Did any other message denigrate another religion? If a Christian group put forward the message that Islam was a cult of a false god and likely demon, would Grigoire have approved it?

Of course not. All the messages -- save one, as far as I know -- were positive about their own message, and did not denigrate others'.

Only the atheist message did that.

Now, one can say But that is what atheism is all about, to which I would reply that Christians believe that Christ is the One True Way to salvation and that all other religions (save Judaism, which has an ecclesiastical grandfather clause) are at best in grave error and at worst deceptions designed to draw people away from the real God. And the same is true of other religions, too; few religions -- none, really, when you get down to it -- claim to be other than universally and exclusively true. Even a fusion of all other religions like B'hai claims that it's true, and that Christian claims of exclusive truth are themselves false.

Even dopey, incoherent New Agey babblings make this assertion. Sure, to be nice, they'll say "Well, Christianity is one form of paying respect to the Oversoul," but the New Agey whatever-you-believe-is-true-is-true creed unavoidably denies he central tenet of Christianity -- that Christ is the only vehicle by which respect for the "Oversoul" may be properly paid.

Anyway, the point is, all religions which claim exclusivity of rectitude (as all do) must perforce denigrate other religions as errors, cults, or even connivances of Satan. But they don't say so in their publicly-exhibited state-property Christmas displays, do they?

Before you object that atheism has no positive message -- that it exists exclusively in the negation of other messages -- well, only because most atheists interested in doing crap like this are only in that godless religion in order to stick thumbs in the eyes of believers.

But they themselves have positive messages, or could have them, if they were interested in anything more than Bait the Christians. A message like "No Greater Virtue Than Reason; No Higher Power Than Truth" gets the message across, pretty much, that faith is bunk, yet without quite saying it.*

If atheists protest "But that's not our whole message, that's just a bowlderized version of it!," well, Christians' "whole message" isn't "Merry F'n' Christmas," either. There's a bit more to the religion that "health and happiness this Christmas season" and other such nice but bland well-wishing. Christians offer a more inclusive, less divisive message when doing Christmas greetings on state property; are atheists uniquely incapable of restraining themselves in the spirit of amity?

As I've said, I'm a proceduralist (except to the extent I think procedure is bunk, and is just a covert, bullshitty gaming of the system to produce particular substantive outcomes; hey, I'm complex), but I think the atheists' divisive and denigrating message should have been refused on such neutral proceduralist grounds. Unless we also want to allow Christians to offer messages like "Merry Christmas, Atheists -- You're going to Hell!" and various groups calling each other cults and Whores of Babylon.

* Is this a crap slogan? Well, I just came up with it. As Evangelical Atheism is a fast-growing religion with millions of fervent new converts every year, I'm sure the Church of Evangelical Atheism can come up with something better.

Posted by: Ace at 11:49 AM | Comments (179)
Post contains 580 words, total size 4 kb.

Not really a surprise.

Her theory that a criminal complaint amounted to a disability was kind of, what's the legal term I'm thinking of? Goofy. Yeah, that's it.

Meanwhile, Blago's lawyers wants members of the Illinois House removed from the committee considering what to do about the Governor.

An attorney for Gov. Rod Blagojevich sharply challenged a panel considering the governor's impeachment on Wednesday, arguing that some members should be removed because they've clearly already made up their minds.

The clash was yet another sign that the embattled governor is choosing to stand and fight. Blagojevich himself said Wednesday that he wants to address the public about allegations that he sought kickbacks in choosing a successor for President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

Lawyer Ed Genson argued it would be illegal for the committee to use material from government wiretaps, and he objected to the panel's rules, saying they don't provide a clear standard for deciding whether to recommend impeachment.

Genson told the impeachment panel that some of its members have made statements suggesting they'd already made up their minds. He also said neither the law nor the constitution spell out the standard for impeachment or what evidence should be considered.

It's a nice try to change the conversation but I doubt it will go anywhere. This isn't a judicial action where the parties have legal obligations about fairness and neutrality. Impeachments are inherently political actions and the rules governing them are more or less up to the legislative bodies themselves.

I guess Genson wants to stall or try and rally some public sympathy for Blago (good luck councilor!) but he can't force the Illinois House to do anything or appeal their decisions.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:39 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

Thank Goodness the Democrats are back in charge. It was really a tough eight years, with the country being run by incompetents and all.

Glad we've got the A-Team back in action.

When Arne Duncan grows up, he wants to ether be a fireman,
a cowboy, the Hulk or a dinosaur

In 2007, only 17 percent of eighth graders tested at or above grade level in reading in Chicago Public Schools – the school system administered by Arne Duncan since 2001.

President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday tapped Duncan to become secretary of education in the upcoming administration.

Duncan, hailed by Obama as a reformer, said he would like to take the lessons he learned in Chicago with him when he moves to Washington. “I'm also eager to apply some of the lessons we have learned here in Chicago to help school districts all across our country," Duncan said after Obama formally named him to the job in Chicago.

According to the U.S. Department of EducationÂ’s National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report for 2007, Chicago public schools have consistently performed below the national average during DuncanÂ’s tenure.

Duncan said that America's children could succeed exactly the way Barack Obama did -- with the help of shady Chicago fixers and a nurturing, doting media. "I want to put CNN behind every child in America, and smother every student with Chris Matthews' borderline-sexual devotion," Duncan said.

I may have added that last bit.

Compromise? WSJ:

[W]e have argued on behalf of vouchers that would let parents of students in the poorest public schools have the same shot at a sound education as do more affluent children, such as those of Mr. Obama. The opposition from public teachers' unions to this or almost any significant reform is legendary. Thus, we listened closely when Senator Obama said nearly nothing during the campaign that would offend the unions, mostly urging more spending on preschool and after-school programs.

We now read that Mr. Duncan is an ardent proponent of public charter schools, though probably not of vouchers for private schools...

The three most innovative urban school chiefs are Michelle Rhee of the District of Columbia, Paul Vallas of New Orleans and Joel Klein of New York City. Had Senator Obama picked any of these, the unions would have gone to the mattresses in opposition. Arne Duncan is thus a compromise choice, and we will have more to say later on his record in Chicago. We know from experience, though, that any genuine school reformer eventually arrives at crunch time with these unions, and either confronts them or gives up.

Ah, the unions again. Back in charge.

Posted by: Ace at 11:15 AM | Comments (86)
Post contains 518 words, total size 3 kb.

Could it have been during the actual campaign, maybe?

That seems like the sort of thing that should be disclosed. Doesn't it?

Posted by: Ace at 10:35 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Progress:

DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged in a bid to boost the status of women, the disabled and cultural and religious minorities.

Such positive discrimination -- treating people differently in order to obtain equality for marginalised groups - is set to be legalised under planned changes to the Equal Opportunity Act foreshadowed last week by state Attorney-General Rob Hulls.

The laws are also expected to protect the rights of people with criminal records to get a job, as long as their past misdeeds are irrelevant to work being sought.

At least they're adult enough, and have enough respect for the public, to call it what it is. In America, we childishly claim we're not discriminating against anyone, just giving some people "plus factors." As if we're too fucking stupid to realize that to give someone +10 points on a (say) admissions score-card is mathematically indistinguishable from deducting ten points away from others.

Enough people bet sports to know that giving the underdog seven is the same as subtracting seven from the favorite, and yet we continue with the nonsensical euphemisms and double-talk.

Incidentally, if you're a white male criminal, you'll be all set in Australia, because the law is set to reduce that sort of discrimination, too.

Thanks to Maetenloch, via Moonbattery, offering their own take.

Posted by: Ace at 10:13 AM | Comments (64)
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, wait. That's not the plot of Doubt. Actually it's reversed -- it's the "attractive," "progressive" (um, liberal) priest who's the likely pederast, and the anti-sex moral scold nun who turns out to be... well, kinda having a point, at least about this particular issue.

Perhaps predictably, TNR's liberal film reviewer pans it:

The real problem with Doubt, though, is that it exhibits too little of its titular quality. I have not seen the play, which is widely praised for its ambivalence on the subject of Flynn's guilt, but somewhere in the transition from stage to screen the equilibrium appears to have shifted. From the start, it seems clear that Father Flynn has taken erotic liberties with his young charge, and it only becomes more so as the film progresses: His demeanor is too guilty, his evasions are too feeble, and the evidence gradually accumulates in one direction alone. (The fact that there are several scenes featuring the victimized boy, who was only described secondhand in the play, may also tilt the balance.) As a result, the intended moral reversal, in which the attractive is revealed to be ugly and the intolerant to be just, lacks bite. Yes, Sister Aloysius may be an agent of repression--typically a scarlet letter of cinematic villainy--but some impulses need repressing, and sexual predation of the young is rather high on the list.

It's not clear to me his criticism is political; if the film really was supposed to be about "doubt" as to the man's guilt, well, maybe that was lost in translation.

But the plot seems more interesting to me this way, and not merely because of politics: On a meta-level, we all know the heavies Hollywood prefers and the heroes it likes. By switching them around -- a minor trick, to be sure, but a crucial one -- the movie casts, um, Doubt on the unquestioned assumptions of most of the art-house indie-film audience.

I've noted before the tendency of Hollywood -- and liberal critics -- to praise films that "challenge the audience's assumptions and make them question their beliefs," but they always mean films that question conservative assumptions and provoke questions about conservative beliefs. They never write plays or make films that question their own assumptions.

When someone, in the very rare case, does make such a film, it gets panned. Obese liberal Roger Ebert, for example, panned Team America: World Police as "nihilistic," because, um, well by hitting both liberals and conservatives, the film did not take a proper stand... in favor of liberals and against conservatives.

Playwrights, actors, filmmakers, and critics always praise films that "challenge the audience's assumptions" as being edifying and important. But only so long as other people's assumptions and beliefs are being challenged; their own they prefer to be reinforced constantly.

If it is edifying for one's beliefs to be challenged -- aren't liberals doing themselves a disservice by not, um, challenging their fellow liberals more, instead pandering to them at every opportunity? Why does Hollywood so hate liberals as to deny them this important source of enlightenment and personal growth?

I have no idea if Doubt is any darn good. I'm inclined to see it now, if only for the odd inversion here -- liberal bad, anti-sex Conservative Stereotype good. It is at least an interesting experiment on a meta-level: How will liberal audiences, long accustomed to having their every bias and belief flattered and pandered to, react to seeing what it's like to be on the other side?

I'll check other reviews. For some odd reason I think that movie reviewers might find themselves finally finding a film starring Phillip Seymour Hoffmann and Meryl Streep they don't like. I'm guessing we'll see that universal rule about how terrific it is when movies challenge assumptions and beliefs isn't quite as universal a rule as advertised.

Well... It's got a 74% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but many of the "positive" reviews are only grudgingly so. Like the one that begins:

Objectively good, but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I mean, woo hoo, debating suspicions of pedophilia in the Catholic church!

Posted by: Ace at 09:05 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 965 words, total size 6 kb.

In which the scary-smart CNN loudmouth explains that Kennedy is just as qualified as Hillary Clinton was to become the next Jr. Senator from New York.

On Hillary's qualifications:

Her resume?

First lady. Lawyer. Advocate for health care and children's issues.

That's it.

"Instead of ripping her to shreds, maybe the haters should step back and recognize that here is a woman who understands public service. A notoriously private woman who is painfully shy in public, she clearly recognizes that we are in desperate need of people who care about the public good, and not necessarily amassing power on their way up the political ladder".

Who knew double cheeseburgers made you such a sensitive guy?

Besides me, I mean.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 09:03 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Some guy does a bit of number-crunching and calculates that federal liabilities now not only exceed government assets and income (which we all knew, of course), but also the gross cumulative net worth of all American citizens to boot.

The foundation’s grim calculations are based on Sept. 30 consolidated federal statements, which showed that Americans’ total household net worth, diminished by falling stock prices and home equity, is $56.5 trillion. But rising costs for unfunded social programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security increased to $56.4 trillion – and that was before the more recent stock market crash, $700 billion bank bailout, and monster federal deficits chalked up in October and November.

No problem. We'll just bail ourselves out.

A Forecast For A Genuine, Almost-Great Depression: Worst case scenarios:

A pessimist by nature, Rickards believes that many economic forecasters are wrong, and the recession will get far worse than predicted.

He sees an epic disaster scenario in which the U.S. gross domestic product declines by a staggering 35 percent over the next six to seven years. Crippling deflation could take hold. Unemployment, he says, could approach 15 percent.

ThatÂ’s a calamitous rate, but it would not be an all-time high: unemployment hit 25 percent during the Great Depression.

“The national security community needs to be conversant with this,” Rickards said. “In defense, intelligence, and national security, you earn your money by preparing for things that may be remote, but pose an existential threat if they come to pass.”

In this scenario, the possibilities for global unrest increase dramatically as a staggering United States retreats from foreign aid and global diplomacy and the list of dangerous failed states grows sharply.

The Alternate-Dollar Nightmare

“The Number One vulnerability is the dollar itself,” Rickards concluded. “We’re printing them and shoving them out the door, and the Fed is basically out of bullets. So why hasn’t the dollar collapsed? The short answer is, global investors don’t have any other choice.” That is, there simply aren’t enough Euro- or Yen-backed securities for investors to shift their money out of dollars and into some other currency.

But what if some kind of global coalition – say a trillion-dollar sovereign wealth fund allied with several countries around the world – banded together to create a gold-backed alternative to the dollar?

Rickards says investors – many of whom already resent that they have no alternative to the dollar – would sell American currency in huge numbers to take advantage of the new opportunity. “If that happens, that’s the end of the dollar,” Rickards said. “You’d have high unemployment, deflation, and interest rates would go up. It would take what already looks like a strong recession and make it a Great Depression or worse.”

It should be noted that part of this problem began with Alan Greenspan's very loose-money policies, pursued over the course of seven years -- an action he took, of course, to stave off economic panic after 9/11.

If it all comes tumbling down, the terrorists will have in fact have succeeded at their goal. Like the collapse of the towers themselves, the implosion just took a long time to occur after the foundations had been disintegrated.

Posted by: Ace at 07:16 AM | Comments (129)
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

If you're on IE, switch to another browser, immediately. Otherwise you might just get your computer taken over by hackers and all your stored passwords stolen.

Microsoft will rush out an emergency fix for its Internet Explorer (IE) software after the discovery of a flaw which allows hackers to take over PCs.

The company says it will release a patch for the web browser today, rather than waiting for its regular security update next month.

The flaw was discovered last week and attacks are "spreading like wildfire", according to software security firm Trend Micro.

The company's senior security adviser Rik Ferguson told Sky News Online: "It's a flaw that affects every version of Explorer on all versions of Windows.
"The main problem is that there isn't a patch available, so it is very widespread."

Mr Ferguson explained that many cyber criminals operate by using malware - software that is installed on people's computers without them knowing.

The software can then run in the background and connect to servers elsewhere, giving it the potential to detect and then pass on confidential information.

He explained that many pieces of malware are 'injected' onto websites across the world, often by cybercriminals who install them by using sign-up forms or other methods of interacting with a website.

...

Trend Micro believes as many as 10,000 sites have already been compromised, though Mr Ferguson said it is impossible to know how many might have been hit.

His advice is to switch to another browser until the patch is released, as the malicious code only activates when it detects Explorer.

Posted by: Ace at 07:00 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:31 AM | Comments (41)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.