People who think that guns make them look cool are fools.
People who support taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens are fools.
People who think that the act of taking guns from law-abiding citizens will cut down on violent crime are fools (See: England, where draconian gun laws have resulted in an increase in gun-related crime, as well as an increase in stabbings. Welcome back to the feudal age!)
People with children who do not use trigger-locks are fools.
Those in the aforementioned category who do not educate their children on the proper respect for and handling of guns are fools.
People who oppose guns are most frequently those who have never handled them. Unfamiliarity breeds irrational fear, and these people are… you guessed it: fools.
People sometimes ask me what I’ll buy when I finally have disposable income (a reasonable question, even though money is the furthest thing from my mind in relation to why I do anything, much less the priesthood).
I think they expect me to say something like, “a car,” or “a television.” Partly in truth, partly to be provocative, I always respond: “An M1 Garand and range time.”
I’ve always loved to shoot. BB guns, shotguns, .22’s, whatever. In my adult life, however, I’ve never been in a position to get serious about it. I’ve wanted a handgun for a while now. Marksmanship is definitely a hobby, and it’s ridiculous to think that I as a responsible individual with no criminal history should be barred from pursuing that hobby in this country.
Remember, friends: Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.
Doesn’t look good for the question I’ve been asking ever since the attack on Iraq: Can a post-Enlightenment ideal like democratic pluralism exist in a pre-Enlightenment society?
I’ve stuck with “no” for a long time now. But I’d love nothing more than to be proven wrong.
I don’t know how many times I’ve said it, even to people who ask me about the issue around the parish. I don’t care if O! can heal the sick and bring eyesight to the blind. The right to life is the most fundamental right, the right upon which all other rights are constructed (JPII, Evangelium Vitae, 1995). Without this foundation, anything any politician builds will sink into the ground.
My position has nothing to do with my religion, and everything to do with trying to construct a logically consistent life ethic. This is why the atheist Christopher Hitchens and I completely agree on abortion, even if I think he couldn’t be more wrong on religion.
The justification these NARAL Catholics bring (”I disagree with abortion, and I wouldn’t have one myself, but…”) to the table is a tired one, also inconsistent. If (a) I believe abortion is the unjustified termination of human life and (b) the unjustified termination of human life is murder, then (c) I must believe abortion is murder. So, why wouldn’t I speak out against something I perceive to be murder, and how could I - in good conscience - promote abortion through either word or deed?
I believe it’s safe to say that these NARAL Catholics do not agree with (a) or (b). The typical appeals to “democracy,” “my views shouldn’t be forced on the whole population,” etc. don’t stand up when you follow the (somewhat sloppy) syllogism above.
To conclude, however, I do need to give Obama his due in one area: at least he’s fairly consistent. As Jeff Miller wrote a while back, “Only Moloch is more pro-abortion than Obama.”
And he’s spared us the tired “I wouldn’t ever let my daughters get one” tripe so common to politicians justifying their pro-death vote. Just the opposite. Should his daughters make a mistake, Obama says, he “[doesn't] want them punished with a baby.”
He’s in favor of partial-birth abortions. In Illinois, he even voted in favor of infanticide, removing all rights from a baby born during a botched abortion, living outside the mother’s womb.
I have this theory. It runs like this: The Cubs have always been God’s favorite team. God is a Cubs fan. But God is also just, and it simply wouldn’t be fair for him to play favorites.
Still, O Lord, 100 years seems like long enough as far as establishing neutrality goes.
I’ve been fascinated by phenomenology ever since I read Sokolowski’s Introduction to Phenomenology in my second year of philosophy. This book caught me to such a degree that I still carry it wherever I go when I’m away from the seminary, along with the breviary and the Bible. And yes, I’m fully aware that this makes me an uber nerd.
I end with a simple declaration, requiring neither evidence nor elucidation: Thomists rule.
And as the picture credit also informs us, “Obama’s eagle wears his ‘O’ campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead.”
Yes, we can. Hope. Change.
Brilliant, really. Wonderful ways to say a lot, while saying absolutely nothing at the same time. The perfect strategy - and indeed, maybe the only winning strategy - for a junior senator who has passed exactly one piece of legislation.
I don’t have a problem with the fact that the O! campaign bastardized the presidential seal. Whatever.
What amuses me - and strikes me as outrageously pretentious - is how they decided to use Latin, as if this should somehow add extra weight to the mantra. We do tend, afterall, to reserve Latin for the Really Important Stuff nowadays, the unarguable tenants of whatever we’re dealing with.
Here’s one last slogan, one I prefer when dealing with politics in general: “By their fruits you will know them.”
C.S. Lewis, serving up a little bit of truth on Peace & Justice in the Christian life, one demon to another (H/T: Shea):
About the general connection between Christianity and politics, our position is more delicate. Certainly we do not want men to allow their Christianity to flow over into their political life, for the establishment of anything like a really just society would be a major disaster. On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice.The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that “only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations”. You see the little rift? “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That’s the game,
Steve Colbert had my favorite contemporary theologian, N.T. Wright, on the show last night. Awesome!
And he’s speaking on the Resurrection. Enjoy:
(Oh, and I suppose I should note: On more than one occasion, I’ve found that Wright doesn’t quite “get” medieval theology. The medieval Church never elevated spirit over matter, as if bodily existence is something we’re trying to escape. This was an inaccurate oversimplification on Wright’s part, probably due to a lack of time.)
I was so frustrated trying to register the thing for the 20,000th time, I just typed in “Seminarian” as a potential login name, sure that it’d come up broke just as it had 19,999 other times. Which begs the question: why even try to begin with.
The name “Seminarian” wasn’t taken, go figure, and I guess “SporeJosh” was either claimed or is illegal. Fair enough, I guess.
To anyone who might be Googling the terms “registration spore” or “registering spore” as I was a couple hours ago, try using a different screen name. There’s nothing wrong with your EA account/password.
I’m writing this because apparently, EA/Maxis can’t be interrupted from their latest plunge into the moneybin. Their help site is horrid.
Anyway, here are some great characters I didn’t make, credit going to the original artists. These figures need no introduction:
The Firefox/Mozilla team set out to generate 1,000,000 worldwide pledges to download Firefox 3.0 within 24 hours of its first release.
With somewhere around four hours to go, they’ve demolished all the old single-day download records. At time of writing, they’re sitting at 6,846,019. You can keep track of the count here.
Some interesting numbers:
U.S. - 2,313,914
Canada - 194,097
Iraq - 199
Iran - 185,306
China - 154,179
South Korea - 40,784
North Korea - 0
I’ve been a Firefox fan(boy?) since the beta days of 1.0. It’s always been faster than Internet Explorer, and much more stable, especially when 6.0 was the best MS could do. The software has only grown more stable and secure in the meantime, and the Firefox team is quickly swallowing up Internet Explorer’s market share.
And the boys and girls at Microsoft know what a force Firefox is. Here’s their congratulatory cake, sent to Firefox staff:
February 10th - the Feast of Saint Paul’s Shipwreck in Malta, according to the old calendar - is also the day Barack Obama announced his candidacy for President.
Ahh, I love it when my inner-nerd and inner-artist collide.
The demo of Spore’s Creature Creator - to be released on Tuesday, alongside a more advanced pay version - was leaked to the general public over the weekend, and I’ve been using it somewhat excessively this afternoon. Hey, it’s to be expected: I’ve been waiting on this game since 2006. Download it here.
Sporeis the latest offering from game designing genius Will Wright, who has brought us such classics as Sim City, The Sims, and…. Sim Ant?
Anyway, here are two of my creations, fashioned after everybody’s lovable little guy, Furby:
Pretty cute, right? Wrong. Both will spill your guts in celebration of yet another Cubs victory, “GO CUBS GO!” playing in the background.
EDIT: What separates Lennox from Dawkins? Quite simply, his philosophical understanding. That’s why every debate which pits Theologian vs. Scientist almost always goes to the theologian.
EDIT (x2): In searching for the Bertrand Russel/G.K. Chesterton debate done on BBC Radio (does a tape even exist?), I found this little interesting bit of history:
There are newspaper records of Chesterton humiliating Clarence Darrow in a religious debate in the United States — of which Chesterton mentioned only briefly in his autobiography by saying that, while in America, he had “debated a man who seemed to be arguing with his fundamentalist maiden aunt.”
WSJ: “
About the general connection between Christianity and politics, our position is more delicate. Certainly we do not want men to allow their Christianity to flow over into their political life, for the establishment of anything like a really just society would be a major disaster. On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on 
