Free Republic

So far, not a peep about this on the Herald-Leader’s website. The 40 or so who showed up at the homes of the AIG executives is of course covered.

What is evolution’s explanation for man’s survival after he gained knowledge that he is mortal? I mean, when that first creature along the evolutionary chain realized that one day he too would drop dead, why didn’t he just pack it in then and there? It seems to me that the idea of a God had to emerge pretty damn quick at that point or else evolution would have hit a wall of suicide. Or they would have starved to death because they were too depressed to grub for roots in their existentialist funk.

"The human race is an enormous agglomeration of bubbles which are continually bursting and ceasing to be. No one made it or knows anything worth knowing about it. Love it dearly, O ye bubbles." J. F. Stephen.

No problem with evolution. Escaping nihilism is the trick.

He was taken down by the two state-wide papers, which rival anything on either coast in bias. This entire campaign came down to the hiring "scandal," which involved 15 jobs. A special grand jury was convened by the Democrat AG in a county populated by Democrat state workers. That he would be indicted was never in doubt. Reminds me of Libby.

No one had ever been criminally prosecuted under the "political discrimination" statute, so Fletcher moved to dismiss on the grounds of selective prosecution. Produced statistics showing a gross disparity between the percentage of Repbulican residents and Republican state workers. A couple of counties were like 80% Republican residents and 25% of state workers. Clearly this was a result of the Democrats doing for years what Fletcher was accused of, the difference being that it involved thousands of jobs when the Democrats did it vs. 15 for Fletcher (13 alleged improper R hirings or promotions, 2 D demotions or dismissals), and no Democrat was ever prosecuted. The motion was solid, but denied by the Democrat judge (now working for Beshear, if I'm not mistaken), and laughed at by Democrat legal experts invited to write about it in the two rag papers. Honest coverage would have portrayed the entire operation as the political hit it was.

And when he was indicted, one of the two rag papers, the Herald-Leader, posted a pdf of the indictment showing it had been faxed to them by the Democrat AG two weeks beforehand. The press was also calling the administration about subpoenas before they were even served.

In short, he never had a chance. One big reason is that we have no organized alternative media here to get the truth out.

Two things that differentiate man from all other species:

1. Man knows he is mortal, and

2. Man finds humor in flatulence.

True as to the Kaiser. Also a defensible position.

Not true as to Hitler. He may not have believed we had cause to get involved in WWII, but I'd be surprised if you can locate a single pro-Hitler quote.

"Democracy is the theory that the common man knows what he wants, and deserves to get it good and hard."

A preview of where this is all headed in the courts:

"We are mindful of their suggestion (made only at the argument, and perhaps not intended) that anything which serves to amplify the personal history of the defendant and by doing so furnishes clues to the causality of the crime for which he has been sentenced to death makes such a sentence less likely to be imposed. Causality is mitigation, the lawyer argued. Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner. It is not an absurd argument. It exploits the tension between belief in determinism and belief in free will. If the defendant's crime can be seen as the effect of a chain of causes for which the defendant cannot be thought responsible-his genes, his upbringing, his character as shaped by both, accidents of circumstance, and so forth-then a judge or jury is less likely to think it appropriate that he should receive a punishment designed to express society's condemnation of an evil person. We consider a rattlesnake dangerous but not evil. Maybe if we learned enough about Walter Stewart we would consider him a person who had no more control over his actions than a rattlesnake has over its actions."

Judge Posner in Stewart v. Gramely, 74 F.3d 132, 136 (7th Cir. 1996).

Or you could act as Stalin. Whatever floats your boat, man. Go for it.

There may be no God, but most atheists and fellow agnostics refuse to accept that it must mean nihilism. It's no damn fun being a doubter, at least for me.

Without God, all is lawful - Dostoyevsky.

Man, that lecture was a threadkiller.

Tarring the French as "surrender monkeys" is bs, and based primarily on a misunderstanding of two events.

1) They were beaten in the Franco-Prussian War, but their armies were outnumbered in the few major battles, and Paris held out for months while additional raw forces were raised in the provinces. If Paris could have held on just a bit longer, there was a real possibility of lifting the seige.

2) 1940. It was reasonable to assume the Germans wouldn't come through the Ardennes. Don't forget that we got surprised in a similar fashion in December 1944. How would we have done in 44 if the overall balance of forces was comparable to 1940? If the Germans had control of the air as in 1940?

The French military tradition is otherwise one of glory. Verdun alone is sufficient to assure that.

I've been building a frame out of pipe cleaners, covering that with tape, and taping it to his ear.

It works, but there has to be something much easier. Takes me a solid hour. Been to the Great Dane Lady's site and used her method, but it's only for two ears.

What's the latest on the cough?

The extra-crispy skin is the best part.

Somebody should bag those up for sale.

Googled a little and found someone complaining about this on a Yorkie site. Also blamed on anesthesia:

http://yorkietalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2238

Non-emergency dog question:

I've got an 8 month old (beautiful, blue) dane. Ears were cropped. One ear simply will not stand. I don't want to give up on the taping yet, but I also don't want to keep taping the other ear since it isn't necessary.

Anyone know of a one ear technique? That is, something without a bridge between the ears to keep them standing?

Maybe picked up kennel cough from a sick dog at the vet's office?

Stalin no doubt thought what he was doing was in his best interests. The question of how you condemn his conduct, without reference to religion, stands.

Quantum theory introduces an element of randomness, which is hardly free will.

Point taken on an omnipotent God, which is why I have a problem with the Lutheran church I grew up in. I'll likely go Roman Catholic (if I can shake this agnosticism) solely because of the free will issue.

Sentis, there is no answer. No matter what "moral" code atheism invents, not following it will be without consequences, aside from those imposed by the bare force of the state.

By the way, atheism necessarily leads to determinism as well. After all, in a Godless universe, everything is cause and effect. No free will.

Sentis, I've read most of Rand's major works. In Atlas Shrugged she describes the religious believer as "digging his way to that glorious jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave."

The problem is that this statement applies to any atheistic "philosophy" as well, including Objectivism. Camus (who I suspect had a sliver of faith) summed it up nicely at the end of The Stranger: "What difference could they make to me, the deaths of others, or a mother's love, or his God; or the way a man decides to live, the fate he thinks he chooses, since one and the same fate was bound to 'choose' not only me but thousands of millions of privileged people who, like him, called themselves my brothers... Every man alive was privileged; there was only one class of men, the privileged class. All alike would be condemned to die one day; his turn too, would come like others'."

The point is that if there is no God, live your life in whatever way you like and it makes no difference. If religion is a lie, Christ and Stalin are equally dead, the latter after having killed 50 million or so, all the while yucking it up with Khrushchev and the boys at drunken dinners lasting till 4 a.m.

Now without reference to religion, Sentis, you tell me why Stalin was "wrong."

I agree that religion is losing influence, but the logical consequencce of rejecting religion is necessarily moral relativism. If there is no God, then there will be consequences for our worldly actions other than those the state can impose. What "rational" reference point should the state look to in setting the goalposts? Physics? Chemistry?

The irreligious left needs to answer that question. But I doubt most of them have even thought it through. Instead, they've substituted other religions so they can feel as if their life has a purpose.

The problem is that no purely rational, irreligious basis for a code of morals exists. At least, not an objective, fixed set of morals. In the absence of religion, only subjective morals are possible; that is, moral relativism.

I'm an agnostic, but I will not shrink from the logical consequences of rejecting religion.