Messianic Christians and Jews

Messianic believers are Christians–at least by the biblical definition–whether they like that label or not. Of course, the modern Western usage of the term "Christian" carries a lot of baggage that doesn’t apply to Messianics. I understand a certain amount of resistance to the term (I prefer "believer" myself.), but to flat out deny that a Messianic believer is a Christian is very nearly a denial of Christ.

• Messianic Jews held the "Christian" title before any gentile did.
• "Christian" means "little Christ," which is what we are supposed to be. We are to live as the Messiah lived, therefore we are to be like little Messiahs.
• Although many people think of Catholic Mass, televangelists, or religious tyranny when they hear the word "Christian," so do many people think of pornography, lesbians, and feminazis when they hear the word "woman." Does that mean women should disclaim that label in favor of "double-x person," or "non-man?"

It all strikes me as a little silly and a lot of choking over gnats. If you don’t like the term, don’t use it, but don’t insist that Messianic believers in Yeshua are absolutely not Christians.

Nanny-Future

From J Storrs Hall’s Nanofuture:

Molecular synthesis will be able to make foods that are considerably closer to natural ones than current processed products. You can eat meats no animals were killed to obtain and crops no wildlife habitat was displaced to grow. No release of genetically modified organisms into the environment will be necessary to include as much of whatever vitamins and nutrients you need into whatever you like to eat. And the foods will be synthesized fresh just before being cooked or eaten, with no need even for a refrigerator. Indeed they could simply be synthesized cooked, with no need for a stove.

The dishes could be synthesized along with the food, and then simply dropped dirty into the recycler. Of course, with nanotechnology, you could mkae solid diamond plates that would come clean with the merest wave under the faucet, but the long-term trends are clear: manufactured items get cheaper, and space gets more exppensive (on Earth, anyway). So the typical domestic arrangements will tend toward making things when and where they are needed, and recycling rather than storage.

Some of my own predictions (not prophecies):

• Some people will still insist on eating naturally grown food. Real meat will probably be outlawed in California first. New York second.
• “Naturalism” will either become something of a popular religion or else people will become even more lazy and sedate than they are already. Why bother planning or saving when anything can be had at the moment you need it? The latter seems much more likely, but what use will the machines have for their eloi? Almost certainly not battery power.
• The distinguishing characteristic of the wealthy will no longer be the possession of more, bigger, or better-made stuff, (at least not so much as today) but more beautifully or more naturally made stuff. Food as an art form will no longer be the near-exclusive domain of expensive restaurants, but of digital artists and their patrons.
• Can you imagine the insanity of a fashion industry driven by the imagination and whim of the minute-to-minute consumer? You would be able to wear virtually anything that you could describe in sufficient detail.

What else can we look forward to as true nanotechnology becomes a reality over the next century?

And God Said...

The heavens vanish.
You fold them up like a cloth.
Your Word never ends.

Losing by Winning

This is an interesting phenomenon of history, politics, & culture. If you want to introduce large portions of a completely foreign culture into your own, start a war.

After the Greeks conquered Judah, Jews scattered all over the Greek-ruled territories carrying their culture and learning with them.

After the Romans persecuted Christians, the empire became Christian.

After Europeans began conquering and colonizing the rest of the world, they learned about tea, coffee, chocolate, tobacco, maize, and turkey. Then all the Pakistanis became London cab drivers.

After fighting over large portions of North Africa, killing lots of people, and then running away, the French experienced a huge wave of immigration and cultural importation from Africa.

After pounding Vietnam half way to oblivion, killing lots of people, and then running away, the United States experienced a huge wave of immigration and cultural importation from Southeast Asia.

After invading several Middle-Eastern countries, killing lots of people, and then threatening to run away, the United States is experiencing a huge wave of immigration and cultural importation from the Middle East.

Not overhauling the culture fast enough? Just send more troops!

It’s almost like there’s a pattern.

Random 2 AM Thoughts on Poetry

Poetry takes a massive amount of energy compared to prose or just plain ranting. I can jot off a couple of paragraphs on my latest pet peeve with no plan and hardly a thought. A poem that I wouldn't mind letting the rest of the world see is a totally different kind of beast. I'll agonize over every other word, sometimes spending 15 or 20 minutes on each. Some of my poems that I feel best about took me months to write. One of them took over a year.

I don't know whether my poetry is all that great or not. I know other people sometimes tell me it is, but that doesn't really do it for me. I like hearing praises of just about anything I do, but I don't have a lot of confidence in them. I always have a suspicion that my head is being patted and my cheeks pinched. "How cute! He made a poum."

It's such a huge release to write a poem that you can feel really good about. You struggle to pull this alien thing up and out of your throat or from under your fingernails or your scalp, and when you do, you feel so pleased and proud like it's your newest baby. But if someone asks what it all means, do you really want to tell them? It's almost like they just asked about your favorite technique between the sheets. You might throw out a tip or two, but it seems crude and dirty to pick it all apart for public consumption. Having given birth, should you now tell all the gory details of how baby was made and then serve him up on a snack tray?

When you write a poem, do you start with something to say or do you just let it all come out? Do you start with a scheme of rhyme, rhythm, and meter, and force the words to fit? Or do you write it all down and then arrange the mechanics around the words? Or do you just ignore all the rules in a fit of laissez faire poenomics?

So, yeah. This was one of those rants that just belches out now and then. Pebble Chaser recently wrote about how night writing is different than day writing. I'm thinking she was right.

Keep Moving

Satisfaction with stagnation is repugnant and eventually fatal. We are land sharks of a sort. We die if we stop moving forward for too long. The same happens in our relationships. Everyone is always moving in some direction, even when they appear to be set in concrete. If two people in a relationship stop moving forward, they stop being real people and start becoming topsoil. If one stops while the other does not, the first becomes an anchor whose cable often isn’t strong enough to hold them together. Likewise, if they begin moving in opposite directions, the relationship can’t last for long. It’s work together, always moving forward, or die.

Webb on Friends and Lovers

Michael Webb seems like a pretty smart guy sometimes. In December's edition of Secrets of Blissful Relationships he wrote,

Every blissful relationship is built on a solid friendship. Not on awesome s.ex, religious beliefs or common dreams and goals -- all those things can change over time - the only thing you can count on to remain is a strong and loving friendship....Save any sort of physical connection (hugging, kissing, holding hands, etc.) until AFTER you have already become close friends and are ready for the next stage. It should be RARE that you actually make it past the friendship stage.

The best friendships can survive just about anything, because very few attacks come from every possible direction simultaneously. When you're shopping for a spouse, look for someone with whom you can connect on as many possible levels as possible without getting too creepy. You'll never find a perfect 100% connection, but you don't want that anyway. Because everyone changes over time, you can only go downhill from a perfect match. The connections you have must be strong enough to stretch and regrow in other ways without breaking the relationship. Some of those connections are vital, but most of them should be able to come and go without breaking the friendship.

A few ways to connect:

• Morality
• Intellect
• Athletics
• Spirituality
• Religion
• Hobbies
• Fun
• Mutual friendships
• Missions and Causes
• Politics

Those are just a few obvious things that come to the top of my head. There must be a million more.

P.S. You can subscribe to Mr. Webb's newsletter by sending a message to: secrets-on@mail-list.com.

No One Knows II

Not only can one man never know the depths of suffering or joy in another man's heart, but no man can know the depths of any emotional state in another's heart. I have said that I don't believe mere humans are capable of unconditional love, but what is my belief to reality? I don't really know how anyone else can love, just as they don't know how I can love. One man will give up his life with no hope of gain in this world or the next. Another man can love five women with the same intensity and passion that other men love only one. One man can love and hate at the same time. Yet another man cannot love at all, and another man knows only hate.

We feel and experience our own lives, and we build a template through which we gauge all future events. Then we take our template and judge other men by it. What pathetic little morons we are.

(Don't mistake this for a misapplication of the "judge not, lest ye be judged" principle. I'm only talking about what a man feels, not what he does. That's a whole other story.)

No One Knows

No one knows the troubles I've seen. I believe that's the essense of what Solomon meant by Proverbs 14:10.

The heart knoweth its own bitterness; and a stranger doth not intermeddle with its joy.

Everyone has his own emotional and spiritual pain thresholds. One person endures the loss of his job, his family, and his health, and carries on. Another person loses an illusion and collapses into substance abuse and cycles of self destruction. We can see who is stronger, but who is to say who suffers the most? Only God can really see the heart; only He knows the real depth and cause of our wounds. Thankfully, He also knows what will bring us the greatest joy. No one else does.

In the Interests of Sensitivity

Over the last twenty years there have been a lot of pushes for name changes in the interest of sensitivity to Native Americans, even when the Native Americans in question hadn’t even realized that they ought to be feeling sensitive. There’s the Redskins, the Seminoles, the Chiefs, etc. If we’re really concerned with doing the right thing here, we can’t stop with sports teams. Naming a team after an Indian tribe or archetype is supposed to be something of a complement.

(BTW, why won’t anyone stand up for all those poor North Carolina Renos and Dumonts suffering under the oppression of Duke University and their Blue Devils!?)

A few more names I think we should seriously consider changing:

• Alabama
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Illinois
• Sioux City
• Iowa
• North and South Dakota
• Utah
• Saskatchewan
• Minnesota
• Indiana (!!!)
• Cheyenne

There are countless more! Think of all those poor people whose names were taken and mutilated so callously. How can the descendants of the Cherokee go on living, knowing there’s a Cherokee, Alabama, just mocking them from their former homeland?

The Ancient Roots of Palestine and Palestinians

Someone recently asked, “If ‘Palestine’ is such an ancient country why is it not mentioned in ancient history?”

Actually it is. The same word is found all through the Old Testament, so obviously it was mentioned in the histories of at least one ancient people. Palestine is an English corruption of a Latin corruption of Pilishti, which we more commonly know from the Bible as Philistine.

That kind of corruption happens with words all the time. Think of Jesus, which came from Iesus, which came from Yeshua. Or Jay, which came from Jayco, which came from Iago, which came from Yaakov.

The Philistines (not the Palestinians) would have a prior claim to part of the land of Israel, if it weren’t for that inconvenient thing about God taking the land away from the Philistines and Canaanites and giving it to the Israelites. The modern Palestinians are just Arabs who happen to live within a political boundary once bearing that name, and are not actually related to the ancient Philistines at all.

Once upon a time, Jews, who lived in the territory known as Palestine before it became the State of Israel, were known as Palestinians, but few of the people we now call Palestinians would claim them as ancestors.

There doesn’t appear to be an actual ethnic group of people that anyone can accurately call “Palestinians.” It’s a little like claiming to be of the Pennsylvanian race. There are Pennsylvanians, but they’re only called that because they live in Pennsylvania, not because they’re really a distinctive race of people

Pride, Fear, & Polygamophobia

Eloquent as ever, Mizazeez wrote,

i suppose my struggle has never been with polygyny in general. i suppose my struggle was more personal. my husband taking another wife triggered pre-existing insecurities and animosity that would have surfaced at some other time due to some other circumstance had my husband not had polygynous endeavors.

That is true in almost everything. Our problems are almost always of our own making. Our attitudes–our baggage–are behind almost every human conflict. God created men and women to be married in a particular relationship to one another, and it is not a relationship of equal partners. In Genesis 3:16 God told women (via Eve) that they will be in an eternal struggle against their pride and drive to rule their husbands. That is the true patriarchal curse of Eve, not that she would be ruled by her husband, but that she and all of her descendants would each have to battle and defeat their own Jezebel in order to be content in life as God meant it to be lived. This desire is like (perhaps more than “like”) a living creature, and it must be fought as such.

Our culture’s monogamous, polygamophobic dogma relieves wives of a large part of this battle. It tells them that it is OK to surrender to Jezebel in this one area. “It’s OK to rule your husband in this way,” it says, “because you’re equal.” Never mind the inherent contradiction of ruling an equal, and never mind that this one surrender gives the enemy a beachhead by which he can conquer the whole woman. Likewise, it tells men that they are perverts or domineering control freaks if they ever feel the slightest desire for another woman or if they entertain even a thought that the other woman might be a good addition to his family. Wives build a fortress of pride and indignation around this little kingdom and hold it over their husbands’ heads, constantly threatening and manipulating.

There are three evidences that this jealously guarded fortress is actually territory surrendered to fear.
First, godly women are to follow the examples of the Hebrew matriarchs, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel, in their relationships with their husbands. Three of those four women insisted on sharing their husbands with other women. While they were still motivated by fear or jealousy, those motivations led them to surrender more control to their husbands.

Second, most women would sooner tolerate multiple, temporary, and adulterous affairs than share their husband with a second wife. Not only does promiscuity put her husband’s soul at risk, but it puts both of them at risk of disease. Despite recent propaganda to the contrary, polygyny is no more conducive to the spread of disease than is monogamy. Women will tolerate sin and death before considering true submission.
Third, wives who are otherwise submissive and honorable are likely to enter an immediate rage at the prospect of a second wife. They will give in to the urge to hate, lie, and abuse, but will not give in to their husbands.

These are not characteristics of righteousness and love, but of fear and pride. They are only and thoroughly evil.

The Blind Leading Themselves

Scientists Find Lamprey A ‘Living Fossil': 360 Million-year-old Fish Hasn’t Evolved Much

Scientists from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the University of Chicago have uncovered a remarkably well-preserved fossil lamprey from the Devonian period that reveals today’s lampreys as “living fossils” since they have remained largely unaltered for 360 million years.

DNA, red blood cells in T-Rex bones, dozens of “living fossils”, dozens of other low-age indicators…If scientists didn’t already know better, you’d almost think that those fossils couldn’t possibly be 360 million years old. Don’t anyone open your eyes, now! I wouldn’t want you to have to face the fact that your entire life’s work has been a complete waste of time.

Girls Will Be Girls

In honor of the Glasgow city councilthings, I have searched through all of the articles in my blog and altered as many gender-neutral terms as possible into the appropriate androcentricisms.

Don’t thank me, love. Just doing my part.

Girlz Az Boyz

You know what’s worse than McBrows?

OK, well, maybe nothing.

But you know what’s about as bad as McBrows? Girls dressing like boys. I don’t just mean tom boys or unfeminine girls. I mean girls who deliberately dress to look like boys. I know of a young woman who always wears a ball cap turned to the side, over-sized pants pulled half-way down to her knees, and an over-sized shirt (or three) usually untucked. She has a pretty face and a nice figure, too.

That is about as tasteless as it gets.

Your Own Worst Enemy

The things that you do to yourself are much worse than what anyone has ever done to you.

Your hate, your anger, your bitterness--none of that can hurt anyone but you. The abuse that you do to yourself you blame on what someone else did to you a long time ago, but it's only been you since then. The longer you hang onto it, the more damage you will do to yourself and, through you, to those you love.

Public Pansy Factories

A Massachussetts public school has banned tag and apparently dodge-ball, too. Their poor little kiddies might get hurt.

What a bunch of freakin' pansies! Kids get hurt. They're supposed to. Celeste D'Elia, grow up! Better yet, let your son grow up, because he never will if you allow feeling safe to be a priority. He will be a dependent and a slave for his entire life, all because of you, his own mother.

The rest of you (poor Celeste is too helpless and dependent on the dole to be able to run her own life), get your kids out of that stupid school. Get them out of ALL public schools and any private school that wants to treat your children like pretty little flowers. Your kids are not decorations. They are your future. If they can't deal with a scraped knee or a bloody nose, how are they going to deal with war? I'll tell you right now. They will run and hide and beg for the privilege of putting their necks under the heels of whatever oppressor promises the greatest personal comfort. They will be cattle begging to be fattened.

Yes, that's harsh. Deal with it.

Interview with Stanley Shepp

Recently the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stanley Shepp’s right to talk to his own daughter about his religious beliefs. This is a huge victory in the midst of a culture that seems to be rushing head-long into institutionalized misandry. Groups such as the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, and Tapestry Against Polygamy have fought relentlessly to erase all meaningful paternal rights. Mr. Shepp kept fighting despite early rulings against him, and we all owe him our gratitude for his perseverence. His win has been a win for all parents.

While Mr. Shepp has declined other media interviews, he has graciously agreed to answer some questions for us. Here are the questions and answers, completely unedited. Some of what he has to say was discouraging. For example, the willingness of some news outlets and courts to uncritically accept the claims of those with whom they already agree. However, most of what he says is very encouraging. Some courts and many regular Americans still believe in freedom of religion and keeping out of their neighbor’s business.


Jay: Where did you live when this fight began?
Stanley M Shepp: York, PA

Jay: How did your community and church there react?
Stanley M Shepp: I was excommunicated from the LDS church.

Jay: Where do you live now?
Stanley M Shepp: St. George, Utah.

Jay: How has that community and church reacted?
Stanley M Shepp: The LDS church here does not allow me to attend any activities. I currently attend meetings with a Mormon Fundamentalist Group.

Jay: How has your extended family reacted?
Stanley M Shepp: My family generally supports and loves me. They may not agree with my beliefs, but they know that I would never do anything to harm my daughter.

Jay: How have those reactions affected your personal life?
Stanley M Shepp: Minimally.

Jay: Do you (or did you) work for another company?
Stanley M Shepp: I changed jobs when I left Pennsylvania and came to Utah.

Jay: How has this fight affected your work environment?
Stanley M Shepp: My work environment is fine. Some people know and some people do not. Those who know have been supportive.

Jay: How has this fight affected your relationship with your daughter?
Stanley M Shepp: For the past 4 years, it has allowed others to discuss with her their views of my religious beliefs – while denying my right to correct any misstatements. While my ex-wife denies badmouthing me or my beliefs to my daughter, she has also stated that my daughter is afraid that I will marry her off to some old man now that she is 13. My daughter should have no such fear.

Jay: Was your ex-wife motivated more by concern for what you might actually do or by a gut reaction against the very idea of polygamy?
Stanley M Shepp: A woman named Carmen Thompson motivated my ex-wife. Ms. Thompson is an anti-polygamy activist who is affiliated with Tapestry Against Polygamy. Ms. Thompson moved from Utah to York, Co. PA and did everything that she could to stir up a contentious environment with mine and my wife’s ex-spouses.

Jay: Do you think your ex-wife will appeal?
Stanley M Shepp: I doubt it. The ruling was 5-1 in my favor. There were two different arguments in my favor. She would have an extremely difficult case and I doubt that the US Supreme Court would even hear it.

Jay: What was the most frightening aspect and moment of all of this?
Stanley M Shepp: The fear that the judge would believe my ex-step-daughter’s stories.

Jay: How did judges and others in the court system react to your patriarchal beliefs?
Stanley M Shepp: Some seemed repulsed, some seemed supportive, some seemed understanding. The Supreme Court Judge that I felt was obviously repulsed, was the woman who wrote the majority opinion in my favor. So I might not be a very good judge of how their reactions appeared. I assume now that she was repulsed that the lower court ever wrote an opinion that would trample a man’s freedom of religion and his freedom of speech all in one ruling.

Jay: Did you attempt to downplay your more controversial beliefs in court?
Stanley M Shepp: Surely we did. My religious beliefs are not that big of a deal. While they are deeply held, they are not harmful to anyone – and as such, were insignificant to the custody case. My ex-wife’s continuous accusations that I wanted to “marry her off” to some old man were preposterous and based on Carmen Thompson’s fear mongering.
I do acknowledge that her fears are real, like a child who is afraid of the monster under the bed. The fear is real, but it is not based on reality.

Jay: Did you ever have problems with child protective services or similar agencies?
Stanley M Shepp: They interviewed me based on my ex-step-daughter’s accusations. The interview took about 3 minutes. Apparently, the investigator had already concluded, from her interviews with that step-daughter, that her stories were fabricated and that the agency was going to being used for leverage in a custody case.

Jay: Has there been a lot of publicity around your fight?
Stanley M Shepp: Only when we talk to the press. My ex-wife interviewing with Montel Williams after the Superior Court ruling, and with Geraldo Rivera after this ruling were only scrapped after I refused to interview with them. I am of the opinion that the publicity is not good for my daughter. My ex-wife apparently believes that it is good for her, since she has repeatedly invited these people into her home and allowed them to interview my daughter.

Jay: What kind of publicity did you have around the adverse lower court rulings?
Stanley M Shepp: It was in newspapers around the free world. The Abramms report called, Montel Williams called. My ex-wife thrived on the publicity. I was lured in to interviewing with the AP and the local newspaper. I learned that they were not necessarily after the truth, but they were out to sell newspapers.

Jay: How much did the fight cost you?
Stanley M Shepp: The cost is immeasurable. Financially, an exact number could be placed on it, but I do not know exactly how much. I would say over $10,000, less than $20,000. Emotionally, the cost was extensive. The constant emotional stress proved to be too much for my current wife. The loss of that relationship was largely due to the constant attacks by My ex-wife and her ex-husband.

Jay: Have you received financial, legal, or other help from anyone?
Stanley M Shepp: My attorney believed in the importance of this case and the ruling and did much of the research and writing of the appeals pro bono.

Jay: How do you think this judgement will relate to cases involving homosexual parents or parents with any other controversial lifestyles or beliefs?
Stanley M Shepp: I believe that it will allow them to discuss their beliefs and lifestyles with their children.

Jay: You wrote, “This case, in my mind, was about the rights of *every* Pennsylvania parent to discuss their religious beliefs with their children.” What would you say to people who object that your arguments could be used to allow a Satanist or pedophile to teach his beliefs to his children?
Stanley M Shepp: While I might disagree with Satanists, it is not illegal to be a Satanist. Pedophilia is certainly a crime, but it should not be illegal for a parent to discuss those things with their children. What if someone is a pedophile, knows it, and is doing their best to not act on those impulses. They may feel that it would be wise for them to explain that to their child at some point. “Janey, we cannot have your friends stay the night at our house. I suffer from an extreme and often uncontrollable attraction to young girls. It would be better for you to spend the night at their house instead.”

Jay: You wrote, “I do not look forward to the court case that will be generated by my desire to have [my daughter] come [to Utah].” What court case is that?
Stanley M Shepp: I am required to give a two week written notice of my intent to take my daughter out of the state. I was already found guilty of contempt of court for taking her to Maryland – after obtaining her mother’s verbal approval. I am sure that when I give written notice, that they will file for a hearing and a judge will have to decide if I can bring her to Utah or not.

Jay: How will this ruling affect the cases of other fathers in Utah, Texas, or any other state who might want to teach their children about the acceptability of polygamy?
Stanley M Shepp: I am not a legal expert, but my understanding is that an attorney in another state could use my case as the basis of their argument. The judges in other states would not be bound by that ruling, because the jurisdiction does not overlap. If it is appealed to the Supreme Court – and they refuse to listen to it or they side with me, then it would be more binding on other states.

Jay: What was the most damaging argument against you?
Stanley M Shepp: My ex-step-daughter’s testimony that I touched her inappropriately and proposed to her. Her argument was less damaging in the second case (my wife’s case with her ex-husband over custody of their children) The testimony in that case was elevated to another level. The accusations were worse and the testimony was intended to be more damaging. Our attorney presented the first testimony and questioned why the two stories were not consistent with each other. The girl was obviously at a loss for an answer – and in essence caught in her lies. The judge in that case put much less emphasis on her testimony.
When we heard her testimony at the end of my case – my attorney asked if there was anything else that I wanted to have offered as testimony, and I said that I wanted an opportunity to deny those accusations under oath. He advised against it, but I insisted. It was a good thing that I answered them. On one point that I did not offer counter testimony, one of the judges later commented that such-and-such an accusation was not denied – indicating that it was quite likely true. It was more a case of my attorney not asking me about it and so I did not have the opportunity to respond to it.

Jay: What was the most important argument in your favor?
Stanley M Shepp: The most important argument on our side was the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and supported in the Yoder v. Wisconsin US Supreme Court ruling. One of the PA Supreme Court Justices, during our oral arguments, asked my ex-wife’s attorney the following question: “In the Yoder v. Wisconsin case, prior to the US Supreme Court ruling, would it have been illegal for the Yoder parents to discuss home schooling with the Yoder children?” The attorney answered, “Well, no.” The Supreme Court Justice sat back in his chair and said, “Well, if there is a difference between that case and this case, I would like to know what it is.” My ex-wife’s attorney stuttered and stammered – “Well, this is about polygamy, not home schooling.” It was apparent to me that this justice’s mind was already made up.

A Man Ahead of My Times

Scientists have developed a metamaterial to bend light waves around an object, potentially making an object invisible. It doesn’t work well, yet, and only works for microwaves, but it’s a step in the right direction. Years ago I wrote a short story about an assassin who wore a material that worked in almost the exact same way as this stuff.

The relevant passage:

The laser impacts hadn’t penetrated Heron's suit, but they had overloaded the light channels wherever they hit. There were circular burn marks–about the size of quarters–at the precise points where the focused light had touched him. Where the channels had overloaded from trying to conduct the laser light around him, there were triangular, rainbow patterns like oil slicks.

Silly Republocrats

Jim Drinkard of the AP wrote,

"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell said at a breakfast session Friday in Washington. "I hope she's the candidate, because nothing will energize my (constituency) like Hillary Clinton," he said. "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."
Clinton press secretary Philippe Reines said Sunday, "Working for someone who believes in the Golden Rule, we're not going to engage in such vitriolic discourse, but it seems that a new low has been reached in demonizing political opponents."
…The Rev. Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, "I don't know why Jerry Falwell always has to drag politics into the gutter."

So? This is a news story? A conservative makes a half-joking, but realistic observation, and liberals start name calling. You might as well run a headline declaring, "Dog Bites Man."

I don’t know much about Jerry Falwell, and I suspect I don’t want to, but what did he say that was so bad? He didn’t say Clinton is Lucifer (even if she might be). Change a couple of names and see how ridiculous Reines and Lynn are being: "I certainly hope that James Dobson is the Republican candidate," Jesse Jackson said. "I hope he’s the candidate, because nothing will energize Democratic voters like James Dobson. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

My response would be, "Duh." It's like they're getting all offended because someone called a clear sky blue. Democrats act like rebellious little children doing the exact opposite of whatever their parents say, and Republicans are like horrified parents over-reacting and getting out the belt at any little excuse. Or maybe it’s the other way around. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

A pox on both their petty little houses.

Vote, Schmote

Mark Call:

This quote from Sam Adams seems apropos: “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

…I would point out that our Founding Document posits that government is based on the “consent of the governed”. Before there were violent protests, or even petitions for redress of grievance, there was a recognition, by a small plurality at least, that what King George was doing was NOT being done in their name, or with their consent, active or tacit.

I contend that the same cannot be said by any other than a much smaller minority today.

Do you call yourself a “US citizen” and ask for permission (licenses) to marry, drive, buy a gun, assemble in public, or do any of a thousand other things that Real Men like the “sons of liberty” knew were Rights from God, not concessions from Massa? Do you deal in dishonest weights and measures and think you’re paying with “money”, or that debts can be discharged with debt? Do you call yourself a “Christian” but submit to a “church” which submits to Caesar, expects a 501c3 blessing from him, and agrees to preach the PC Line in order to stay in its master’s good graces? Do you send “your” children off to master’s indoctrination centers, and lick his boots for stealing from your neighbor so you could do so for “free”? Do you think that Congressmen who lie, commit treason, and violate their oaths somehow “represent” you?

Do you vote? And silently lend credibility to the whole sordid lie?

Sam Adams was right.

Step One: Withdraw consent. “Come out of her, my people”!

Jay Carper:

I’ve heard two good but opposing arguments on whether or not a God fearing man should vote in modern America. The first argument says that regardless of whether or not our votes are heard or counted by other men, there is still a spiritual effect in simply making our will known, in standing up and saying, “This is what we should do and this is how we should behave.” It doesn’t matter that the people we vote for won’t actually do what they say; it is more important that we voice our agreement to their words even if we condemn their actions. If Washington isn’t listening, Somebody Else is. The second argument says that by voting we are giving our consent to the very system that seeks to enslave us, and we should withdraw our consent and cooperation wherever possible.

I think both arguments are good. But I am leaning toward Mark’s. I might vote on specific propositions, but I refuse to vote for thieves and murderers, regardless of how much they speak peace and love. By voting for them, we aren’t just consenting to their words. We know who and what they are, and that is what we are really choosing with our ballots.

No, thank you. There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and the third parties will not be allowed to win. I don’t need a ballot to stand up right here and proclaim right and wrong.

Mark Call:

I'll add a bit more fuel to the fire, Jay.

I contend that the issue is not even so much the simple choice of lesser evils... but whether we acknowledge the god of this world by submitting to the process he says is our only valid option.

Don't forget that you must "register" and declare yourself "under the jurisdiction thereof" in order to be allowed the privilege of "voting" for anything, whether or not you later decide to refrain for exercising said franchise in the Molech vs Satan matchup, or even the local Ahab vs. Rehoboam contest.

An thought experiment I heard some time ago is instructive:

Suppose we go to dinner, and I unexpectedly jump up and announce to the other diners, "My friend here will buy dinner for ALL of us; all we have to do in this democratic land is vote for him to do so! All in favor, raise your right hand." After the sea of hands is noted, I look for the votes of those opposed.

Question: Is your case enhanced more by sheepishly raising your hand in opposition, or announcing that you will not consent to the farce and leaving?

Summarized metaphorically, I'd still have to argue that, "Come out of her, My people...be not a partaker of her plagues" doesn't mean vote for funding disease studies…

Egregious Confessions

Recently someone sent me a link to the most depressing and irritating web sites I have ever seen: True Wife Confessions. It's just hundreds of women complaining about their husbands or bragging about how they lied and cheated and got away with it. It sounds like some of them are really in bad situations. Their husbands are rats, and they've tried everything they can think of to make things better, but nothing has worked. Most of them are just whining incompetents who are just as much to blame as their husbands, trying to play the usual childish canards of "you should have known" or "it's not what I say; it's how I say it!"

Their number one problem? They never said anything, or they never said it in a way that made sense to him.

703, it's not your fault that his breath stinks, but it's your fault that you never said anything.

701, you're beautiful!

706, you should have listened to your grandmother and kept your pants zipped until you were married. That one is totally your fault.

707, it sounds like your husband and 725 deserve each other.

601, you want to continue subjecting your kids to an abusive, perverted, awful man every day of the week for the next ten or more years, because you don't want them to be around him for the occassional weekend? What!?? Trust me. If he's as bad as you say, then he won't want to spend that much time with them.

604, you need to tell him exactly what's going on. If you trick him into something, he will hate you and maybe even your "accident." You need to find a way to convince him how important this is to you.

596, maybe he was a jerk about it, but what does your laziness have to do with his hair loss?

600, you had better tell him! Don't you dare surprise him with that!

590, you are lower than a snake. Respect is the first thing you owe your husband. If you can't even act like you respect him (even if you don't) then what good are you?

574, it seems like such a tiny thing, doesn't it. Snacks aren't the only things you hide, are they? Why is it so hard to speak up about such a little thing? They will only get bigger.

568, you don't love your husband. Living with him for so long, some of it should have rubbed off by now.

527, why in the world would he want another chance with you? I'd be afraid to touch you for the diseases you probably carry! Did it ever even occur to you to talk to your husband or try counseling before you bedded half the Internet?

354, you're beautiful too!

349, please ask him to do something about it.

332, say it, already! Tell him how you feel.

325, yes you do.

320, instead of belly dancing lessons, try an English grammar refresher. Then maybe look for a class on honesty and integrity.

285, you really should tell him that. I think he'll understand.

114, it won't be pleasant, but you have to talk to him about it. You're right. He has to grow up, but a child has to be taught. They don't learn proper behavior on their own. However, you aren't the one to teach him. You're just the one to point out the need in as tactful a manner as possible.

116, you're not in love. You're a selfish little brat who didn't get nearly enough beatings as a child.

109, please, sugar face, honey bunch...won't you just say something to the only man in the world who actually cares? Your husband?

91, I'd like to remind you that we can't punish someone for something they didn't do...but I think I understand.

81, if he's snoring away, that probably means he's asleep. Has it occurred to you that you can't blame him for something he doesn't even know about?

51, get over it. Really.

57, I know you probably think he should just understand that instinctively, but he's not a woman. Most men are different. Just tell him what you need, because he'll never be able to figure it out otherwise.

21, why do you let him go through all that work when you know you won't appreciate it. Instead of being such an unintentional leach, why don't you tell him what you would really like?

19, you'd get a hell of a lot more if you just told him so.

20, why do you even care if your husband means the words that some total stranger actually wrote? Why don't you ask him for a hand-made card. It might seem childish to him while he's doing it, but he'll mean everything it says, and he'll keep doing it if you reward him right.

3. Coward.

6, you're beautiful too.

7, don't be such a twit. If you want something you have to say it. He's not telepathic and neither are you, so don't expect him to suddenly become a mind reader even after 50 years.

Here's my confession: I have the same problem. By the time I figured out that I had to actually tell my wife what I wanted, the things I wanted had become too numerous and too big for her to do anything about them.

C for Could Have Been Great

...but their aim was off. V for Vendetta has a lot of things going for it, but a lot wrong with it too. I have never read the comic books, so understand that my comments refer only to the movie.

Violence. Vendetta is a violent movie. Violence, of itself, isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's necessary. Our very civilization is in part built on the idea that some problems must be solved with violence. The police and military carry weapons for that reason, as do many private citizens. Most of us do not see that as a problem so long as those weapons are not abused. Unfortunately, those who intend to abuse their weapons usually do disagree, which is why the German government disarmed its people years before the extent of their depravity became obvious to everyone. It is also why corrupt politicians still use fear to manipulate their people into willingly surrender their weapons today.

The character of V is violent and brutally so. Somewhere in the course of his sufferings, he lost all normal compunctions against the use of violence to accomplish a goal. He is consumed by his hatred and bitterness. Destruction, sadism, and killing are their fruit. In his defense, I must say that brutality sometimes calls for brutality in return. The film-makers don't appear to intend to promote violence, however much they use it to attract viewers. In that, they are simply catering to a market, giving people what they will pay to see.

Terrorism. Terrorism has been defined as the use of violence to induce fear in order to accomplish a goal. Unfortunately, that's a near meaningless definition. All politics is terrorism by that standard. If you don't want your city taking your house to build a shopping mall, there really isn't anything you can do about it anymore. If you try, then men with guns will stop you. They don't really want to shoot you, and probably won't as long as you are fearful enough to stop short of using your own gun. They are, therefore, terrorists. They use violence or the threat of violence to induce fear and compliance in you.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the "terrorism" of V and the terrorism of Hezbollah. V never once targets children or innocent bystanders. He kills soldiers, thugs, and corrupt politicians, all legitimate war-time targets by almost any standards. Hezbollah, on the other hand, deliberately targets the most innocent and unsuspecting people they can find. Even in the special features, the film-makers continuously refer to V as a terrorist, but they are terribly mistaken.

Religion. Religion is portrayed as the rallying cry of the totalitarian government. As a religious man, that rubs me the wrong way a little. But only a little. It is a fact that religion has very often been used as the excuse of power-seekers to root out and persecute dissenters and to rally support for one cause or another. They seldom actually believe their own lies; religion is only their tool. That seemed to be the case here, too. It would have been nice, however, if one or two of the protaganists had displayed an appreciation for true religion.

Homosexuality. There are so many more deserving groups of people the writers could have chosen to champion. Unlike the movie's violence, it was overwhelmingly obvious that the homosexual content was meant to be promotional. It seemed that at every turn homosexuals were lifted up as a persecuted nobility. The writers condemned the preaching of one kind of morality, while serving up their own, which actually runs counter to what has been held by the majority of people in our own society, and indeed throughout the entire world and all its history.

There is nothing noble about homosexuality or its practitioners. Don't get me wrong. I am certain there are some very good people, even noble people, who also happen to be homosexuals. But it is not what they do in bed that makes them noble, and neither does standing up to torture and death for their right to commit sodomy. That just makes them terribly misguided and a poor heroic focus for a film.

I would love to say that V for Vendetta is a great movie, but it's not. It could have been if they had chosen to elevate a persecuted minority whom I could respect. Fahrenheit 451 is great. V for Vendetta is such a disappointment. In fact, because it promotes behavior that my God says should be punished by death, I cannot even allow it into my house again.

The Sins of the Father

I wrote this last year, but it fits today better....

The Sins of the Father
December 7, 2005

Today I sent a letter to my father,
Hoping his disappointment was misplaced.
Every line that I crossed was farther.
Since I left his house I've raced
In every direction to find my own.
Now here, now there, ever challenging
Social convention and his shadow-cone.
Orbiting, none-the-less, still following,
Falling in the shadow: his long life of love.
There is little else that I could ask for.
His approval, though, I'm still short of.
Every day I thank God as He keeps score,
For those small things that we do right
All eclipse our greater wickedness,
That in His mercy and His might,
His curse goes down just four or less.
Every blessing, though, goes through a thousand.
Remember, son, your father's works, less sin.

Ephesians 5:21-33

In this oft-quoted passage, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that between a husband and wife: just as Christ has direct authority over the church, so does a husband have direct authority over his wife.

Paul says that wives should willingly put themselves under the authority of their husbands in every area of life. This does not mean that women are inferior to men in value or in importance to God's plan. On the contrary, as evidenced by Genesis 2, most men can never be truly complete without a woman. This also does not mean that a woman must obey her husband's every command as if he was God incarnate. It makes sense to interpret Paul's command in much the same way as his previous injunction to obey civil authorities: obey as long as obedience does not require you to sin. Obedience falls in line with God's purpose for creating Eve to assist Adam.

Husbands have a definite role to fulfill in marriage as well. A husband is to love his wife in the same manner that Christ loved the church. He taught the disciples and nurtured them in His ways, then He gave up his life in our place, so that we could join Him as a virgin bride--for the impure in sin could never be one with a holy God. Likewise, a husband should be a spiritual teacher and the high priest of his family. He should be willing to sacrifice nearly everything for the spiritual well-being of his wife and family. By doing so, he will also strengthen himself in spirit and in character.

See Mutual Submission in Marriage? Paul’s Real Meaning in Ephesians 5:22-33 and Mutual Submission in Marriage? Part two for a more thorough treatment of this passage.

Check It or Chuck It

If you’re only getting one side of a story that makes someone sound pretty bad, you have a few options:

1. Swallow it, hook, line, and sinker.
2. Check the facts, or at least get the other side of the story
3. Chuck it and the baby too.

Can’t decide? Let me help:

Lev 19:16 You shall not go as a slanderer among your people; you shall not stand against the blood of your neighbor. I am YHWH.

Deu 19:15-20 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before YHWH, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

Pro 11:13 One going with slander is a revealer of secrets, but the faithful of spirit keeps the matter hidden.

Pro 20:19 A gossip is a revealer of secrets; so do not mix with him who flatters with his lips.

So you heard something bad about someone? Either check it or chuck it. If it doesn’t hurt you then it’s probably better just to chuck it.

Roman Generals and German Mercenaries in Lebanon

This is just about the most bizarre bit of history repeating itself that I have ever read before eight o'clock in the morning:

An Italian coalition leader said Rome would be willing to lead the military peace mission in Lebanon should the United Nations ask it to, while Germany’s chancellor said Monday she is confident that Europe will contribute ground troops.

Rome leading a military peace mission using German mercenaries? Pax Romana? If the AP had been around, they could just about have written this paragraph in 150 AD.

Real Love

Love is like a manager with three employees. The manager told the employees of a new company program that would bring more paperwork and more hassle of all kinds. The first employee said, "You know that this program won't accomplish its stated goals. It will only hurt productivity, and I refuse to be part of a program that will only cost you your job." Then he returned to his office and pushed all of the new paperwork into his garbage can. The second employee said, "This is such a great idea! I've been looking for an opportunity just like it. You can count on me." Then he returned to his office, stacked the new paperwork on the corner of his desk, and put it out of his mind. The third employee said, "This is such a load of crap! My job was hard enough already, and now you pile this on me too? I can't do this." Then he returned to his office and began working on the new paperwork.

Each of these men displayed an element of love. The first man showed some concern for his superior, and that's admirable. Unfortunately, he didn't really do anything helpful. In fact, his defiance cost the team the benefit of his knowledge and labor. Lost time and delayed projects probably made the manager look even worse. The second man showed a great attitude. He felt good about his manager and made his manager feel good too. At least for a little while. At least the first employee performed according to expectations. The second employee added lying to insubordination. The third employee didn't make anyone feel good. He complained and acted as if he wouldn't contribute to the new program at all. However, he was the only one of the three who actually attempted to do the work. At the end of the week, the third employee was the only one who kept his job. He was the only one who showed any meaningful love for his manager.

Good feelings and good words are great. Everyone loves to be in love, to feel warm and fuzzy and glowing. Those things are important, and all of the best marriages will have them. However, being "in love" is such a minor thing in the whole of real love. All the good feelings in the world don't help anyone except the one who has them. The object of your affections can't feel your affection. It won't keep them warm at night or dress their wounds, or encourage them when they're down. Love, to mean anything at all, must be expressed. Not just in words, because words, though still important, aren't much better than feelings. Love must be expressed through action. I can have all the affection in the world for you, but if I don't do anything for you, what good is it? Being in love without doing the things that love entails is the ultimate expression of selfishness. It denies the object of your affection any benefits, hogging them all to yourself.

The most important part of love is what you do, not how you feel or what you say.

The Role of the Poor

When Yeshua said we will always have the poor with us, he wasn't necessarily being fatalistic. He wasn't commenting on greed or hopelessness. He was saying two things (that I can think of off the top of my head):

First, the poor–or rather, the less fortunate, because there is an extreme parsity of real poverty in America–will always be with us, because that's the way God wants it. Giving to the poor is a command and carries physical and spiritual benefits for the giver. God wants us to have an opportunity to experience those benefits, so he arranges for some people to have more than others. The "War on Poverty" and mass charities are misguided and counter to the way God wants charity to work. They actually create more poverty due to economic processes, which were probably designed by God in part to ensure that there would always be an upper and a lower economic class.

That doesn't necessarily mean that some people are destined to be poor while others destined to be wealthy, nor that we should never help the poor so much that they aren't poor anymore. I'm not talking about divine right and I'm not preaching Hinduism. It just means that we shouldn't worry too much about it. Don't try to save the world. Help those you can help personally, and let God take care of the rest.

Which leads me to the second point I believe Yeshua was making: keep your priorities straight. If everyone spent all their time helping the poor, then we would all very quickly become the poor. Everyone has their mission, their ministry, and it might change from time to time. You have to keep your eyes open, spiritual and physical, and realize that, no matter how emotionally charged a problem might be, there could be more important things for you to worry about. If every pilot or tanker ditched in order to pull a wounded soldier off the field, the war would soon be lost.

Mexican Standoff in Lebanon

Hezbollah says they won’t agree to a cease fire until Israel pulls out of Lebanon. Israel says they won’t pull out of Lebanon or agree to a cease fire until the UN sends more peacekeeping troops. The UN says they won’t send peacekeepers until Israel agrees to a cease fire.

Huh. OK. Let’s see….

The Israeli government is as full of politicians as any other government. They can’t seem to figure out which end is the front and which is the back lately. Since they’re politicians, that might actually be a good thing. Competent (but not necessarily sane or honest) politicians are about the scariest and deadliest things on the planet.

There’s no question about trusting Hezbollah to keep their word. You’d have to be completely insane (or an incurable democrat, which might be the same thing) to think they would really stop shooting at Jews as long as a single Jew still breathes.

And the UN? Ha! Ha! LOL! Hoo! ROFLOL! Oh, man! Stop it!

Let me catch my breath…

I think what the situation really needs is a Josiah to clean house inside of Israel and a Gideon to clean everyone else’s house. No more games, no more PR campaigns, only justice.

Will that bring a lasting peace? Not unless that Josiah and Gideon come in the singular person of the returning Messiah Yeshua. Even so, come Adonai Yeshua.

Feminism's Unintended Consequences

At Eternal Bachelor, Duncan Idaho commented on an Independent News article:

When you take into account housing benefit and things like not having to pay Council Tax, prescriptions, etc, single mothers tend to have more income than single people and often more than a couple who both work full-time.

If you reward skank behaviour rather than punish it, you will encourage skank behaviour. Obviously.

This is both good and bad. The article states,

An extensive study published today reveals that girls as young as 13 are making a "career choice" by deciding to have children, since they see parenting as preferable to working in a dead-end job.

Most of the subjects of the report are not actually children--or at least they shouldn't be acting like children. By the time a girl is fifteen years old, she should be behaving like an adult and she should have been well prepared by her parents to be a wife and mother. Fifteen is past childhood and on the border of womanhood. A nineteen year old should be fully a woman. That's when she really should be having children.

At least these young women acknowledge that motherhood is a better career choice than desk-hood. But notice that I said wife and mother. Rampant bastardy and the subsequent rises in crime and socialism are products of modern feminism. Follow this ironic chain of unintended consequences: chivalry -> feminism -> licentiousness -> bastardy -> poverty and maltreatment of women. The feminazis actually wanted the process to go from bastardy back to more feminism and the further dissolution of the family. Unfortunately for them, you get what you pay for. The family is the foundation of a healthy society. If you lose that, you lose everything else.

Duncan Idaho essentially said the same,

It also shows that many girls do want to be full-time mothers rather than work full-time in a dreary office or factory. It's feminism they have to thank for that. Fifty-years ago, before feminists drove women in to the workplace, it would have been easily possible - and encouraged - for a girl to get married in her late teens and have a far more worthwhile career of running a home and raising children. Feminists didn't think women would want that - or, in some cases, knew women want that but decided that they, feminists, had more right to dictate what other women wanted than those women themselves. The more single mothers, the more cost to taxpayers, meaning it gets harder and harder for the few remaining traditional women to be full-time mothers and housewives.

So, whilst females used to marry young and have children, now many do the same but without the marriage bit, because the increase in the welfare state means the government can support a stay at home mother but the average man can't. So women who want to be full-time mothers often have no choice but to effectively make the government the daddy. This makes the welfare bill rise further, starting a chain reaction whereby more girls will have to have kids out of wedlock just to be able to be a full time mother. On and on it will go until the welfare kittie is empty.

And then everything falls apart, and hopefully we can forget about all this nonsense and get on with family life the way God intended it to be.

Snopes on Styrofoam and Plastic in the Microwave

In researching rumors about plastic and styrofoam used in the microwave, I found conflicting information, and very little that anyone knew for certain:

Is there really something to the central claim of this e-mail, that heating plastic in microwaves releases a cancer-causing agent into the food? It’s within the realm of possibility, but it must be stressed the FDA does impose stringent regulations on plastics meant for microwaving. Also, if there are dioxins lurking in the plastic containers we heat food in and the process of warming those receptacles looses those nasties into our ingestibles, we’ve yet to locate the studies that prove this.

…the results of the experiment described tended to indicate that diethylhexyl adipate (DEHA) and xenoestrogens could migrate from plastic wraps into microwaved food (specifically olive oil, the "food" used in the experiment), but only with some brands of plastic wrap (primarily ones not sold as "microwave-safe") and only when the plastic wrap was in direct contact with the food being heated; moreover, no research has yet demonstrated that DEHA poses a significant cancer risk to humans at the levels noted here (even though they exceed FDA standards) or that xenoestrogens are a direct cause of breast cancer in women or reduced sperm counts in men.

Most plastic used in the kitchen melts at relatively low temperatures. You can see the evidence of that melting in the pitted sides or warped lid of any supposedly microwavable plastic container that has been used for a long time. (You might not be aware that microwaves are much more effective at heating oils than at heating water, so anything with a high fat content will get much hotter than other foods.( If you’ve eaten at a cafeteria or lunch counter that serves food on styrofoam plates, I’m sure you’ve seen your food melt right into them. The chemicals used in plastics are universally regarded as being unhealthy to ingest, so it is self evident that putting hot food (or microwaving food) in plastic or styrofoam containers is going to be bad for you. The only questions are how bad for you and in what ways.

The Snopes article is misleading in at least three ways:

1) As far as I can tell, the FDA does not impose "stringent regulations on plastics meant for microwaving." It made some regulations, but doesn’t enforce them. A manufacturer can stamp "microwave safe" on his plastic containers without actually having to prove the claim to anyone. The FDA is notorious for allowing these kinds of claims. If you have enough money, jump through the right paperwork hoops or if you know the right people, then you can get your products approved for just about anything. The FDA is probably responsible for as many lost lives through misplaced trust as it is for saved lives through safer products.
2) Cancer is the only malady addressed, with only a passing mention of one small aspect of fertility. Admittedly that’s what the original question was about, but they really should have mentioned the fact that the chemicals potentially released by hot plastic could cause many more problems than just cancer. Some things that ought to be looked into: impotence, infertility, birth defects, developmental disorders, immune system disorders, and probably a thousand other things.
3) Snopes uncritically accepts the word of plastic industry proponents over that of its detractors. The very serious findings of Miss Nelson’s two years of research are dismissed with a "no research has yet demonstrated…a significant cancer risk to humans…" BS. Use your brains.

I refer to Snopes to verify or refute a lot of the rumors that people send through email. They do a decent job with most things. They really did a sloppy job with this one, though. Considering the massive volume of plastic in every aspect of our lives, I think that avoiding ingesting them might be a good idea.

More info:

–Noble Nutrition (Soon to be a lot more info about what people should and should not be putting into their bodies!)
–The Straight Dope

Taking the Name of Israel

But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine….Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears. Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me….

Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring: And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses. One shall say, I am the LORD’S; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.

When Israel left Egypt, a "mixed multitude" left with them and became a part of the nation of Israel. When they stood with Israel before the mountain of God, they spoke along with the rest of the nation and promised to obey and hear God’s laws.

Just like the first Exodus, in the latter Exodus a mixed multitude will accompany the natural born children of Israel out of the world and into the Promised Land. They are those who were of Israel, were scattered, and have forgotten their identity. They are also those who were born into the nations and were ignorant of God’s laws and love (i.e. blind and deaf), but who have eyes to see and ears to hear the truth. They have stood up and claimed the name of God’s chosen people for their own. They are chosen by God for their willingness to obey and to hear, and not for any great acts of righteousness. They are Israel alongside their Jewish brothers who have not rejected God in favor of the traditions of men.

Euro-crites

From the Salt Lake Tribune, "Turkish polygamists start to rethink the outlawed practice":

"The EU is looking for any excuse not to let Turkey in, and polygamy reinforces the stereotype of Turkey as a backward country," said Handan Coskun, director of a women’s center….

Two years ago, Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan tried to attack polygamy by criminalizing adultery, after prominent members of his Justice and Development Party were rumored to have taken second wives. But even though it condemns polygamy, the European Union criticized him for intervening in the nation’s bedrooms, leading him to back down.

This is one example of what I posted about a few weeks ago. Western Europe looks down on Turkey because many Turks are polygamists, but they complain that outlawing adultery would be wrong (even after redefining adultery to include sex with your own wives). That would interfere with the right of “monogamous” men to have sex with the wives of other “monogamous” men, and we can’t have that!

Growing Up Too Fast?

Ever since I was old enough to understand, I have heard people lamenting how fast kids grow up. “Don’t be in such a hurry to grow up. Have fun being a kid.” Statistics now call nineteen-year-olds “children.” Nonsense, I say. Grow up. Learn some responsibility. Take some responsibility.

One great thing about the Boy Scouts is that they give young men opportunities to lead and to be responsible. Parents need to do more of that. Our job is to teach our children how to be adults. We can’t do that by encouraging them to remain children. By the time they are physically mature, our children should also be emotionally and spiritually mature enough to handle their physical reality. We shouldn’t have to worry so much about teenagers having babies, because most teenagers should be fully capable of making responsible decisions, including whether or not it’s a good time to get married and start a family. That they are not capable of those kinds of decisions is an indictment of our parenting and our culture.

I just found a great audio clip of John Taylor Gatto on this very subject: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/multimedia/jtgsound_paradox.htm.

Low-Risk Marriage

I’ve been saying all along that an acceptance of proper gender roles is important to a healthy marriage. I stumbled across this old article this morning. It introduces a study that confirmed my opinion: Couples who “share a traditional interpretation of gender roles” have the lowest risk of divorce. Some other interesting points from the article:

• A husband who ignores his wife’s complaints (or a wife who complains too much) puts his marriage in the highest risk category. Wives, focus on what’s important, don’t cry wolf, and don’t nag. Husbands, pay attention. Every problem doesn’t need to be fixed, but you can’t be passive. Marital problems don’t go away if you ignore them. They grow into man eating monsters.
• Clingy can be bad, but distant is worse. Emotional detachment can be fatal.
• Egalitarian and casual isn’t the best, but may not be all that bad, either. I suspect that trust and selflessness are the real secrets here, and not ideological egalitarianism.
• A much older husband isn’t a problem, but a much older wife could be.

Definitely interesting stuff. I’ll try to get better info on this study.

Pacifist != Adult

The WordNet definition for “pacifist” includes “adult” in the See Also section. (See http://hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/pacifist and http://www.hyperdic.net/dic/pacifist.htm.) That connection is obviously misplaced and is even a little absurd. The ubiquitous state of war around the world was created solely by adults without consulting a single child. It seems that whoever submitted that connection deliberately compromised the accuracy of the WordNet dictionary for the sake of making an ignorant political statement.

06/28/2006 Update:

Guido Demoor, a father of two, intervened when six [Muslim] "youths" got on bus 23 in Antwerp and began to intimidate passengers. There were some forty people on the bus. Demoor asked the "youths" to calm down, whereupon they turned on him, savagely beating and kicking the man. At the next stop thirty passengers fled the bus. The thugs kept beating Demoor. They then pulled the emergency brake and jumped from the bus leaving their victim to die. –The Brussels Journal

There was only one adult on that bus, and he was murdered by 40 pacifists.

“Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.”

“How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? …Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.”

FLDS Hostile to Strangers?

My husband paid his first visit to Colorado City, home of the FLDS, on Saturday….As he filled his truck with gas, none of the people who’d stopped to fill their vehicles would meet his glance. Inside the store, he held a door open for two young women. They didn’t look at him or offer a word of thanks.

He was hungry, so he checked the shelves for a snack. At the counter, he tried to make small talk with an older woman working the cash register.

Silence.

“The feeling I got is I don’t exist,” he told me later. “I am not a human. I’d rather they call me names. At least they’d be acknowledging I am alive.”

He couldn’t get over it. “That is the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen. It’s like the Twilight Zone. I can’t believe people will be like that. Poor souls.” -Brooke Adams, “Fearing the different“

One of the defining characteristics of a godless people is hostility toward outsiders. It was one of Sodom’s main sins. Strangers are one of God’s three protected classes: widows, orphans, and strangers. I don’t know anything about Hilldale or Colorado City. I’ve never been there, and I’ve never met anyone from there. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of Adams’ comments (although she seems fair from what I’ve read). However if that attitude is standard among the FLDS group, she is right that it is unquestionably “un-Christ like behavior.”

Religionist Hypocrites

Some people are so caught up in their own self-righteousness. They wink at homosexuality, witchcraft, and idolatry (all capital offenses in God's law); turn a blind eye to lying, godless politicians; and despise the destitute, widows, and fatherless. They preach openness and tolerance all day long, but don't you dare disagree with them about any of their sacred moral cows. They are religionists who will tell a destitute single mother to take a hike so they can recarpet the sanctuary. They think it's cute to dress a little girl like a prostitute, but revile a man who tells his wife to wear a head-covering to church. They'll accept a woman who moves from man to man like a prostitute paid in alimony and diamond rings, but they'll hate a man who remains faithful to two wives simultaneously. Hypocrites. Pit-bulls bred and trained to do violence to God's laws and God's Name.

Discrimination Against Caucasian Men

Interesting article in June 19th's ComputerWorld: "100 Best Places to Work in IT 2006". Here are some of the statistics cited as justifications for three of their top five picks:

-#2 University of Miami: "74% of IT staffers are minorities."
-#3 Capital Group: "52% of the IT staffers are minorities."
-#5 Grant Thornton LLP: "43% of its IT managers are women. 29% of IT staffers are women."

I don't have anything against minorities or women. I think that if one person is more qualified to do a job, then that person should get the job. It doesn't matter to me if the person is a black woman from Atlanta or a hermaphrodite from Sacramento. If he/she/it can do the job, then great! The problem is when people start discriminating against one group in order to make up for a perceived injustice to another group.

Do minorities really make up 74% of the IT professionals in the Miami area? Or 52% in all of the Capital Group locations? I'm having trouble believing that. I think you'd have to work hard to hire that many minorities in technical fields--or you have to hire them all from India--because most IT people in the United States are white men. Even in Miami.

I work in an IT department with eight men and one woman. This department isn't unique. I've been in IT departments with ratios of 12 to 0 and 15 to 1. These companies weren't discriminating against women. It's just that there aren't many women interested in these jobs, and many of those who do apply aren't qualified. Grant Thornton must be discriminating against men from the very beginning by giving a preference to women regardless of technical ability. If the numbers of men and women who apply for positions at Grant Thornton are roughly the same as at other companies, then men competing against women for the same jobs are at greater than a 50% handicap just because they are men. They continue to discriminate against men who seek promotion. If you are competing against a woman for a management promotion, your chances of getting the promotion drop by one-third solely because of your gender.

The article should have been called "100 Best Places for Minorities and Women to Work in IT," because they don't look so great for white men.

Update 07/10/2006: Read-worthy post at http://lndavout.blogspot.com/2006/07/response-to-lee.html .

Happy Fathers Day. You're worthless.

I just watched Animal Planet's Most Extreme: Dads. By the end of the show, I was really feeling how great it is to be a man. Maybe their list of top ten animal dads will explain why:

10. Lion - Defends his children.
9. Antechinus Mouse - Mates nonstop.
8. Golden Jackal - Gives his food to his children.
7. Giant waterbug - Cares for the eggs.
6. Rhea - Cares for the eggs.
5. Stickleback Fish - Cares for the eggs.
4. Jacana Bird - Polyandrous and lets female kill his young.
3. Bull Frog - Cares for the young.
2. Penguin - Makes milk for the young.
1. Seahorse - Gestates and gives birth to young.

Number 10 is a pretty good pick. The lion is strong and fierce. He's number ten because he defends his family and territory from predators and intruders. So far so good.

Number 9 is OK. Hyper-potency is something to be proud of. I guess. It's not bad at least. Well, sometimes anyway.

Number 8 is pretty respectable. You have to respect a man who sacrifices for his children. We're not doing too badly yet.

Number 7 is...well, he's mom. He made the list because he does things that women traditionally do in a human household. Same with number 6 and 5 and 4. They all hang around the nest and care for the eggs. If that wasn't bad enough, the Jacana lets any old female come along and kill all his eggs before laying some more in his nest. He has no way of knowing whether this batch shares his genes or not. He's a polyandrous sex slave. And these traits make them great dads how? I suppose they're great dads for being bugs, birds, and fish, but Fathers Day is about human fathers, isn't it?

Number 3 is another homemaker, only he sticks around to care for the tadpoles, too. Yeah! Another Mr. Mom!

Number 2 not only cares for the young, but he makes a milk-like substance for them too.  Swap to a human Dad breast-feeding his baby. Isn't that sweet? Are you sick, yet?

Number 1 has an internal pouch into which the female lays her eggs. They gestate inside of him, they hatch, and he gives birth. Animal Planet says he is number one because he is both mother and father.

Now, dads, don't you feel special? Now you know that defending your children and sacrificing for them is the least of your good traits. Emasculating yourself and doing everything you can to turn yourself into a woman is your only hope of really measuring up.  Fathers are worthless except when they are able to emulate mothers.

The End of Your Dreams

With the end of your dreams at hand
Every breath must be planned


2/23/2015 note: This cryptic little verse doesn't refer to the planning of dream endings, but of the literal breaths one takes to supply oxygen to the body. When sorrows beat hard enough, it's difficult just to breath. One has to think about it, consciously planning each and every breath simply to stay alive.

King Sears: Isaac Sears in the American Revolution

Compared to George Washington, Thomas Gage, and some others, Isaac Sears was a minor player in the Revolution. The lives and activities of these seeming "extras" can offer an informative and entertaining glimpse into facets of the Revolution that you don't normally see in history textbooks. The following actual newspaper articles are excerpted from Diary of the American Revolution, volumes I & II.

---

Captain Sears and John Case

Rivington's Royal Gazette, January 12, 1775

JANUARY 3--THIS morning, Mr. John Case, an old man of near sixty years of age, from Long Island, was entreated by an acquaintance of his to go to the house of Jasper Drake, tavern-keeper near Beckman’s Slip, where he was told Captain [Alexander] Mac Dougall, Captain [Isaac] Sears,¹ and others wanted to converse with him on politics. He went, and soon entered into conversation with Captain [Alexander] Mac Dougall, who attempted to convince him that he was in an error, but not being able to effect it, politely left him. Captain Sears, with several other persons, then attacked him with the force of their eloquence and noise, but Case said he was an unlearned man, and but of few words, that he could not reply to above one. That he judged, however, the fairest way to come at the truth would be to recur to the origin of the present contest between Great Britain and the Colonies, and to trace from the time of the stamp act, the encroachments of ministerial power, and the increasing demands for provincial privileges. This was objected to by Captain Sears, as it would require too much time and attention to discuss. He said that he would question him a little, and asked Case whether the king had not violated his coronation oath? Mr. Case replied, that he thought he had not, and reasoned on this and other matters in as cool a manner as possible, in order not to irritate Captain Sears, who, however, soon grew warm, and branded Case with the appellation of Tory, and told him that if he was in Connecticut government he would be put to death. Sears then demanded of Case whether, if the Bostonians were to take up arms, he would fight for the king? Case answered, that if he fought on either side, he would certainly fight for no one else, as he conceived King George to be his lawful sovereign, for the minister a few days before prayed for our rightful sovereign Lord King George the Third, on which Sears replied he was sorry that he had turned churchman, where such prayers were used; Case replied, these expressions were delivered the preceding Sunday by Dr. Rodgers² at the Presbyterian meeting, for he himself was a Presbyterian. After a few more queries and replies of a similar nature, Sears told him that he would not suffer, a Tory to sit in company with gentlemen, placed a chair in the chimney corner, caught Case by the arm, and forced him into it. He then called for a negro boy, who belonged to the house, and ordered him to sit along with him; for that he (Case) was only fit to sit in company with slaves; but the negro had too much understanding to comply. Mr. Case then called for some wine, and offered it to the company, but Sears refused to accept of it, pushed him down in the chair where he before had placed him, and ordered the rest not to drink with a Tory; and further, that whoever spoke to Case, should forfeit a bowl of toddy, which was exacted by him from two persons who happened to disobey his mandates. Sears then told Case that his age protected him, for if he was a young man, he would have placed him on a red-hot gridiron; and after he had detained this old man as long as he thought proper, he dismissed him.<sup>3

1</sup> Afterwards called by the loyalists, King Sears.
² John Rodgers, D. D., pastor of the Wall street church.
³ This account was published in Rivington’s Gazette, Jan. 12, in the form of a deposition, witnessed by Mr. Case. The Royal Gazette was a loyalist newspaper throughout the war.

---

Rivington's Press Destroyed

Pennsylvania Journal, December 6, 1775

NOVEMBER 29--ON the twentieth of this month, sixteen respectable inhabitants of New Haven, Connecticut, in company with Captain Sears, set out from that place to East and West Chester, in the province of New York, to disarm the principal Tories there, and secure the persons of Parson Seabury,¹ Judge Fowler, and Lord Underhill.² On their way thither they were joined by Captains Richards, Sillick, and Mead, with about eighty men. At Mamaroneck they burnt a small sloop, which was purchased by government, for the purpose of carrying provisions on board the "ASIA." At East Chester they seized Judge Fowler, then repaired to West Chester and secured Seabury and Underhill. Having possessed themselves of these three caitiffs, they sent them to Connecticut under a strong guard. The main body, consisting of seventy-five, then proceeded to New York, where they entered at noonday on horseback, bayonets fixed, in the greatest regularity, went down the main street, and drew up in close order before the printing office of the infamous James Rivington. A small detachment entered it, and in about three-quarters of an hour brought off the principal part of his types, for which they offered to give an order on Lord Dunmore.³ They then faced and wheeled to the left, and marched out of town to the tune of Yankee Doodle. A vast concourse of people assembled at the Coffee House, on their leaving the ground, and gave them three very hearty cheers.

On their way home they disarmed all the Tories that lay on their route, and yesterday arrived at New Haven, escorted by a great number of gentlemen from the westward, the whole making a very grand procession. Upon their entrance into town they were saluted with the discharge of two cannon, and received by the inhabitants with every mark of approbation and respect. The company divided into two parts, and concluded the day in festivity and innocent mirth. Captain Sears returned in company with the other gentlemen, and proposes to spend the winter at New Haven, unless public business should require his presence at New York. Seabury, Underhill, and Fowler, three of the dastardly protesters against the proceedings of the Continental Congress, and who it is believed had concerted a plan for kidnapping Captain Sears, and conveying him on board the ASIA man-of-war, are (with the types and arms) safely lodged in New Haven, where it is expected Lord Underhill will have leisure to form the scheme of a lucrative lottery, the tickets of which cannot be counterfeited; and Parson Seabury sufficient time to compose sermons for the next Continental fast.<sup>4

1</sup> Samuel Seabury, D. D., first Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States. He was born in 1728; graduated at Yale College in 1751, and visited England to study medicine, but relinquished that study for that of the ministry. He was first settled at Brunswick, (New Jersey,) then at Jamaica, on Long Island, and afterwards in Westchester, New York. After the commencement of the war, he fled to New York City, where he remained until the declaration of peace. In November, 1784, he was consecrated as bishop of the Episcopal Church of Connecticut, and for many years after discharged the duties of the office at New London, in Connecticut. He died in 1796.
² Nathaniel Underhill, Mayor of Westchester.
³ See account of the seizure of Holt’s types, &c., at Virginia; October 7, 1775 (Volume I, Chapter III).
⁴ Pennsylvania Journal, December 6: --The following recantation of Judge Fowler is printed in the same paper: --Whereas I, Jonathan Fowler, Esq., one of his Majesty’s Judges of the Inferior Court for the County of Westchester, in the Province of New York, did some time ago sign a protest against the Honorable Continental Congress, which inconsiderate conduct I am heartily sorry for, and do hereby promise for the future not to transgress in the view of the people of this continent, nor in any sense to oppose the measures taken by the Continental Congress.I do also certify, that some time past being at Court at the White Plains, I heard a person say, whom several people present believed to be a lieutenant or midshipman of the Asia, man-of-war, that the captain of the Asia intended to take Captain Sears up, and that there soon would be delivered (gratis) from on board the man-of-war, great quantities of paper money in imitation of Continental currency, which would be printed with the types taken from Mr. Holt, of Virginia. As witness my hand, JONATHAN FOWLER.

---

General Lee’s Oath

Middlesex Journal, February 15, 1776

LAST Monday, General Lee arrived from Cambridge, at Newport, Rhode Island, attended by his guard, a party of riflemen, and the cadet company of Providence. While there he called before him a number of obnoxious persons, to whom he tendered an oath, of fidelity to the country, which was taken by all of them excepting Colonel Joseph Warton, Jr., Nicholas Lechmere, and Richard Beale, the two last custom-house officers, who refused taking it; upon which, they were put under guard and sent to Providence.¹

The following copy of the oath imposed by General Lee, is submitted to the public, who will judge how far it is consistent with that liberty, independence, and right of private judgment, which the Americans pretend they are contending for:

"I, .., here, in the presence of Almighty God, as I hope for ease, honor, and comfort in this world, and happiness in the world to come, most earnestly, devoutly, and religiously do swear, that I will neither directly nor indirectly assist the wicked instruments of ministerial tyranny and villany, commonly called the king’s troops and navy, by furnishing them with provisions and refreshments of any kind, unless authorized by the Continental Congress or Legislature, at present established in this particular colony of Rhode Island. I do also swear, by the tremendous and Almighty God, that I will neither directly nor indirectly convey any intelligence, nor give any advice to the aforesaid enemies described; and that I pledge myself, if I should by any accident get knowledge of such treasons, to inform immediately the committee of safety. And, as it is justly allowed that when the rights and sacred liberties of a nation or community are invaded, neutrality is not less base and criminal than open and avowed hostility, I do further swear and pledge myself, as I hope for eternal salvation, that I will, whenever called upon by the voice of the Continental Congress, or by the Legislature of this particular colony under their direction, take up arms, and subject myself to military discipline in defence of the common rights and liberties of America. So help me God."<sup>2

1</sup> Pennsylvania Evening Post, January 16.
² GENERAL LEE, on his arrival at New York, despatched Isaac Sears to Long Island, to administer the oath to the Tories residing there. The following first report made by Sears to Lee, is taken from George H. Moore’s work on the "Treason of Major-General Charles Lee," now in course of preparation:JAMAICA, March 17th, 1776.
SIR, --It is a duty that I owe to my Comman^r to aquaint him of my proceedings in executg the order he gave me. Yesterday afternoon I arived at Newtown, and tendered the oath to four of the grate Torries, which they swallowed as hard as if it was a four pound shot, that they ware trying to git down. On this day at 11 o’clock, I came here, whare I sent out scouting parties, and have ben able to ketch but five Torries, and they of the first rank, which swallowed the oath. The houses are so scatering it is impossible to ketch many without hosses to rid after thim. But I shall exert myself to ketch the gratest part of the ringledors, and beleve I shell effect it, but not less then five days from this time. I can asure your honor they are a set of villins in this country, and beleve the better half of them are wateing for soport and intend to take up arms against us. And it is my oppinion nothing else will do but removeing the ringledors to a place of secuerty.
From your most ob^t Hum^le Sir^t
ISAAC SEARS.

---

New York Records Restored

October 3, 1781

Rivington, in the Royal Gazette of to-day, congratulates the public, and especially the inhabitants of the province of New York, upon the King's gracious restoration of those important records, which General Tryon's care and vigilance secured on board of the ship Duchess of Gordon, in the month of November, 1775. The general, then governor, was apprised of the wicked design to seize that inestimable treasure in the Secretary's office, (for the loss of which no money could compensate,) and to convey it to New England. And that it was upon the point of being carried into execution, by a party of the mob, headed by Sears, who has since profited so much by his plunders.

General Tryon caused such of the books to be selected as put it out of the power of almost every landholder without recourse to them, to give evidence in a court of law of the title to his estate; and these were brought off in strong boxes under locks and seals. They were earned home to England, in 1778, and lately sent back in one of the king's ships to their ancient deposit.

The residue, or general mass of papers, are among the rebels, having been first conveyed by order of the provincial Congress to Kingston, in Ulster county. Mr. Bayard, the deputy secretary, was with them, and watched over them, till the violence of the times wrested them from his hands and consigned them to others above three years ago; since which, they have been exposed to a perilous transportation from one place to another in carts.

It is impossible to say where the mischiefs would have stopped, had Sear's project succeeded, or to describe the wild confusion in property, consequent upon the access of designing villains to these records, in which all the inhabitants of this colony may find the chief links in chain of titles to their lands. It must therefore, be grateful to people of all ranks and classes, to know that these records are safe, and that due care will be taken to prevent their ever falling into the hands of the usurpers, who have already involved this country in so much misery.