Socialism's Heresy, Fascism...

"What distinguished Nazism from traditional forms of socialism was its febrile nationalism, although not its virulence against despisedpeoples. Marx, as we have seen, looked forward to the "annihilation"of "reactionary races." The examples he gave were "Croats, Pandurs, Czechs and similar scum." He did not in this passage mention Jews, but his desire for their disappearance was amply expressed elsewhere. His aspiration for "the emancipation of society from Judaism" because"the practical Jewish spirit" of "huckstering" had taken over the Christian nations is not that far from the Nazi program's twenty-fourth point: "combating the Jewish-materialist spirit within us and without us" in order "that our nation can.. . achieve permanent health." What also distinguished National Socialism from the mainstream Left was Hitler's insistence that he aimed to "destroy Marxism," and he railed in Mein Kampf against "scatterbrains" who "have not understood the difference between socialism and Marxism. " Yet on other occasions he confessed himself an heir to the Marxian legacy. "National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from the bourgeois tradition, [and] vital, creative socialism from the teachings of Marxism," he told an interviewer in1934. And his one-time disciple Hermann Rauschning wrote that Hitler once said to him:

I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit....The difference between them and myself is that I have really put intopractice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.The whole of National Socialism is based on it.... National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."

(Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.(2002: Encounter Books)
by Joshua Muravchik :164)

Archive

Charles Sumner and William Lloyd Garrison

"It is pretended, that I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy of my measures. The charge is not true. On this question my influence--humble as it is--is felt at this moment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in coming years--not perniciously, but beneficially--not as a curse, but as a blessing; and posterity will bear testimony that I was right. I desire to thank God, that he enables me to disregard "the fear of man which bringetha snare," and to speak his truth in its simplicity and power."
(William Lloyd Garrison 1805-1879)
Garrison was publisher of The Liberator, founded the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833. He had hundredsof death threats made against him for his politically incorrect views that went against the cultural and economic interests of his day.

Charles Sumner,
"Familiarity with that great story of redemption, when God raised up the slave-born Moses to deliver His chosen people from bondage, and with that sublimer story where our Saviour died a cruel death that all men, without distinction of race, might be saved, makes slavery impossible. Because Christians are in the minority there is no reasonfor renouncing Christianity, or for surrendering to the false religions...."
Charles Sumner was a staunch abolitionist and one of the founders of the Republican Party

George Washington

So often the Founders sound like strong believers in Intelligent Design:
"If it has pleased the Supreme Architect of the Universe to make me an humble instrument to promote the welfare and happiness of my fellow men, my exertions have been abundantly recompensed by the kind partiality with which they have been received; and the assurance you give me of your belief that I have acted upon the Square in my public Capacity, will be among my principle enjoyments in this Terrestial Lodge." --Washington

Abraham Linclon's Inaugural Address

A few notes,
"Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken his favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty."

(Some of this is rough draft by Lincoln and his speech writer.)
"....the candid citizen must confess, that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, it is plain that the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there, in this view, any assault upon the Court, or the judges-- It is a duty, from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before brought before them....."

Lincoln's handwriting,
"I am loth to close. We are not enemies, but friends-- We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memorys, streching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

(Note 60 The presence of a pointing hand, characteristically drawn by Lincoln, seems to indicate that the handwritten addition "I am loth to close . . ." was intended as a separate paragraph.Lincoln's indebtedness to, and masterful transformation of, Seward's suggested closing paragraph have long been recognized. Seward's text is as follows: "I close. We are not we must not be aliens or enemies but countrym fellow countrymen and brethren. Although passion has strained our bonds of affection too hardly they must not be broken -- they will not, I am sure they will not be broken. The mystic chords which proceeding from every ba so many battle fields and patriot so many patriot graves bind pass through all the hearts and hearths all the hearths in this broad continent of ours will yet harmon again harmonize in their ancient music when touched as they surely breathed upon again by the better angel guardian angel of the nation".
See William H. Seward, Suggested Changes to First Inaugural Address (February, 1861))
cf.
(Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress.
Transcribed and Annotated by the Lincoln Studies
Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Final Version, March 1861)

He and his speech writer seem like a good team.

....I thought so.

Some signs are easy to read, a parable of signs and wonders, some of the dry bones that can be its structure:

"Male and female laugh patterns suggest that laughter may be a factor in meeting, matching, and mating. Among young German adults, Grammer and Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1990) observed that the more a woman laughed during an encounter, the greater was her self-reported interest in the man to whom she was talking. In the same vein, men were most interested in women who laughed in their presence. The laughter of the female, not the male, is most predictive of a promising relationship. But not all laughter is equally effective. Bachorowski and Owren (2001) found that voiced laughs make a more positive impression than unvoiced grunts or pants. In an analysis of 3,745 personal ads from eight major U.S. newspapers (Provine, 2000), females were more likely than males to indicate they were seeking a “sense of humor,” whereas men were more likely to offer it. However, women seeking men with a “good sense of humor” are probably looking not for giggly guys, but rather for men who make them laugh, perhaps dominant males. At your next social gathering, observe laugh patterns. Females laugh most in the presence of men whom they find attractive or interesting.

These laughter patterns are particularly revealing because laughter is spontaneous and relatively uncensored, thus showing our true feelings. Laughter, like crying, is difficult to produce on command and, therefore, is an honest signal. We cannot deliberately activate the brain’s mechanism for affective expression laughter is an unplanned response to social, cognitive, and linguistic cues."
(Laughing, Tickling, and the Evolution of Speech and Self
By Robert R. Provine
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Volume 13 Issue 6, December 2004 :216)

You have to separate out the mythological narratives of naturalism that the testy testers sometimes begin to do their story telling with. Later, this testy tester begins to do some storytelling about the breath of life that may need some deconstruction. Some of the things he says seem to need a good satire.

There are valid observations mixed in, sans the storytelling. So there are some valid observations there. After all, "...voiced laughs" really do "make a more positive impression than unvoiced grunts or pants." Ergo, don't go around grunting or panting at people, so write that down.

I wonder if I can prove each sign in that parable and validate my observations or add some new ones. For I am an observant observer, almost like those cold toads who are such testy testers, yet not.

What will be observed is predictable, given some basic patterns,
"....females were more likely than males to indicate they were seeking a “sense of humor,” whereas men were more likely to offer it. However, women seeking men with a “good sense of humor” are probably looking not for giggly guys, but rather for men who make them laugh...."

The sensuous wants to be sensed, men desire women and women desire to be desired. A sense of the humors is the same thing again. Sometimes to have a laugh, you have to make a laugh.

Men in a decadent society begin to lack a sense of the sensuous and they need more raw sensuality. Women want to be sensed and so they supply more sensuality. For that is the only way to be sensed, is it not? Everyone wants what they want and so that is the only way.

Or is it? At any rate, there is the decline of civilization, in a summary of the basic relations that make it up. From dawn(Sense) to decadence (sense and sensuality) to dissolution (the crass and crude)....

Archive...

Over at Left2Right, David Velleman writes....

....about the sissification of the Left, to coin a word. This issue is probably very near and dear to his heart, you see. He has the sweaty little hands of a censor, especially on this issue. But he likes to talk about it anyway. As far as I can see, he does not allow for comments on this post of his. Most likely, the "virtue" of being a sissy is taken as some sort of self-evident truth with this little fellow.

In the end, he says, "My point (do I need to have a point?) is that much of the talk about "moral values" may in fact be about values that aren't moral at all—values embodied in different images of masculinity."

VIRtue is not very VIRile for this little fellow, you see. He does not have a point. He does not feel he needs one. And if he did have a lil' point, it would not be a very pointy point. For the unsafety of that! (Yes, you need to have a point.)

So why would a lie about the Yin and the Yang, i.e. effeminacy, be taken to be some sort of self evident truth, evident in the Self? It depends on what is evident in the Self. David Velleman, who censors, bans and threatens like some effeminate proto-Nazi takes effeminacy to be "virtuous."

As if it is possible to remove virility from virtue.

The Founding Fathers, on virtue:
"Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly? .....I believe no effort in favor of virtue is lost."
--John Adams

They often said things like that. What is effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly? Some people call it the "gay lifestyle."

Take a further look at it, the philosophy of the Founders, was it right?

John Adams,
"Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy....."

"Most sissies will grow up to be homosexuals,and most gay men were sissies as children...Despite the provocative and politically incorrect nature of that statement, it fits the evidence. In fact, it may be the most consistent, well-documented, and significant finding in the entire field of sexual orientation research and perhaps in all of human psychology."
(Queer Science
By Simon LeVay
(The MITPress: 1996) :166)

Some reports indicate that 46% to 64% of boys with untreated gender identity disorders develope homosexual or bisexual orientation during their adolescence.
(Davenport CW: A follow-up study of 10 feminine boys
Arch Sex Behavior. 15: 511, 1986.)
(Green R: The "sissy boy syndrome" and the development of homosexuality, New Haven. Conn. 1987, Yale University Press.)
(Zucker K.J: Cross-gender-identified children. In Steiner BW, editor Gender dysphoria: development, research, management New York,1985, Plenum Press.)
(Zuger B: Early effeminate behavior in boys: outcome and significance for homosexuality, J Nerv Ment Dis 172: 90, 1984.)
(Zuger B: Is early effeminate behavior in boys early homosexuality? Comp. Psychiatry 29: 509, 1988)

I can no doubt update this research. It is a basic pattern.

John Adams,
".....intoxication...."

"Model I, Onset of Behaviors Before Age 13, showed use of cocaine before age 13 years as strongly associatedwith GLB orientation (odds ratio [OR]: 6.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45-15.20). Early initiation of sexual intercourse (2.15; 10.6-4.38), marijuana use (1.98; 1.04 4.09), and alcohol use (1.82; 1.03-3.23) also was associated with GLB orientation. ModelII, Lifetime Frequencies of Behaviors, showed that frequency of crack cocaine use (1.38; 1.06-1.79), inhalant use(1.30; 1.05-1.61), and number of sexual partners(1.27; 1.06-1.43) was associated with GLB orientation. Model III, Frequency of Recent Behaviors, showed smokeless tobacco use in the past 30 days (1.38;1.20-1.59) and number of sexual partners in the previous 3 months (1.47; 1.31-1.65) were associated with GLB orientation.

......Overall, GLB respondents engaged disproportionately in multiple risk behaviors, reporting an increased mean number of risk behaviors (mean =6.81 +/- 4.49) compared with the overall student population (mean = 3.45 +/- 3.15)."
(American Academy of Pediatrics
Pediatrics 1998; 101: 895-902
May, 1998
The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based Sample of Adolescents
By Robert Garofalo, MD.R. Cameron Wolf, MS; Shari Kessel, ScB; Judith Palfrey, MD and Robert H. DuRant, PhD)

John Adams,
....extravagance, vice and folly?"

"Only substance abuse and AIDS adversely affect more gay men, making domestic violence the third largest health problem facing gay men today."
(DAVID ISLAND & PATRICK LETELLIER, MEN WHO BEAT THE MEN WHO LOVE THEM: BATTERED GAY MEN AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 14 (1991))

"Gays and lesbians are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than anti-gay violence, according to a survey made public yesterday by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs."
(The Gazette (Montreal) October 23, 1996,
Wednesday,Final Edition. News; Pg. F10
Gay domestic violence; Study documents
abuse in homosexual relationships
Byline: Vicki Haddock)

"Battering is also a problem among gay couples: the National Coalition on Domestic Violence estimates that almost one in three same-sex relationships are abusive, seemingly more than among heterosexual couples."
(Newsweek October 4, 1993 , U.S. Edition
Special Report; Pg. 26 Patterns of Abuse
Byline: By Michele Ingrassia et al.)

"Most recent violent crimes involving gays and lesbians were committed by other homosexuals....said Michelle Lamoureux...We realized that there is a lot of conjugal violence and violence within the gay community.'"
(The Gazette (Montreal) April 4, 1996,
Thursday
News; In Brief; Pg. A3
Pilot project tracking violence against gays)

Religious hedonists never have had much use for each other, only more abuse for each other. It is ironic, in Canada they set up organizations to prevent all the "hatred" and violence against gays that an intolerant society supposedly supplies, yet it turned out that their phone lines filled with gays beaten and sodomized by gays.

Note,"Broude (Broude, G. 1981. The Cultural Management of Sexuality. Ref. 279. :633-73) concludes that child training can have a profound effect on adult sexual orientation."
(The Cross-Cultural Study of Human Sexuality
Annual Review of Anthropology,Vol. 16, 1987,
By D. L. Davis and R. G. Whitten :98)

Why would a culture want more "being gay." It seems not so gay.

Religious hedonists seem blind to the pattern of abuse, but when you go around self defining by your own feelings and saying that they define ethics and morality for you, sometimes you might feel like beating someone. Then, you may beat someone because, in that moment, you feel like it and your feelings define what is true for you. (Not to mention, defining who you are. "This is who I am.")

There are deep problems with the whole gay identity and the gay philosophy it is based on. Actually, like Socrates said, being ruled by and defined by your appetites makes you a slave. Some people try to revel in bondage and Sadean philosophy, as if it is not what it is.....yet, they still seem to sense that they are becoming dead in the head as they do so.

What a gay life that is, though. If you make it through the pattern of addiction, sodomy, STDs, HIV, etc., you may do so only to come to the brutality of gay philosophy.

"My point (do I need to have a point?) is that much of the talk about "moral values" may in fact be about values that aren't moral at all...."

Ridiculous....I am aware that I did not answer all the points he tried to make and examples he cited. But the thing is, he does not have a point.

Lincoln....

...he cited the Declaration more than the Constitution, unlike the modern judge who is often one step away from calling it "unconstitutional." There is an absurd idea.

Lincoln,

(The New York Herald
February 23, 1861
The President Elect on Washington's
Birthday, in Independence Hall)

"The President elect at Philadelphia, in several speeches there delivered, has made a declaration or two calculated to produce a profound impression upon the public mind. In a speech on the 21st he said that he might be required to down his foot firmly 'in his administration of the federal government,' and in a speech on the 22d, the anniversary of Washington's birthday, and in Independence Hall, Mr. Lincoln, speaking of the immortal 'Declaration' of 1776, said that the issue involved not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the mother land, 'but it was that sentiment gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but I hope to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men;' and he furthermore said that '....this county cannot be saved without giving up that principle....I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.'

Now, in these emphatic declarations of Mr. Lincoln, we have not the evidence for a positive interpretation. If by his foot down firmly he means that it is his purpose firmly to take his position in behalf of a peaceful policy for the restoration of the Union he is entirely right; but if he means the policy of a warlike subjugation against all parties repudiating his executive authority, he is all wrong. In his Independence Hall speech, however, he assures us that in 'my view of the present aspect of affairs, there need be no bloodshed or war. There is no necessity for it. I am not infavor of such a course, and I may say in advance that there will be no bloodshed unless it be forced upon the government, and then it will be compelled to act in self defence.'

We are thus encouraged to hope for a conciliatory policy on the part of the incoming administration....."

(The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the
Cosmos is Designed for Discovery
By Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards)

Some of the curves that supposedly no one noticed, until Colombus...or Copernicus...or someone or other.

The Flat Earth, Myth, Mythology and more mythological narratives of naturalism...

More idiocy, another ignorant narrative popular in the American University....

"The story is so common that it’s tedious to repeat it in great detail. As we all think we know, ancient superstition put Earth and its inhabitants at the physical and metaphysical center of a small, anthropocentric—that is, “human-centered”—universe. The benighted masses thought Earth was flat, while the educated elites, following Ptolemy and Aristotle, imagined it as a sphere, with the Moon, planets, Sun, and stars revolving around it.

Copernicus, according to the popular story, demoted us by showing that ours was a sun-centered universe, with Earth both rotating around its axis and revolving around the Sun like the other planets. This claim is some times accompanied by still more egregious factual errors. For instance, Bruce Jakosky explains in The Search for Life on Other Planets, “Because of this tremendous change in world view, Copernicus’ views were not embraced by the Church: the history of his persecution is well known.” Never mind that Copernicus wasn’t persecuted and died the same year (1543) that his ideas were published, not at the oil-soaked stake but peacefully and of natural causes. Since these historical facts muddy the popcorn-movie simplicity of the Official Story, with its cast of intrepid, steely eyed scientific heroes on the one hand and its one-dimensional villain priests on the other, the historical facts are garbled. (Understand, we don’t believe this is part of a willful conspiracy. Jakosky is a well-known and respected scien tist, and the publisher, Cambridge University Press, is a respected publisher of astronomy books. Such a mistake could only survive the editorial process because a great many intelligent people simply assume the stereotype.)

The popcorn movie continues on from Copernicus’s persecution with a bravura medley of fact and fiction: The messiah Copernicus leaves his even less fortunate followers, like Bruno, the first martyr, and Galileo, the first saint, to suffer even more hideous consequences. In time, however, the brave and unflagging march of scientific evidence overwhelms the darkness and idiocy of religious superstition—swelling and triumphant musical score followed by cheers and the film’s credits. The test audience loves it; everyone goes home fat and sassy in the knowledge of modern man’s incalculable superiority to the superstitious fools of a dead and defeated past.

Thus is the story purged of its cumbersome subtleties. The Copernican Revolution, we’re led to believe, was the opening battle in the ongoing war between Science and Religion. Textbooks and science writers on the sub ject display varying degrees of reductiveness and aversion to detail, but with few exceptions, the central message is the same: Religious superstition maintained the myth that Earth and human beings are the center of the universe, both physically and metaphysically, but modern science has taught us otherwise. Copernicus is the enduring symbol of science’s unflinching commitment to the facts, even when it means displacing humanity from our false sense of uniqueness and importance. As astronomer Stuart Clark puts it: “Astronomy leads us to believe that the Universe is so vast that we, on planet Earth, are nothing more than an insignificant mote.” Strangely, some even see Copernicus’s work as play ing the role of moral teacher. Philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “The Copernican Revolution will not have done its work until it has taught men more modesty than is to be found among those who think Man suf ficient evidence of Cosmic Purpose.”

The intended subtext, of course, is that one will be scientific only to the extent that one is nonreligious. To be “religious,” in the narrow sense intended here, is to believe that there is something unique, special, or intentional about our existence and the existence of the cosmos. “Science” here has a special definition as well. Rather than a search for the truth (scientia means knowledge) about nature—based on evidence, systematic study, and the like—science becomes applied naturalism: the conviction that the material world is all there is, and that chance and impersonal natural law alone explain, indeed must explain, its existence.

Toward this end, the official story line comes close to reversing the most important historical points. Predominant in that story line is the link between our “central” location and our importance in the overall scheme of things. As planetary scientist Stuart Ross Taylor puts it:

Copernicus was right after all. The idea that the Sun, rather than the Earth, was at the centre of the universe caused a profound change in the view of our place in the world. It created the philosophical climate in which we live. It is not clear that everyone has come to grips with the idea, for we still cherish the idea that we are special and that the entire universe was designed for us.

Historians of science have protested this description of the development of science for decades, but so far their protests have not trickled down to the masses or the textbook writers."
(The Privileged Planet: How Our Place
in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery
By Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards :222-225)

The judiciary, the way of the Left....

African American Newspaper, The 19th Century:
".....I will next read from his letters, to show what he thought of the Supreme Court, which President Buchanan and his followers have apotheosized since its determination of the Dred Scott case. In a letter of W.H. Torrance, dated Monticello, June 11, 1815, Mr. Jefferson says:

The second question, whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law, has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them, more than to the Executive or Legislative branches. Questions of property, or character, and of crime, being ascribed to the judges through a definite course of legal procedure, laws involving such questions belong, of course, to them; and as they decide on them ultimately, and without appeal, they of course decide for themselves. The constitutional validity of the law or laws again prescribing Executive action, and to be administered by that branch ultimately, and without appeal, the Executive must decide for themselves also, whether under the Constitution they are valid or not. So also as to the laws governing the proceedings of the Legislature, that body must judge for itself the constitutionally of the law, and equally without appeal or control from its co-ordinate branches. And, in general, the branch which is to act ultimately, and without appeal, on any law, is the rightful expositor of the validity of the law, uncontrolled by the opinions of the other co-ordinate authorities. It may be said that contradictory decisions may arise in such case, and produce inconvenience. This is possible, and is a necessary failing in all human proceedings. Yet the prudence of the public functionaries and authority of public opinion will generally produce accommodation.

Jefferson's Complete Works, vol. 6, pages 661,662.

It would be difficult to find two theories of the Constitution more widely different than this one of Jefferson, and that of President Buchanan, as laid in his inaugural, his Silliman letter, and his messages in regard to Kansas. But I will come to that presently. On this subject of the power of the Supreme Court, numbers of Mr. Jefferson's letters might be quoted, to the same purport as the above. I have only time to present brief extracts. In a letter to Judge Roane, date Poplar Forest, September 6, 1819, he says, referring to the Supreme Court:

In denying the right they usurp, of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the Judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the Government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the Judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too which is unelected by, and independent of, the nation.

* * *

The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax, in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any Government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law.

To Thomas Ritchie, whose name as the editor of the Richmond Enquirer, is familiar to us all, Mr. Jefferson wrote, under date of December 25, 1820, as follows:

The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners, constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special Government, to a general and supreme one alone.

I should weary you if I were to quote a tithe of what Mr. Jefferson has left us on this subject. What I have presented will suffice to show you that he entertained a deep-seated jealousy of Federal encroachments upon the rights of the States, and that he utterly repudiated the modern doctrine of the party which claims to be Democratic, that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional questions."
(THE NATIONAL ERA
April 21, 1859
Washington, D.C., Vol. XIII No. 642 P. 61)

Contrast that with what judges say, in "decisions" not unlike those at issue there.

"Like the character of an individual, the legitimacy of the Court must be earned over time. So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Their belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals."
(112 S. Ct. 2816 (1992) (emphasis added)
Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey)

Jefferson on the judiciary, what he saw from the beginning...

African American Newspaper, The 19th Century:
"The Evening Post republishes certain letters of Thomas Jefferson, warning the country against the dangers to be apprehended from the aristocratic and despotic organization and construction of the Supreme Court. Out of the inspired volume, we have never read warnings which were more completely justified by time. We can say nothing to add to their force.

.....Mr. Jefferson held:

First. That the Federal Judiciary is no more competent to construe and interpret the Constitution for the other departments of the Government - the Legislative and Executive - than they are to construe it for the Judiciary.

Second. - “That each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately, and without appeal.”

Third. That “the germ of the dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary” - “an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until it shall be usurped from the States, and the Government of all be consolidated into one.”

Fourth. That the tendency to consolidate the Government by strengthening the hands of the Federal Judiciary, constituted, in his day, the difference between Republicans and pseudo-Republicans - real Federalists.

Fifth. That the judges should be appointed for terms not exceeding six years, and renewable by the President and Senate. “The insufficiency of the means provided for the removal of the judges gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution, working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secure against all liability to account.”

Sixth. “The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundation of our confederate fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special Government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictiomem.' (To amplify jurisdiction is characteristic of a good judge.) The power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”

Seventh. “That a Judiciary, independent of a King or Executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a Republican Government.”

How far the Supreme Court of the United States has justified the anxiety which Jefferson felt and expressed in regard to its influence upon the Federal Government, we leave to the judgment of the public."
(THE NATIONAL ERA
July 9, 1857
Washington, D.C., Vol. XI No. 549 P. 112)

Typical....

______________________________________________________
Stickers unconstitutional

Since 2002, science text books in Cobb County have carried disclaimer stickers which state that evolution is a theory, not a fact. A judge ruled today that these stickers must be removed because they are unconstitutional, thanks to a lawsuit brought by parents and - wait for it - the ACLU.
______________________________________________________
(As reported at WorldMagBlog)

Most of evolutionism is a mythological narrative, not a fact. Generally it is hypothesis, not theory.

Evolutionism has nothing to do with being proto-Nazi, of course not. It's just a happenstance that Darwinists try to rule by oligarchy and force their views on local communities through the judiciary. There is a deep irony in Jefferson's words being so abused, when actually he wanted to protect the right of communities to make their own discriminations. Note that he believed in Intelligent Design, the philosophical basis of the Declaration. In contrast, look at the organicism of Nazism and the worship of Nature, the Blood and the Soil, etc. In the American Republic the Founders purposefully wrote anti-evolutionist and anti-fascist ideas into our founding documents, as their focus was metaphysical instead of physical. So the Republic is based on a belief in elected representation over hereditary leadership, the consent of the governed over monarchy, separation of powers over consolidation and republicanism over democracy.

The foundational belief which laid out the end that government was to be a means to was based on a belief in theistic origins and consequent transcendent self-evident truths. The argument could be made that as the elitists of the Weimar Republic support evolutionism and fascism so do too many of the elites of the American Republic, lawyers, jurists, psychologists, etc. So when you take a case like that before one, the results are not surprising, no matter what the truth is.

(As to the ACLU, a socialist organization, it has this queer habit of protecting pederasts. That is not surprising.)

The supposed argument from ignorance....

...also known as the god-of-the-gaps. I.e., science will fill in the gaping holes it has on the issue of origins, if we just wait for it. Typically, this argument is followed up by some emotional conditioning with respect to religion and science, implying that we should keep waiting for science, keep faith in it. It is used very often on the American Left, because they want to have faith in science while simultaneously pretending that they and science are opposed to religion based on facts.

An answer,
".....Australian philosopher Alan Olding, in commenting on thepersistent use of the argument from-ignorance or god-of-the-gaps objection against the work of Michael Denton and Michael Behe, writes, The phrase 'god of the gaps' is nothing more than a question-begging insult meant to stop the flow of argument before it has barely started.
(See his article: Maker of Heaven and Microbiology, Quadrant, January-February 2000.)

To see that the argument-from-ignorance objection is not a magic wand for silencing intelligent design, let's begin with a reality check. When the argument-from-ignorance objection is raised against intelligent design, who exactly is accused of being ignorant? It's natural to think that the ignorance here is on the part of design theorists, who want to attribute intelligent agency to biological systems. If only those poor design theorists understood biology better, those systems would readily submit to mechanistic explanation. Thus, when I lecture on university campuses about intelligent design, a biologist in the audience will often get up during the question-and-answer time to inform me that just because I don't know how complex biological systems might have formed by the Darwinian mechanism doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. I then point out that the problem isn't that I personally don't know how such systems might have formed but that the biologist who raised the objection doesn't know how such systems might have formed and that despite having a fabulous education in biology, a well-funded research laboratory, decades to put it all to use, security and prestige in the form of a tenured academic appointment, and the full backing of the biological community, which has also been desperately but unsuccessfully trying to discover how such systems are formed for more than one hundred years. Who is ignorant here? Not just the design theorists, but the scientific community as a whole. In fact, it's safe to say that the biological community is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity. How so? Because the material mechanisms to which the biological community looks to explain biological complexity provide no cluefor how those systems might realistically have come about. The problem, therefore, is not ignorance or personal incredulity but global disciplinary failure (the discipline here being biology) and gross theoretical inadequacy (the theory here being Darwin's).

Now, such vast ignorance is not something one typically wants to advertise. A few biologists, however, have now come clean. These include James Shapiro and Franklin Harold, neither of whom supports intelligent design. In a review of Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box (National Review, September 16, 1996), James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, conceded that

there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.

Five years later, cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he noted, "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

David Ray Griffin, also no supporter of intelligent design, is a philosopher of religion with an interest in biological origins. Commenting on the evolutionary literature that purports to explain how evolutionary transitions lead to increased biological complexity, he writes (in his book Religion and Scientific Naturalism),

There are, I am assured, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred. When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not in fact contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter someone who knows where they exist.

At a recent debate with Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, I quoted Franklin Harold on the absence of detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of complex biological systems. Miller did not challenge Harold's claim. Instead, he impugned Harold's credibility by remarking that Harold was old, having retired fifteen years ago."
(The Design Revolution
By William Dembski :213-215)

The Left is opposed to religion, science is not.

Thomas Jefferson, on Intelligent Design...

Thomas Jefferson,
"And when the atheist descanted on the unceasing motion and circulation of matter thro' the animal vegetable and mineral kingdoms, never resting, never annihilated, always changing form, and under all forms gifted with the power of reproduction; the Theist pointing `to the heavens above, and to the earth beneath, and to the waters under the earth,'asked if these did not proclaim a first cause, possessing intelligence and power; power in the production, and intelligence in the design and constant preservation of the system; urged the palpable existence of final causes, that the eye was made to see, and the ear to hear, and not that we see because we have eyes, and hear because we have ears; an answer obvious to the senses, as that of walking across the room was to the philosopher demonstrating the nonexistence of motion."
Letter to John Adams.

Those who have eyes, let them see.

An update, more knowledge dealing with the same philosophy that Jefferson thought was true:
"The presence of complexity — interdependent parts that do not function unless other parts are also present — poses another major problem for evolution. For instance, a muscle is useless without a nerve going to the muscle to direct its contracting activity. But both the muscle and the nerve are useless without a complicated control mechanism in the brain to direct the contracting activity of the muscle and correlate its activity with that of other muscles. Without these three essential components, we have only useless parts. In a process of gradual evolutionary changes, how does complexity evolve?

Interdependent parts, which represent most of the components of living organisms, would not be expected from random, undirected changes (mutations) as is proposed for evolutionary advancement. How could these develop without the foresight of a plan for a working system? Can order arise from the turmoil of mixed-up, undirected changes? For complicated organs that involve many necessary changes, the chances are implausibly small. Without the foresight of a plan, we would expect that the random evolutionary changes would attempt all kinds of useless combinations of parts while trying to provide for a successful evolutionary advancement.

Yet as we look at living organisms over the world, we do not seem to see any of these random combinations. In nature, it appears that we are dealing largely, if not exclusively, with purposeful parts. Furthermore, if evolution is a real ongoing process, why don’t we find new developing complex organs in organisms that lack them? We would expect to find developing legs, eyes, livers, and new unknown kinds of organs, providing for evolutionary advancement in organisms that lacked desirable advantages. This absence is a serious indictment against any proposed undirected evolutionary process, and favors the concept that what we see represents the work of an intelligent Creator.

The simple example of a muscle, mentioned, above, pales into insignificance when we consider more complicated organs such as the eye or the brain. These contain many interdependent systems com posed of parts that would be useless without the presence of all the other necessary parts. In these systems, nothing works until all the necessary components are present and working. The eye has an automatic focusing system that adjusts the lens so as to permit us to clearly see close and distant objects. We do not filly understand how it works, but a part of the brain analyzes data from the eye and controls the muscles in the eye that change the shape of the lens. The system that controls the size of the pupil so as to adjust to light intensity and to reduce spherical lens aberration also illustrates interdependent parts. Then there are the 100,000,000 light-sensitive cells in the human eye that send information to the brain through some 1,000,000 nerve fibers of the optic nerve. In the brain this information is sorted into various components such as color, movement, form, and depth. It is then analyzed and combined into an intelligible picture. This involves an extremely complex array of interdependent parts."
Dr. Ariel Roth, biologist
(In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Edited by John Ashton Phd :87-88)

The Left and censorship...

Dean Kenyon, like one former atheist came to the conclusion that abiogenesis is, quite simply, impossible. Physicists define something as impossible once it reaches a level of improbability that is defined as a state of clear impossibility.

But some things are held to because of the dogmas of the Left,
"When Kenyon taught the prevailing naturalistic theories of biological and chemical evolution in his large introductory biology course for non-majors, he also explained his own skepticism about whether these theories were consistent with the evidence and argued that intelligent design was a legitimate alternative to naturalistic evolution. A handful of students complained, and the department chairman immediately endorsed their complaints. He announced that he would not allow Kenyon to teach this course in the future, on the ground that the professor was improperly introducing his 'religious opinions' into the science curriculum."
(Colorado Law Review
SPRING, 1995 66 U. Colo. L. Rev. 461
ESSAY: IS GOD UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
By PHILLIP E. JOHNSON )

Darwinian censorship,
"....dogmatic Darwinists begin by imposing a narrow interpretation on the evidence and declaring it to be the only way to do science. Critics are then labeled unscientific; their articles are rejected by mainstream journals, whose editorial boards are dominated by the dogmatists; the critics are denied funding by government agencies, who send grant proposals to the dogmatists for "peer" review; and eventually the critics are hounded out of the scientific community altogether. In the process, evidence against the Darwinian view simply disappears, like witnesses against the Mob. Or the evidence is buried in specialized publications, where only a dedicated researcher can find it. [Enter, the dedicated researcher!] Once critics have been silenced and counter-evidence has been buried, the dogmatists announce that there is no scientific debate about their theory, and no evidence against it. Using such tactics, defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy have managed to establish a near-monopoly over research grants, faculty appointments, and peer-reviewed journals in the United States. In April 2000 a furor erupted at Baylor University in Texas over the right of academics to dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy. The Michael Polanyi Center, named after a noted philosopherof science, had been established six months earlier by theUniversity administration to promote research on the conceptual foundations of science. When the Center sponsored a major international conference (numbering among its participants two Nobel laureates), all hell broke loose, because the faculty learned that the Center's director,William Dembski, was openly critical of Darwinian evolution. The Baylor Faculty Senate immediately voted to shut downthe Michael Polanyi Center.....

Sloan said it "borders on McCarthyism." As of this writing,the future of the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor is uncertain. Dogmatic defenders of Darwinian evolution control not only most American universities, but they also wield enormous power over most public school systems. Kevin Padian is president ofthe ironically misnamed National Center for Science Education(NCSE), which pressures local school districts to prohibit classroom challenges to Darwinian evolution. (The executive director of the NCSE was a co-author of the NationalAcademy's 1998 booklet on evolution that included the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail.)In 1999, when a school district near Detroit wanted to put some books critical of Darwinism in the high school library, the NCSE strongly advised them against it.[...]

If [a] warning doesn't work, the NCSE calls on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for backup, and the ACLU sends a letter to the school board threatening an expensive lawsuit. Since every school district in the country is already struggling to make ends meet, this bullying by the NCSE and ACLU has been quite successful in blocking overt criticism of Darwinian evolution in public school classrooms. In Burlington, Washington, high-school biology teacher Roger DeHart taught evolution for years, but supplemented his pro-Darwinian textbook with material criticizing Darwinian evolution from the perspective of "intelligent design theory." In 1997 the ACLU wrote a letter to the local school board threatening legal action on the grounds that intelligent design theory is religious rather than scientific. DeHart withdrew the disputed materials, but requested permission to provide others dealing with scientific problems in Darwin's theory. [.....]"
(Icons of Evolution
By Jonathan Wells
(Regnery: 2000) :135-38)

What begins to happen in this context of censorship,
"Fred Hoyle, The Origin of the Universe and the Origin of Religion18 (1993). The vast majority of scientists work in isolated areas of science and base most of their opinions about evolution on what they have been taught. Being similarly indoctrinated since grade school, they are just as likely to follow the dominantevolutionary paradigm as the non-scientist. Hoyle calls this type of mental conditioning 'respectable ignorance' because it is the antithesis of what science is supposed to represent."
(Ohio State Law Journal 2002
63 Ohio St. L.J. 1507
ARTICLE: Storm Clouds on the Horizon of Darwinism:
Teaching the Anthropic Principle
and Intelligent Design in the Public Schools
By Jeffrey F. Addicott)

Intelligent Design, a very short summary...

"THINK OF MOUNT RUSHMORE—what about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence. Such features or patterns are signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, are not content to regard such signs as mere intuitions. Rather, they insist on studying them formally, rigorously and scientifically. Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence. Note that a sign is not the thing signified. Intelligent design does not try to get into the mind of a designer and figure out what a designer is thinking. Its focus is not a designer’s mind (the thing signified) but the artifact due to a designer’s mind (the sign). What a designer is thinking may be an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about what a designer is thinking from the designed objects that a designer produces (provided the designer is being honest). But the designer’s thought processes lie outside the scope of intelligent design. As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such."
(The Design Revolution
By William Dembski :33)

Science and Religion....

"Let’s put it this way. I think the physical sciences are more likely to be religious than the biological sciences because they have, as it were, perhaps, a simpler concept of the universe and they are not so involved in minutiae as the biological sciences. [I.e., they are not so myopic.] In The Human Mystery, I deal with findings that are relevant for the theistic view, the Big Bang theory, and the anthropic principle. What Heisenberg called the First Principle, the principle of order — I don’t know whether by that he meant God— as long as we carry on the tradition of this, which was derived from the Christian religion, some dim theistic view that goes onguiding us; if that should go, he said, that will be quite terrible, worse than concentration camps. I can see that very much today still. What you have is a scientistic view, science as a kind ofreligion. Jacques Monod is an arch-priest of this, or arch-prophet, but there are quite a lot of others in the same way in other movements like sociobiology denying anything human, value-systems which animals don’t have. The situation I regard as quite serious, and I don’t think that in the seminaries training Protestant andCatholic clergymen, I don’t think they are really training them properly to face the modern world, to go out into a world where the average man in the street says that science has disproved religion. This is what you’re up against. I think it is very important indeed to be examining the whole mental outlook, from time to time, that is governing our lives and that is developing into the future. I hope very much that we are recovering from the long deep depression of materialistic monism which has spread over the intellectual world like a dark fog blanketing out all of the brightness and illumination of the ideals and imaginations of human beings. I hope very much that we can be restored to some sanity in relationship to the mystery of existence and become more and more freed from this domination by the dogmatic assertions of materialists that can only lead to despair and nihilism."
--John Eccles
(The Intellectuals Speak Out About God
Edited by Roy Abraham Varghese :47-48)

Marriage....

Over at Left2Right they have a topic on changing marriage to suit those who desire to change it. It would take a while to go through. A few points....

The title, "Tone Deaf to Dignity"

That is ridiculous. Who goes around self defining by their sexual desires and arguing that they define truth for them? Is that dignified? What about gay pride parades? Are they dignified, typically? Gay day at Disney? Just look at the dignity of that!

One might say that "heterosexuals" do the same things as they have their Mardi Gras, etc. Although those who adhere to traditional values, the main issue, do not. And heterosexuals do not take on some religious identity which they are "coming out" to witness and proselytize about. Self defined gays do, that is a portion of their own identity politics. So you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand say that "gay people" as a group need this and that. Then have "gay people" as a group disappear whenever the decadence in the hedonism of self defining by your own desires and declaring that they define what is moral and true for you is illustrated. If there is a group that bears a witness for itself when it comes to civil rights, discrimination and the like then there is always a group.

Looking at the way the self defined gay group of "gay people" represents itself, it is not "dignified." Instead, they are tone deaf to dignity, civility and civilization. Examples abound of that....

Dealing with what the author said, more than that which he is replying to. Some of his own views,
"But surely the brouhaha over gay marriage is triggered by the expressive side of marriage. The question isn't just, what are the consequences of being married? It's also, what does it mean to be married?
.....If we extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians, we are saying that in the eyes of the law their relationships are worthy of respect, equal to those of straight couples who want to make the same commitment."

Yes, that's right. Yet, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not on a par, not at all. The sexes are different and complementary. To the same extent of this difference and complementarity homosexuality is inferior. The Yin and the Yang are how human life is created and sustained. Homosexuality and heterosexuality can only be put on a par and treated equally if the Yin and the Yang are the same. They are not. Their difference is celebrated in every Romance movie, book, etc. Therefore, that which is not equal should not be treated as if it is equal.

It is an impossible goal, this New Equality.

Because,
"The attributes of mothering and fathering are inherent parts of sex differentiation that paves the way to reproduction. This is where the sociology analogy so often drawn between race and sex breaksdown in the most fundamental sense. Genetic assimilation is possible through interracial mating, and we can envisage a society that is color blind. But genetic assimilation of male and female is impossible, and no society will be sex-blind."
(Gender and Parenthood
By Alice S. Rossi
American Sociological Review,
Vol. 49, No.1, Feb., 1984 :10)

The main argument against what he is saying is that one form of heterosexuality is promoted and respected by the State currently. It is one form of sexuality. This is done because it promotes the general welfare. Does another form of sexuality promote the general welfare too? Does it promote the general welfare on a par with the form currently sanctioned?

The answer in the case of homosexuality is a thorough going no. In fact, the behavior patterns of homosexuality harm the general welfare. Homosexuality neglects the complementarity of the sexes. One example, men tend to be more promiscuous than women. In same sex relationships among a community of men this comes out more and more, to a ridiculous and self-destructive extent. Then, a philosophy of hedonism is there too. Perhaps the philosophy came out of it, in the denial of the Yin and the Yang.

"Gay men, as everyone's research shows, are perfectly comfortable with a nonmonogamous philosophy and, in a pre-AIDS world, with institutionalized nonmonogamous partnerships."
(Sociological Research on Male and Female Homosexuality
by Barbara Reisman and Pepper Schwartz
Annual Review of Sociology 1988 14:125-47)

He does not make the argument that same sex marriage will make gay men be monogamous. In fact, he seems to call that "wacky." So I will not deal with it. It is a typical argument from the left on this though, that same sex marriage can reform gay men. I.e., if only they could get married then their new legal status would make them think, "You know, maybe I should stop being promiscuous now. What with being married and all...." Etc.

He goes on, equality and special rights, etc. I say, this New Equality is an impossible goal. So why try to structure society based on an impossibility?

He goes on,
"....what's 'special' if the comparison is being treated the same as straight couples?"

One form of heterosexuality is already being treated in a special way compared to all other sexualities. The real question is why should any other sexuality be treated like one form of heterosexuality is? But here is the little game, invent some "sexual desire people" and then you can have some little groupie groups. So then you can say that people are not being treated equally before the law. That some are being treated as "special" while others are not, etc. This is a silly thing to try to accomplish with the form of sexuality at hand. One could do this with men who want to commit adultery.

Example, I say that there are promiscuity people. That is who they are. That is their sexual orientation. Now, despite millenia of moral teachings there are still promiscuity people. Would you just look at that? They've been discriminated against throughout the ages, yet there they are, the promiscuity people. So, these men were just born that way and society discriminates against them. Why would anyone choose to be discriminated against, after all?

Promiscuity people rights! I think we need to have some promiscuity people pride parades and things. Not to mention the fact that promiscuity people sometimes get beat up when they hit on people in bars. That is because of the hatred in society towards promiscuity people. It's mainly from the pulpits. There should probably be some hate speech codes for promiscuity people, to protect them, like they have in Canada.

And so on.

The fact is, this talk of a immutable sexual orientations is just not true. Sexual desires are more situational, environmental and hormonal...so promiscuity people exist in the same way that "gay people" exist,

"In the West, for instance, it may be common to expect that a homosexual preference is life-long, exclusive, and may even be genetic. [A rather ridiculous idea.] McIntosh (McIntosh, M. 1968. The Homosexual Role. Soc. Probl. 16(2):182-92) has argued, however, that this kind of homosexuality is a relatively new Western cultural phenomenon, and Weatherford (Weatherford, J.M. 1986. Porn Row. New York: Arbor House) questions the extent to which exclusive homosexual preferences are even characteristic of present day U.S. culture. The cross-cultural evidence suggests that life-long orexclusive homosexuality is a rare phenomenon. Bisexuality and situational or ad hoc homosexual behavior are more common."
(The Cross-CulturalStudy of Human Sexuality
Annual Review of Anthropology,Vol. 16, 1987,
By D. L. Davis and R. G. Whitten :69-98)

Also topical,
"Broude (Broude, G. 1981. The Cultural Management of Sexuality. Ref. 279. :633-73) concludes that child training can have a profound effect on adult sexual orientation."
(Ib :98)

So the cultural issue is, is homosexuality generally desirable, something worth prescribing and promoting by marriage laws and the like?

I'll finish this later. It's getting long. It'll probably have to be long. Just one of those huge issues....that's what people are saying when they ask, "Do you believe gays are born that way?" I.e., what are your thoughts on biology, genetics, philosophy, religion, men and women, and on and on....

A further comment...

...on the one below this.

"Embryos, fetuses and babies do not neutrally reside in their mothers' bodies...."

Isn't it obvious that mothers are the Victims© of their babies? This is the typical framework of any Leftist argument, inane victimization propaganda.

It is easy to deconstruct.

I like one of the comments there by CDC:
"My wife and I are host organisms. One of our little parasites just finished reading "Gone With The Wind". She's ten. The other parasite is starting multi-variable algebra applications. He's eight.

I'm looking forward to bouncing the next generation of this infestation on my knee."

Breast nursing, those dang parasites are just hanging on.

In the end, the Leftist worldview really is disgusting. These are the views of the moral degenerates in the American universities. But watch out in telling them about it like that CDC. They will begin to find excuses to censor and ban you.

Left2Right, on babies....

Trackback to this post.

I too would say that the Left should be honest and go ahead and argue what they actually believe instead of the sanitized version.

I.e., argue that babies are like vampiric parasites.

"....pregnancy too involves blood, gore and indeed something like a parasitical relationship. Embryos, fetuses and babies do not neutrally reside in their mothers' bodies, but actively draw from them. .....it seems to me that we treat mothers' bodies especially lightly, as if pregnancy did not suck anyone's blood."

Watch out, it's the invasion of the body snatchers, all those blood sucking babies don't you know.

There are three groups that a certain type of mind will hate, Jews, babies and Christians of the Spirit. I think it has to do with an ancient convenant. But just who is the vampire? Christ gives his own blood for those he loves, I suppose the precise inversion would be to try to steal it or drink it. The way that stories get told and verses written by inversions of Version is always interesting. Then one is left with the Leftist perversions, which I would argue are illustrated at Left2Right on occasion.

Winning the war.....

Left2Right, on the war...

There is nothing controversial about what he says. One point, he says, "My fondest hopes are that this administration's insistently cheery refrains on the war are all about managing domestic public opinion...."

First, sometimes they have said it is tough or will be tough. But generally, they are balancing the Old Press which despite some early rumblings of support is now pretty much totally against the war. People who are informed know all the negative news and even the spin too, it is almost unavoidable.

An example of some early support from the Old Press as well as the different ways that the press can spin. Different story tellers make for different stories.

I think that the reason Bush, when being negative, only said that there were "miscalculations" with regard to specific things like WMDs is because an increasingly anti-war Old Press would have run headlines like this: "Bush says war a mistake!"

But, "Bush says there were some miscalculations!" does not have the same normative ring to it. In other words, soldiers will not begin to think, "You know, we're really bad dudes here fighting for absolutely nothing. This is the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am just Evil."

Recall the press conferences where the Old Press was quite intent on, "So, what mistakes have you made?" It was as if they all had the same talking point. They seemed to want a "mistake" to write about, not miscalculations.

On the topic of the war, you can contribute to the Iraqi Pro-Democracy Party. I did. And this blog, Iraq is the model, will link you into various Iraqi blogs which are both pro and anti-American. It is part of their own voice, and what they have to say may suprise you. Do not rely on the Old Press to tell you the truth, in any case.

Later....

Something else to think about....

"Seeing Outside the Visual Spectrum

Finally, let us consider some of the hypothetical problems that would be met in attempting to construct a biological high-resolution camera-type eye to “see” in wavelengths outside the visual region of the spectrum. For example, to obtain, with infrared or radio waves, the same degree of resolution as that which can be achieved with the human eye and many other optimized vertebrate camera eyes would require eyes of vastly in creased size, even if a biological detector device could be constructed. To obtain the same resolving power as that of the human eye with, say, radiowaves with a wavelength of 100 centimeters would requirea reflector disc 10 kilometers in diameter. Even far-shorter-frequency radio waves, or microwaves of 1 millimeter wavelength, wouldrequire a lens or disc with a di ameter of 10 meters to equal the resolving power of the human eye."
(Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of
Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe
By Michael J. Denton (The Free Press: 1998) :67)

I feel bad...

....that there's nothing on here yet for those clicking through blogs.

So here's something to think about.

What animal rights activists say,
"...Singer believes that humans do give less consideration to nonhuman animals and he labels this concept 'specieism.' 'Specieism' is defined by Singer as 'a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species."
(Whittier Law Review. Fall, 1995 17
NOTE AND COMMENT: THE INADEQUATE
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS AGAINST CRUEL
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY PRACTICES UNDER
UNITED STATES LAW
By Nicole Fox)

Blog keeping....

For now, this is the parent blog of this blog.

This will be used for answering the blog Left2Right because of its censorship and also for extra archives of research and such.

Later...

Left2Right

This blog may be an answer to another blog. Once I get around to it.