Quick Roundup 432

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Series on Government without Taxation

I'm writing up some scientific findings even as I prepare to move, so this is just as much to remind myself to read this later on as it is to bring it to your attention.

That said, head on over to Live Oaks, where Brian Phillips has written a series on how to finance the proper functions of government -- without the government stooping to theft.

Rave reviews so far!

Admin Notes

Mike Bahr's House of Exuberance blog has moved, and I have added Powell History to the "Sponsored Links" section. I also have several new blogs to add to the sidebar, but they'll have to wait a little bit longer.

Green Indoctrination

I recently had to take Driver's Ed -- which, luckily, I could do cheaply and at my convenience using the web -- in order to have a very dubious traffic citation not count against my record. It had been at least five years since I had to do this, but wow, what a difference a few years can make! A significant part of this "safety" course was devoted to the environment. I am not making this up. At one point, we were even urged to "do our part" by reminding local government officials that a clean environment is a high priority.

But at least I'm an adult, and I can recognize propaganda and inappropriate government marching orders when I see them.

LB tells of much more -- and much worse -- directed at children.
The New York Times reports "Story of Stuff" is the next big thing in environmentalist propaganda in the classroom. Of course, they don't report it that way; the Times actually calls it "cheerful" as its simple drawings and friendly presenter are accessible to even the very young. I don't think that the shaking, desolate line-drawn individuals standing on their little piece of destroyed earth – who have no alternative but to work in nasty factories and poison their own babies through their toxic breast milk because you had to have an iPod – is "cheerful" even if the presenter refers to it in scare quotes as the "beauty” of the system.
Public "education" must be abolished.

Theological Conundrum

My mother recently sent me a hilarious series of photos taken of an exchange that took place via the announcement signs of two churches across the street from one other.

I was even more delighted to see that the entire series appears in order on a blog. Enjoy!

[Update: The exchange apparently did not actually happen, but as a commenter at Silicon Valley Watch points out. Still, quite funny. And, as a former Catholic, I plead Poe's Law.]

-- CAV

This post was composed in advance and scheduled for publication at 5:00 A.M. on May 13, 2009.


: (1) Added note to end of last section. (2) Corrected two typos.


Anonymous said...

Well, since you say you are a former Catholic, you presumably would know the correct theological position.

However, I have generally found that people who identify themselves as "former Catholics" are laughably ignorant about the religion they left -- which makes we wonder if it can really be said, then, that they are a "former Catholic".

Gus Van Horn said...

There is no such thing as a "correct" position in a field -- like theology or astrology -- devoted to figments.

Anonymous said...

Nonsense. Even if you are an atheist (a position requiring a great deal of faith, by the way) you ought to be able to see that a particular group that adheres to a creed (which constitutes a standard for that group)can judge positions or opinions according to that creed, and thus judge whether or not the position or opinion is "correct".

Your answer is just what I would expect from a "former Catholic".

The two most brilliant men I ever met were Catholic priests. One was Fr. Stanley Jaki, a professor of physics, who died recently. The other is Fr. Stromberg, a former professor of philosophy. I think of those two incredible minds and contrast that with your flippant comment about "figments". Yup, just the sort of ad hominem stupidity I expect from former Catholics.

Gus Van Horn said...

I would suggest you learn about (1) the onus of proof principle and (2) what an ad hominem attack actually is, and then consider picking up a book about etiquette.

Atheism does not require faith any more than it takes faith for me to reject out of hand, say, an assertion that there is a Seven-Eleven store on the far side of the moon.

Furthermore, I know plenty of brilliant people who believe in God. But so what? Even brilliant men make mistakes and even brilliant men can choose to turn their minds off in certain areas, such as philosophy. Men have free will.

Finally, not to put too fine a point on this, I will post nothing further from you unless you apologize and then refrain from insulting me in the future.