Media Conspiracy Time!

The AP reports the following:

Bush was also using the formal question-and-answer session with reporters - his first in the evening in over a year - to talk about skyrocketing gas prices. The White House asked television networks to broadcast the news conference, scheduled for 8:30 p.m. EDT in the East Room of the White House.

Th press conference was instead scheduled for 8:01 pm EST. Did the AP get the time wrong?

Or did they say that so that no one would see him speak . . . until he's being grilled by reporters.


IIIIINNNNTERESSSSSSTING!!!!

Crichton Speaks

Michal Crichton give us a lot to think about in this speech.

Here are some thoughts:

(1) You cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of man

That’s a more literal truth than he may think, especially since there are parts of the brain in which religious fervor is based. An atheist would say that this proves that religion is only a hallucination. A deist would argue that man’s physiological ability to believe in God is proof, and not disprove, of God’s intelligent design of man.

(2) What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago.

I hate it when people have this view of early man as constantly knocking on death’s door. The uniform legends of ancient history and mythology were that people were larger and lived longer in pre-historic times. Anthropological evidence also shows that pre-agricultural, hunter/gathers people were in much better physical condition than their farming, carb-consuming descendants.

(3) Crichton makes the analogy that radical environmentalism = doomsday, blind-faith religion. Yet we’ve seen that both of these phenomena, and other destructive beliefs, have some unknown common root: a philosophy that is anti-life, anti-reason, subjective, cynical, and has a strong aversion toward human virtue and achievement. On paper, the wacko religious nut and the wacko environment nut have extremely different beliefs, but exhibit almost identical psycho-epistemological motivation as they cheer for the world to come to an end. A teenage “goth”, a aging Maoist hippy, and a Hamas jihadi all share that same metaphysical flavor—an unnamed fear and loathing toward the idea of a benevolent universe and the good, happy people who would inhabit it. I don’t know why people end up that way. I also wonder why large portions of mankind choose this course toward extinction.

(4) Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical.

Well, this certainly makes my spidey-sense tingle! In other words, we need someone who knows all fact, who’s supremely rational, and with lots of discretion and power . . . without any of those smarmy politicians or judges getting in the way. Would Crichton like to recommend himself for this job?

How Do You Say "Phony Reporting" in Malay?

Courtesy of LGF . . . .



Notice something odd. . . ?

Why would an Indonesian write a protest sign in English? Complete with rhyming, punctuation and stylizing letters?

I smell a rat over at the AFP.

Hippie Hypocrites

While were speaking here about entertainers, here's something to chew on:

How could Donovan have written both Universal Soldier and Remember the Alamo? The themes of the two songs are absolutely irreconciable! Compare

Fear not little darling of dying
If this world be sovereign and free
For we'll fight to the last for as long as liberty be

And

And without him, how would Hitler
kill the people at Dachau,
without him Cesar would have stood alone,
he's the one, who gives his body
as a weapon of the war,
and without him always killing cant go on.

He's the universal soldier,
and he really is to blame,
his orders came from far away, no more,
they came from here and there,
and you and me ain't brothers,
can't you see,
this is not the way we put an end to war.

Then again, the sixties were a murky time. Perhaps there were several Donovans? A J-source and Q-source Donovan?

Also, if John Lennon was such a commie, then why the hell was he complaining so much about the Tax Man, or why does he want money so much, even though money can't buy him love?

The Stars in Twilight

Wel, well, well. I was just contemplating how I was going to end a half-a-weeks worth of blogger's block. I get back to my web browser, hit refresh on Drudge, and get a glimpse of this little chestnut: Land of the Freeloaders.

Rule #1 of Economics: Everything obtained must be paid for!

Something can be paid for with barter, with money, or with work. It can be paid for by you with you're resource, by someone else out of charity, or stolen from a victim. But it will be paid for!

So who paid for all this swag? Ordinary people, albeit through a chain of transitions leading through the multi-media, telecommunications, advertising and entertainment business.

Why do they pay for it? Out of a misguided sentiment for entertainers which can only be described as "idolatry". Yet even the First Commandment doesn't do justice to describe the psycho-epistemological crime being committed, both by the worshipper and the worshipped.

Media consumers are paying money to people portraying the virtues they wish they had (but have not the passion to obtain them), and vices they wish they could commit (but know they can't get away with). Rather than achieve these states of being--through thought, planning and action--they take the shortcut and live vicariously through other people pretending to do these things in unrealistic ways. Meanwhile, the stars gobble up all the perks available in a state of quiet desperation, internally struggling to convince themselves that they're actually achieving what they're pretending to achieve. Supposedly, when she went crazy at the end of her life, Vivian Leigh actually believed she was Scarlet O'Hara. By behaving in the manner described, these Hollywood stars are trying to steal their own piece of Tara.

At least on the production end, the party can't last forever. As the world economy improves, cheap foreign films are getting better in quality. As world techonology improves, "indie" films are getting much better. As IT improves, the humor, genius and passion of ordinary people is more and more vividly on display; the TV is becoming the background noise for the websurfing. As AI improves, all attributes of an entertainer--voice, image, improv and imitation skills--can be replicated by software. In a generation, maybe in this generation, the beautiful people are going to go the way of silent film and AM radio stars.

Separated Reincarnated at Birth?

Frank J. -OR- Buster Keaton

Turkish Surgeon, Christian Butcher.

One of these paintings portrays man as heroic, intelligent, and beautiful. The other portrays man as a grotesque monster. One of these painting extols technology as facilitating man's virtue. The other portrays invention and shelter as the tool of the Devil. One of these paintings portrays a benevolent universe full of promise and joy. The other portrays the universe as an ugly, Kafkaesque nightmare.

Guess which one of these paintings was made by a Christian? Guess which one was made by a secular humanist? I'm ashamed of the answer. If Christians are to witness to the world, they need to use the later view of man, instead of the former.

Obligatory Pope Blogging

Comparing John Paul II to Pius XII is unfair to both of them. (Hat Tip to Damian Penny).

Pius XII made concordants with fascist regimes only to keep Catholics from being persecuted. Otherwise, he was extremely critical of them. Hitler said that Pius XII was "the only human being who has always contradicted me and who has never obeyed me." Pius also hid thousands of Jews in the Vatican to keep them from concentration camps.

If Pius made any mistake, it was underestimating the political influence the Catholic Church could have. From the French Revolution to John Paul II, Popes have let socialists, communists and fascists wreak havoc in Europe with nothing but finger-wagging. John Paul II proved that if the Holy See denounces unjust regimes, the world will listen.

But this much idolazation of John Paul II is getting a little out of hand. They're now openly calling him "John Paul the Great". I doubt he would've approved. And if nothing else, the JPII worship makes it harder for his successor.

Today's Random Binaries

Today's Random Numbers are the following:

0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1


Brught to you by Random.org

Quick Quiz . . .

Will the boys pictured in the photo grow up to be:

(a) Bull queers, due to their identification of masculinity with force & domination.

(b) Anti-authoritarin socialist hippies, due to their ingrained fear & loathing of power & authority.

(c) Objectivist/libertarians, due to their repressed desires for individuality and identification of the mystical with madness.

or (d) A stain on a concrete wall?

This piece of Palstianian child abuse brought to you by LGF

Don't Have to Live Like a Refugee . . . .

Blogger's up this morning, but it's impossible to say for how long. The service is becoming exponentially undependable. Like others, I may have to move this site in the near future.

Problems With Homosexual Marriage

Jane Galt began writing about Homosexual Marriage, but ended up writing about conservativism and the preservation of institutions in general. She doesn't give much thought to the more "mechanical" problems with letting homosexuals marry. So I took the liberty of doing so.

Consider the following questions:


(1) In the case of divorce, who has custody of the kids when one is the parent and the other is not? (Note that one spouse being the natural parent, while another is not, is inevitable.)

(2) How is the parent/child bond strained when the child is the natural child of one parent, but not the other?

(3) How is the child affected when he knows only one natural parent, but not the other?

(4) How is the non-spouse egg donor/bearer of the child affected if he is locked out of the relationship with the child? What should be his/her legal rights against the other natural parent? Against the step-parent?

(4) Suppose a spouse bears or fathers several children with different donors. How will the half-siblings get along with each other, knowing they have different fathers/mothers.

(5) Suppose both spouses bear or father different children? How will the "siblings" get along, knowing that they are unrelated to each other by blood?

(6) Would the child/natural parent relationship form a bond more close than--and possibly eclipsing--the spousal bond?

(7) In the case of a spousal dispute, would not the siblings be inclined to favor the natural parent over the step-parent? How would this "taking sides" affect the relationship?

(8) Under scenario (5), in the case of a serious "sibling" dispute, would a parent feel more inclined to favor his/her own child rather than his step-child? How would such a situation affect the children?

(9) Under scenario (8) how would such a situation affect the relationship between the two spouses?

(10) Suppose both spouses die, with the last spouse dying without a will. (This happens more often than not in Anglo-American law). What are the inheritance rights of the natural children versus the step-children? (Note that under current law, the majority rule is that step-children have little if no inheritance rights).

(11) Suppose the egg donor/bearer dies without a will. What are the inheritance rights of the natural child, when he has been adopted by and raised in a completely different household?

(12) Suppose the child dies without a will? What are the inheritance rights of the step-parent? What are the inheritance rights of the "siblings," along with "nieces" and "nephews"?

These are all serious questions that need to be answered. Marriage is not just a religious or ceremonial institution but has definite, long-lasting, real-world legal and psychological effects. Same-sex marriage is going to complicate problems with homosexual relationships, not simplify them.

All of these problems will no exist in a situation where (1) all children are raised by both natural parents, (2) all natural parents have custody of their children, (3) the spouses share a common bond with their children, (4) siblings share the strongest common bond with each other, (5) people outside of the family are considered such legally and psychologically. That is only possible in a heterosexual nuclear family.

The Pogrom Begins

At least one blogger was banned--not for talking about how corrupt the Canadian ruling party is--but for linking to someone living in a free country who did. Damian Penny is also running scared. This is absolutely disgraceful!

The God Who is Not There

Over at Charlotte Capitalist we have a rather zealous objectivist fisking Rick Warren. No argument here that Warren needs fisking, but atheism is an illogical dead-end by any standard. Even Ayn Rand backed off from her more militant Anti-God stances later in life.

To Andy, I said the following:

You’re way off-base, and I’m ashamed you’d make such weak arguments. You didn’t prove the non-existence of God; you proved that Warren didn’t prove the existence of God. Congratulations on knocking down his strawmen. Now how about we play a big-boy grown-up game of philosophy

Existence exists. I’m glad we have this jumping off point, the benefic of talking to an objectivist. I don’t have to argue this point with some obnoxious kid who thinks he’s Neo and that we’re living in the Matrix.

If existence exists, there are two mutually exclusive possibilities:

(1) Existence is innate. It was not “created”. (An atheistic universe)

(2) Existence was created and is not innate in and of itself. Rather, existence was created by something which (or someone who) is innate. (A deistic universe)

If the first possibly, then we have a perfectly materialistic world. The supreme power is matter and the physical laws of matter. Nothing exists but that which has physical attributes. I admit, it’s a rather beautiful way of looking at the universe: Rather than having a God who commands, which we must obey, the universe is a type of “god”, which to command, must be obeyed.

The problem is that certain pieces do not fit into this universe. Namely you, me, Ayn Rand, every other conscious being in the universe, and the Law of Identification itself.

Existence--in and of itself--cannot cause the identification of existence. Matter cannot cause one to know that matter is present. Nor can lack of matter cause one to know that matter is absent. Nor does your own physical being explain consciousness--the identification of self.

The 9 ball can ricochet off the cue ball. The plant can photosynthesize light and process soil into its cells. An animal can react to a chasing predator or running prey. A person's eyes can absorb the image of a rainbow in the sky, and experience emotional euphoria therefrom. These are all natural phenomena, effects from a cause. But the ability to say “There’s a 9 ball”, “There’s a cue ball”, “Look at that plant grow”, “There’s an animal, and it’s running” “There’s atmospheric water refracting light into multiple colors, and it's beautiful” . . . these are not effects from material causes, but an unexplained, physically unnecessary, mysterious process.

The otherworldly aspects of identification can also be proved in the negative. You can look around and say, “There is no rainbow”. How and why? Such a reaction is not effect from a cause, but an independent identification of a lack of a effect or a cause. The faculty of identification exists independently of the physical world being identified!

You’ve asked why there is no scientific evidence of a God. In other words, you want material proof of someone who exist independent of matter. Rather, you should ask where you consciousness came from. Not from matter, since it would be circular to say that the ability to perceive matter came from matter. Nor is consciousness innate, since it is the object and not the subject of reality. Matter does not make your consciousness and your consciousness does not make matter. Therefore, they both must have an independent third cause, that cause being God.

You believe God doesn't exist. You’re correct. Rather he “hyper-exists” and transcends the material world and our consciousness. Sorry if such a statement is a cop-out, but any attempt to explain God’s “non-being” and “non-perceivablity” is impossible. It’s safe to say that God is the one exception to Aristotle’s law, the one entity which exist and doesn’t exist at the same time, in the same matter. For he created matter.

Springtime in Hell!

Well, it's good to see that I'm not the only one being driven batshit crazy insane by the spring weather in Richmond. I just hope this won't be another spring/summer of rain and cold.

When I first moved to Virginia, aside from some rare spectacular rainstorm, the weather was constantly great. Yet everyone was complaining about some illusory "drought". Now the place has turned into Seattle, with the occasional flood, hurricane and earthquake. I'm beginning to sense that God wants to see this city torn down and renovated as much as I do.

POS!

The damn online disk-space thing I subscribed to says that I've "exceeded the bandwidth limits" for the pictures below. So now they won't show.

Meanwhile, I tried looking into gmail, only to find that the thing is a promotional ripoff of Amway/Quixtar proportions. Not only do they not any email service set up yet, you apparently have to subscribe to some paying services to get it. In other words, it's most likely a red herring for other stuff their selling.

UPDATE: Problem (hopefully) fixed thanks to Photobucket. And thanks to Tom at Undercaffeinated for recommending it. Link to him, and read his blog, for he is good.

Prime Real Estate

For some reason, my site comes up second when you do a search for Brooke Lemke.

Did you hear me? I said Brooke Lemke. Brooke Lemke! That's right, Brooke Lemke.

/linkwhoring

Just hope she doesn't file a restraining order against me.

What the Hell Goes on in Canada!

I don't know what's more outrageous: That the Liberal Party has been looting the treasury for almost a decade, or that no one in Canada is allowed to talk about it.

I've never heard of, and will never tolerate, such bullshit coming from the Northwestern hemisphere. As for me, I'll link to whomever I want. If I want to link to Nazis and pedophiles, I'll do so. And I'll slit the throat of any apparatchik who tells me otherwise, and laugh with glee as he dies a tyrant's death.

And while were sharing Old Dominion iconography, let's see Paul Martin try to ban this:

Psychedelic Cardinal

The cardinal resting on the “Virginia” sticker is obviously wondering how it managed to fly to Alpha Dimension X without getting tired.

Brought to you by X-Entertainment

Quadrafecta

It's a Complicated Story

Best to let Frank explain . . .

Post-Mortem

Like alot of people, I'm sick of hearing about Schiavo. The liberal longknives were out for her death, and conservatives didn't have to will to stop it. The end. Ann Coulter's sums up the situation perfectly.

I'll add only one thought: Judge Greer should by hanged by his judge's robe from the nearest palm tree. Hypocritical, you say? Not to kill murders and subverters of justice.