Archive for July, 2005

Stats

Wednesday, July 20th, 2005

why does john maccarthur write books against the four square church

A quick google seach suggests that John MacArthur’s problem is:

Implicit in MacArthur’s wholesale attack on the charismatic movement is that it is not derived from the Holy Spirit and therefore, has borne only bad fruit. He suggests that the fruit of the charismatic movement is entirely negative and, among other things, has “created divisions” (p. 293), “encourages mysticism” (p. 292), “denigrates reason” (p. 292), “leads to spiritual casualties” etc. Is there any fruit in the charismatic movement? “Surely, if the movement is of God,” MacArthur asks, “we ought to find abundant fruit.” Yet, MacArthur looks about him and sees no fruit at all. Perhaps the lens that he looks at the charismatics through is less than clear. A Christian approaching the charismatic movement without a clouded lens, might see the following.

Personally, my problem with the Four Square Church is the confusion that always comes up over whether if the ball touches the line if it is out or not, and who gets to decide if it did.

define self-depreciative

I’m too stupid to know.

my sports illustrated subscription number

3

how much wood would a woodchunk chunk if a woodchunk would chunk wood

A woodchunk would chunk as much wood as a woodchunk could if a woodchunk could chunk wood.

rainbow party suck lipstick photos

Ha ha. Um. Not available.

The third most searched word is “dogs”. I will not pander to the public by posting a dog entry. I must note how amazing the consistency of “invention of fire” is — which is to say, roughly the same number of searches (and hits) per month.

to “Bork”

Wednesday, July 20th, 2005

Hm. Did not know that.

Perhaps one of the most overlooked reasons for rejecting Bork in 1987 was his ignominious role in the Watergate Scandal. See, when the special prosecutor Archibald Cox issued a subpoena of Nixon’s secret tapes for research, Nixon knew that those tapes would incriminate him and his staff in the Watergate investigation. nixon ordered his Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused, and handed in his resignation, rather than be part of the coverup. Nixon then replaced him with a new Attorney General, William Ruckelshaus. Ruckelshaus also refused to fire Cox, and resigned rather than be part of the coverup. So Nixon then turned to his Solicitor General, Robert Bork, to stand in as the Attorney General, and Bork fired Cox. of course, this looked rather suspicious — The Nixon administration had gone through 3 attorney Generals in the course of a weekend, and the special prosecutor was fired without reason. The press took notice, and Congress was infuriated by the act, which was seen as a gross abuse of Presidential power. In the days that followed, numerous bills of impeachment against the President were introduced in Congress. Nixon defended his actions in a famous press conference on November 17, 1973, but it did no good, as he resigned before a new prosecutor could be appointed.

And thus, I find at the wikki:

In the years after the Saturday Night Massacre, a well-known joke said that “borking” was “firing a man for doing exactly what he was hired to do” (i.e. Judge Bork had “borked” Archibald Cox, whose job had been to investigate criminal activities in the Nixon White House). After Bork’s confirmation hearings, however, a new meaning was given to Bork’s name: to be borked is to have one’s presidential appointment defeated after fierce battles in the Senate.

I joked that Bush oughta just go ahead and renominate Robert Bork. Maybe he will when Rehnquist retires. Or he could offer it to a college Republican — you know the drill: then you’d have a reliable right-wing perch on the bench for 60 years instead of this wacky 30 that Roberts is set to have. (I ponder the fact that Clinton’s picks were 10 and 15 years older than Bush I’s Clarence Thomas pick.)

letter to a magazine

Wednesday, July 20th, 2005

In his latest column, [name deleted, but its the name you most associate with the magazine] appears opposed to the battle in Iraq. He refers to possible political ramifications, but this war is beyond politics. The future of Western civilization is at stake.

The combat in Iraq is not a war but a battle in a war that was started 1,400 years ago. The cult of a self-proclaimed prophet has expanded to more than 1.2 billion people, and the disciples of this devil intend to t bring the entire earth under the rule of Allah. Currently, Western nations are the soft targets.

The meek enjoy liberties after the strong have fought, sacrificed, and died. If we don’t resist Islam, our culture has no future. There are two approaches: let posterity fight its own wars when the time comes, or maintain a place in the world for Jesus, our posterity, and Western civilization.

Damn the torpedoes. Let’s get down and dirty. Kill the bastards. Wars are dirty. It is wrong to elevate ourselves above their standards. They take no prisoners. Neither should we.

God bless America.
Warren E. Boisselle
Virginia Beach, VA

(letter to the “American Conservative”)

A google search shows that he was an advocate for all out war against terrorism since… at least 1996. (ProbabOklahoma City bombing? Or those listed here?)

I am reminded of a comment suggesting that you can’t ask whether this is a Religious War. That’s the question that, theoretically, would have to be settled by who wins.

Why the paleocons don’t hook onto this concept — extend the Cultural Wars you’re fighting here against a cartoonish set of Secularists to a cartoonist set of Muslims over yonder — I don’t know. Mired into the old Cold War rhetoric where they’re fighting the Atheist Communists, and can’t convert the enemy over to Muslims? Or are the Jews in Israel just standing in the way of this paradigm shift?

Or I’m too snarky and I may just not be giving them proper credit.

On Bombing Mecca

Tuesday, July 19th, 2005

Campbell: Worst-case scenario: If they do have these nukes inside the borders and they were to use something like that, what would our response be?

Tancredo: What would be the response? You know, there are things that you could threaten to do before something like that happens and then you may have to do afterwards that are quite draconian.

CAMPBELL: Such as?

TOM Tancredo, Congressman of Colorado, gadfly seeker of Republican nomination for President: Well, what if you said something like – if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites.

Pat Campbell, talk show host: You’re talking about bombing Mecca.

Tancredo: Yeah

TANCREDO: Yeah. I mean, what if you said, “We recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate threat, this is the ultimate response.” I mean, I don’t know — I’m just throwing out there some ideas because it seems to me, at this point in time, or at that point in time, you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could possibly imagine. Because other than that all you could do is, once again, tighten up internally.

That be the discussion our esteemed gadfly Republican presidential candidate be seeking.

Bombing Mecca was the province of the imagainations of plenty of folks in the wak of the 9/11 attacks. The desire to do such a thing pretty well died down, Ann Coulter insisting on “invading all their countries and converting them to Christianity” notwithstanding. (This attitude persists in some corners, and I have seen the TBN shows to prove it… the Christians that actually live in the nations America has invaded are pretty weary of.)

I heard a radio talk show host bemoan the idea that Americans aren’t “into” it the way they used to, insisting on the bombing of Mecca. It’s a curious pathology.

As for Tom Tancredo, the celebrator of the “Minutemen Project” of amature border patrollers on the Mexican border (and a person who I predict will get a good showing in the early 2004 primaries)… I can’t decide whether the Congressional district he represents means anything (with respect to topes of Violent Urgings) or if its doesn’t.

It encampasses some Denver suburbs, including that of Littleton, Colorado.

news running around in circles

Monday, July 18th, 2005

You know… once upon a time, years ago when the Vallerie Plame Leak Scandal first broke (to be smoldered a way for a while, to erupt again, to be smoldered again sometime soon, to erupt again sometime a bit later)…

The now-defunct cable television show Buchanan and Press was meandering on with Pat Buchanan trying to get some expert who claimed to know that it was Scooter Libby who was the “source” to Bob Novak:


BUCHANAN: … let
me follow up because I worked in the EOB and to be honest, the president of the United States had his hide-away office on the first-you know the first floor where he goes up the steps. Right above him in that magnificent office up there are the suite of offices of the vice president of the United States whose chief of staff is Mr. Libby…

PRESS: Scooter.

BUCHANAN: … Scooter Libby. Now, is Scooter Libby the name you heard?

JOHNSON: Iím not going to comment on that.

PRESS: Let me ask you this. Today at the White House gaggle they call it, press secretary Scott McClellan was pushed about have-you know Ē have you talked to people, are the White House staff cooperating? And remember the other day he said he talked to Karl Rove, and Karl Rove said I had nothing to do with it. So a reporter said have you talked to Scott-Scooter Libby the same-in the same fashion, and are you willing to say right now, ready to say right now that Scooter Libby had nothing to do with this? Scott McClellan closed the briefing, didnít answer the question, and walked away. What does that tell you?

JOHNSON: Thatís very telling. I think if Iím the FBI, I start by having a discussion with Mr. Libby.

At around the same time Joseph Wilson said

“At the end of the day, it’s of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words.”

We’ve gone through 2 years, and we’re pretty much back to the revelation that, with a great deal of fog thrown out, obfuscation and misdirections…

Scooter Libby and Karl Rove are the culpable ones in this case.

Good to know that.

I’ll get to politics later

Sunday, July 17th, 2005

I checked out a copy of the first Harry Potter. I read the first 30 pages or so. Then I returned the book to the library.

I can’t say I disliked the book. I simply didn’t want to read it.

Congratulations to JK Rowlings on its success, though. And may the legions of fans enjoy the latest installment.

………………..

There’s something troubling about Paul Anka singing out the lyrics to Nirvana’s “Smells like Teen Spirit”. Is Anka not a little bit embarrassed to sing (as opposed to belt out) “A mulatto … An albino … A mosquito … My libido … Yea“?

I guess it all starts with Pat Boone and “Stairway to Heavan”. Paul Anka disdains that musical interlude of Pat Boone’s career, and insists his versions of popular hits rises above “kitch”.

Johnny Cash is being played on the alternative rock station, 94.7 NRK. Both good songs and good covers, Depeche Mode’s “Personal Jesus” and Nine Inch Nails’s “Hurt”. But they’re not lounge versions, were pretty carefully selected to fit Johnny Cash’s musical needs.

Irrational Exuberance

Friday, July 15th, 2005

An interesting little article that argures that Alan Greenspan’s monetary policy helped set up a few prominent music scenes.

I giggle a little bit here because I used to be a fan of Alan Greenspan’s. Not in the sense that I agreed with any of his vaguely Randist policy and their effects on human affairs, but…

It started with that statement. You know the one.

How do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values which then become the subject of unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade.

Immediately everyone started selling. Beginning with Asia before spanning the globe back to the USA.

Of course, the stock market bubble continued apace after its (very) brief slide, meaning “irrational exuberance” continued onward, and so a paradox is created with regards to Alan Greenspan circa mid to late 1990s:

Was he All Powerful — for he could create disruptions in the world markets by sending out cryptic messages that needed to be deciphered, or was it a case where the Emperor have No Clothes — for the ripples really didn’t last that long?

It’s a question that I quietly puzzled over back in high school without any answer forthcoming. An enigma inside of a riddle.

And those are misty water colored memories of the way… we were.

“Mrs. Joseph Wilson”

Thursday, July 14th, 2005

So I flicked past the Tony Snow Show on radio. He murmured about how the story of Joseph Wilson and Karl Rove will die soon. He’s right if he has anything to say about it; and he does indeed have a say in it, as a Fox News pundit/newsguy/somethingoid he will spin it as the White House sees fit and then move on to the next big story. (That would be the Supreme Court Battles, and probably a missing white 19 year old.)

It will resurface in due time, theoretically a better narrative for the Bushistas to play with will have been thought up. As it is the current narrative makes no sense. Tony Snow commented on Joseph Wilson’s appearance on the Today Show and how Joseph Wilson called his wife “Mrs. Joseph Wilson” by saying “I guess he won’t be invited by Gloria Steniem to visit the Hamptons!”

Huh? Though I understand the general “liberal elitist” slur he’s imparting on the audience, this is an amazing non-sequitur.

The other key part of obfuscation is that you stick the story into a “Donkey versus Elephant” narrative. This looks to me why Watergate didn’t gain any traction until after Nixon lost all of Massachusetts. George McGovern whisps sadly about how if all of Watergate had broken earlier, he might have been president (and has the Watergate-era poll numbers to prove it.) The news media is most wrapped around the Doneky Versus Elephant storyline, and the public most eager to buy it, during the campaign season, obfuscation easier to pull. Note this line:

Mr. Nixon, who appeared before a news conference in his Oval Office this morning, addressed the corruption issue in measured and at times almost inaudible tones that seemed deliberately designed to contrast with what he suggested was the shrill and irrespsonsible campaign tactics of his opponent.

“I think the responsible members of the Democratic party will be turned off by this kind of campaigning.” he said, “and I would suggest that responsible members of the press, following the single standard to which they are deeply devoted, will also be turned off by it.”

I wish one can extract the two-party system from all of politics. IE: so that a politico doesn’t feel obligated to sell his integrity to keep a boat he’s tied to, theoretically believes in but doesn’t totally, afloat. I don’t know which of these politicos have integrity, and for a bit less than half of the American public to not be invested into, but there seems to be no other way around it.

(Other items of note: when I find my play by play of a series of Iran-Contra hearing Bloom Countys, I’ll stick it up here.)