This is why I have never shaved my mustache. Viva la 'stache!
Friday, 30 November 2012
Thursday, 29 November 2012
News to Know: Obama's secret, California's poverty, Islam's intolerance
 |
| Protesting in Europe |
White House secede petitions reach 675,000 signatures, 50-state participation
Congressman: Greece-like 'day of reckoning' with 'riots' to hit America soon if country continues down the same path
Interior proposal would limit commercial oil shale development on federal lands
Report: Obama signed secret cyber directive in October
Cybersecurity bill suffers another defeat––Obama signs secret directive
22 signs that voter fraud is wildly out of control and the election was a sham
Christians may soon be jailed in U.S. over HHS mandate
MISCELLANEOUS:
Journalism student suspended for allowing critical remarks
California now leads poverty rankings
Business owner will add Obama taxes to restaurant bills
Kenya to outlaw homeschooling?
Nearly half of all U.S. Muslims believe criticism of Islam should be a crime
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Dictum Diei: Man's life as cheap as beast's
O, reason not the need: our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous:
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life’s as cheap as beast’s: thou art a lady;
If only to go warm were gorgeous,
Why, nature needs not what thou gorgeous wear’st,
Which scarcely keeps thee warm.
– William Shakespeare, King Lear
Monday, 19 November 2012
News to Know: girls see naked man, wasted money, Judge Frodo
The most egregious ways taxpayer money is being squandered
Feds let Mexican cartel hit men kill in U.S.
New Obamacare taxform invades your privacy
Acting U.S. ambassador to Pakistan met with Code Pink, discussed 'classified' drone casualty counts
Video: College students chant for 'Karl Marx' and 'socialism' in front of White House at Obama victory rally
Judge Scalia, The Constitution's Frodo Baggins
Gun stocks surge after Obama's reelection
College officials cite 'non-discrimination law' to admit biological males into women's locker rooms on campus - Girls as young as six were exposed to a naked 45 year-old 'transgender' man
THE UNEXPECTED:
Vive la famille! The French rally against gay marriage
Report: Obama cut back substantially on 'economically significant' regulations in October
IRS Surrenders: Time for churches to get political
Saturday, 17 November 2012
Dictum Diei: Bacon on prejudice
"Men become attached to certain particular sciences and speculations, either because they fancy themselves the authors and inventors thereof, or because they have bestowed the greatest pains upon them and become most habituated to them. But men of this kind, if they betake themselves to philosophy and contemplations of a general character, distort and color them in obedience to their former fancies; a thing especially to be noticed in Aristotle, who made his natural philosophy a mere bond servant to his logic, thereby rendering it contentious and well nigh useless."- Francis Bacon from The New Organon
Thursday, 15 November 2012
Verseday Thursday: Milton
When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one Talent which is death to hide
Lodge with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest He returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts. Who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly: thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait."
News to Know: White people are going to hell, Kill lists, & Injustice in Iran
- Within hours of reelection, Obama backs UN gun-grab treaty
- Obama's inauguration reverend: All whites are going to hell
- Video: Obama's kill list is constitutional, says Republican congressman
AMERICAN FREEDOM:
- Supreme Court skeptical of harm caused by warrantless wiretapping
- U.S. Slips in report's ranking of free economies
- Economic freedom in the U.S. plummets to an all-time low
- Federal Judge ban's firearms sales to those under 21 - (But you can join the army at 17. Go figure.)
INTERNATIONAL:
- Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada - Same-sex civil marriage in Canada has resulted in restriction on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture
Demand justice today.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Dictum Diei: A Virgin Mind
"It is preferable to have a virgin mind than a virgin body."
- St. Ambrose, Concerning Virgins, Book II.
Context: Ambrose recounts a case in which a virgin at Antioch, having refused to sacrifice to idols, was condemned to a brothel.
Monday, 12 November 2012
No Shave November: I'm out, but Shakespeare's in
I was planning on participating in "No Shave November," which to be fair, was in my case "No Trim November," since I don't exactly shave. Well, it's only the 12th of the month, and I've already disqualified myself. I broke down and trimmed half an inch off my mustache. The redeeming news, however, is that my mustache is still over an inch long. As you might guess, it was getting awfully difficult to eat neatly.
But for all those who are still in the beard race, I offer this sonnet from Shakespeare.
That time of year thou mayst on me behold
When yellow hairs, or red, or brown, do hang;
Upon these cheeks which shake not in the cold,
Beard covered flesh, where late the chill wind sang.
On me thou see'st the mustache of such size
That clearly points like compass east and west;
Which by and by may very well surprise
When it in glory lies untrimmed, unpressed.
On me thou see'st the growing of beard fire,
Bright reddish hairs, when in the sun they lie:
A deathbed whereon en'vious hearts expire,
Wishing they had beards in which to sigh.
This thou perceiv'st, which makes thy beard more strong,
To grow that well which thou must wear quite long.
Admittedly, it's not his best sonnet, but that's perhaps only because, for once, even his genius was no match for such an elevated topic.
But for all those who are still in the beard race, I offer this sonnet from Shakespeare.
That time of year thou mayst on me behold
When yellow hairs, or red, or brown, do hang;
Upon these cheeks which shake not in the cold,
Beard covered flesh, where late the chill wind sang.
On me thou see'st the mustache of such size
That clearly points like compass east and west;
Which by and by may very well surprise
When it in glory lies untrimmed, unpressed.
On me thou see'st the growing of beard fire,
Bright reddish hairs, when in the sun they lie:
A deathbed whereon en'vious hearts expire,
Wishing they had beards in which to sigh.
This thou perceiv'st, which makes thy beard more strong,
To grow that well which thou must wear quite long.
Admittedly, it's not his best sonnet, but that's perhaps only because, for once, even his genius was no match for such an elevated topic.
Saturday, 10 November 2012
Dictum Diei: Cheese
- G. K. Chesterton
from his essay, "Cheese."
- Someone took the trouble to type up the entire essay, which you can find here.
- Also, here's a column from The Columbia Daily Tribune: In an homage to fromage, poets break the silence on the subject of cheese.
Thursday, 8 November 2012
I will say this, though, in the thief's defense: The iPod was full of sermons, theology lectures, and classical music, which makes it, I admit, rather tempting.
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Dictum Diei: Election Day - Put not your trust in princes
 |
| The head of Constantine |
in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When his breath departs, he returns to the earth;
on that very day his plans perish.
Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord his God,
who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever;
who executes justice for the oppressed,
who gives food to the hungry.
whose hope is in the Lord his God,
who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever;
who executes justice for the oppressed,
who gives food to the hungry.
Sunday, 4 November 2012
God, Government, and "Gay Marriage": A thimbleful of thoughts
This morning, there was a man on the radio speaking about so-called "gay marriage." One of his remarks caught my attention.
He claimed that, by lobbying to be legally "married," he and the rest of the gay community wanted only to be true members of society.
Of course, he isn't the first to say that, and certainly won't be the last. But it occurred to me that his statement implies a great number of things.
Underlying this man's claim is the notion that gays are outcasts because their marriages aren't recognized by most states. By making the issue one of marriage, marriage becomes the door into social acceptance. This ridiculously implies that only married people belong. But nobody is excluding singles from being accepted members of society.
Of course, I doubt this fellow believes unmarried men and women are societal rejects by being single. Yet, it is this kind of language that makes me wonder whether there is a self-ostracizing attitude in gay activism, despite the victim-talk. There may not be, but I still wonder. (Perhaps you can answer that for me?)
More likely, the man on the radio was trying to say the ability to get married is the door to acceptance. If this is what he meant, he avoids the ridiculous implications I listed above, but runs into new difficulties.
First, it is not merely the ability to get married that gay activists are after. They want the ability to marry whomever they please, regardless of sex. Because only those who can marry whomever they please are true members of society, according to the reasoning. But nobody can marry whomever they please. You can only marry whomever you please if whomever-you-please is the right sort of person. For instance, there are laws against incestuous marriage, as well as age restrictions, and rightly so. But there aren't too many folks lobbying to legalize incestuous marriage. So it seems a bit silly to complain about not being able to marry whomever they please unless they can provide a rationale stronger than one based on emotion––even if that emotion is love.
Second, by framing the issue in terms of membership into society, the fellow on the radio revealed the simultaneous desire of gay activism to be bound by old institutions and to be freed from them. I hear ad nauseam claims that gay couples make families which are as legitimate and healthy as those of heterosexual couples. What's so strange is that gay activism rallies against the "traditional family" as a narrow and constricting institution, and then does its best to reproduce it in every respect except the sexes of the couple. I would have expected that they would reject the whole institution of family life and promote a new social unit based on "free love." But instead, it seems that gay activism is incapable of producing its own structures or its own air of legitimacy. Instead, it must borrow from an institution it fears: the traditional family.
At any rate, the debate on so-called "gay marriage" raises an interesting question about the role of government in marriage and family affairs. I'm not entirely sure what the government's role in marriage ought to be, but I'm inclined to believe it shouldn't have a role at all. Homosexuals can already find compliant religious organizations that will marry them, as can heterosexuals. What does the government add?
If I were to get married tomorrow, it wouldn't make a whit of difference to the legitimacy of my marriage whether the government approved or recognized it, because my vows would be performed before an omnipresent God. But if I had no such reverence for God, I would feel a need to have my vows recognized by someone––someone with the power to declare a marriage into being. And the only being beside God whose will is law is the government: god on earth. Thus, the real question seems to be one of legitimacy, which government sanction promises to provide.
He claimed that, by lobbying to be legally "married," he and the rest of the gay community wanted only to be true members of society.
Of course, he isn't the first to say that, and certainly won't be the last. But it occurred to me that his statement implies a great number of things.
Underlying this man's claim is the notion that gays are outcasts because their marriages aren't recognized by most states. By making the issue one of marriage, marriage becomes the door into social acceptance. This ridiculously implies that only married people belong. But nobody is excluding singles from being accepted members of society.
Of course, I doubt this fellow believes unmarried men and women are societal rejects by being single. Yet, it is this kind of language that makes me wonder whether there is a self-ostracizing attitude in gay activism, despite the victim-talk. There may not be, but I still wonder. (Perhaps you can answer that for me?)
More likely, the man on the radio was trying to say the ability to get married is the door to acceptance. If this is what he meant, he avoids the ridiculous implications I listed above, but runs into new difficulties.
First, it is not merely the ability to get married that gay activists are after. They want the ability to marry whomever they please, regardless of sex. Because only those who can marry whomever they please are true members of society, according to the reasoning. But nobody can marry whomever they please. You can only marry whomever you please if whomever-you-please is the right sort of person. For instance, there are laws against incestuous marriage, as well as age restrictions, and rightly so. But there aren't too many folks lobbying to legalize incestuous marriage. So it seems a bit silly to complain about not being able to marry whomever they please unless they can provide a rationale stronger than one based on emotion––even if that emotion is love.
Second, by framing the issue in terms of membership into society, the fellow on the radio revealed the simultaneous desire of gay activism to be bound by old institutions and to be freed from them. I hear ad nauseam claims that gay couples make families which are as legitimate and healthy as those of heterosexual couples. What's so strange is that gay activism rallies against the "traditional family" as a narrow and constricting institution, and then does its best to reproduce it in every respect except the sexes of the couple. I would have expected that they would reject the whole institution of family life and promote a new social unit based on "free love." But instead, it seems that gay activism is incapable of producing its own structures or its own air of legitimacy. Instead, it must borrow from an institution it fears: the traditional family.
At any rate, the debate on so-called "gay marriage" raises an interesting question about the role of government in marriage and family affairs. I'm not entirely sure what the government's role in marriage ought to be, but I'm inclined to believe it shouldn't have a role at all. Homosexuals can already find compliant religious organizations that will marry them, as can heterosexuals. What does the government add?
If I were to get married tomorrow, it wouldn't make a whit of difference to the legitimacy of my marriage whether the government approved or recognized it, because my vows would be performed before an omnipresent God. But if I had no such reverence for God, I would feel a need to have my vows recognized by someone––someone with the power to declare a marriage into being. And the only being beside God whose will is law is the government: god on earth. Thus, the real question seems to be one of legitimacy, which government sanction promises to provide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)