readiness, and anticipation--most of all hope) has a tendency of driving out other fears and anxieties. On a related note, we will be meeting the Lord in the hereafter, which is the one thing for which we need to be prepared.
3. The following two things may or may not be related: the (unfortunate) popularity of the childfree life on the one hand, and the development of robots which emulate human emotions to the point of mimicking falling in love (in some sense of the word) with people. Also, please tell me that second link is a hoax:
   

   "The trouble all started when a young female intern began to spend several hours each day with Kenji, testing his systems and loading new software routines. When it came time to leave one evening, however, Kenji refused to let her out of his lab enclosure and used his bulky mechanical body to block her exit and hug her repeatedly. The intern was only able to escape after she had frantically phoned two senior staff members to come and temporarily de-activate Kenji."

   Ugh. It seems to me that there is some deeply disordered potential market for "pleasure bots", but it seems like we're well on the way to developing the first robotic rapist.
4. MSNBC fails at geography. That's par for the course with them.
5. You might be a bad parent if...
6. I'm not keen on the death penalty in many circumstances, but there are two (technical) ways that we can go wrong in avoiding it: the first is in deliberately prolonging a prisoner's life to inflict the maximum amount of misery possible, and the second is sparing no expenses for prison inmates.
   

   "Instead of paying the $816 in fines with money, Pappas said Feeley could instead pay with jail time, at a rate of $50 a day. But the math is fuzzy: it costs taxpayers $179 a day to house an inmate at the jail, Sheriff Shaun Golden has said."

   To put things into perspective, the $179/day which it costs the Monmouth prison to house an inmate works out to more than $65,000/year. A lot of people (most, in fact) get by on far less. What is so hard about putting a person in a small solitary cell with three meager meals per day that it costs this much money? Prison should be bad enough that the prisoners don't have any desire to return once released.
7. We need only listen to the homosexualists speak to understand exactly what their position is regarding us. Tolerance is not enough, silence is not sufficient. And these are the kinds of people who get put on "human rights" councils. It's not going to end with the legalization of "gay marriage," and it has nothing to do with rights: this is ultimately going to be about crushing consciences and restricting religious rights.

Sadly, I have to work Saturday and will still by busy with other stuff Sunday. Sigh. I guess it's on my co-blogger this week.

Quick Links: Some Random Geography

Really, some history and some geography today, in charts and maps (and some beaches, too). In no particular order:

1. A set of 40 maps to make sense of the world. My favorites are the ones about how big a city would need to be to house the world's population. The answer is: not big, though I think they could do better by building taller. Couruscant in Texas, anyone? Also, the map about which countries England has never invaded (it's not many).
2. I think I have this chart of world history, somewhere. Still a nice visual.
3. And last but not least, a few strange beaches to get you through the day, even if most of you will never visit any on these.

Can there be some order to this? I guess it could be in the order that I found them, or the order of how cool I think they are.