Via Sueanne on Facebook: "Humorous protest group for those of us who like a little levity with our loss of civil rights."
What is even more astounding to me is that apparently there are real signs in the southwest that urge caution!
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Antony Flew Dies
I just read that Antony Flew died on April 8. The famed atheist-turned-deist was 87.
Here is his New York Times obituary, and here is a controversial article by Mark Oppenheimer, "The Turning of an Atheist," which caused as much of a stir as Flew's own rejection of atheism. (See Roy Vargheses's rebuttal of Oppenheimer's article here .)
Flew's There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind has been panned by some atheists as the rantings of a senile old man and overly praised by some Christians, who seem to mistake deism for theism.
I have not read the book yet, but from what I understand, Flew's changed position was due to his reconsideration of Intelligent Design and disgust with the arrogance of the New Atheists.
Here is his New York Times obituary, and here is a controversial article by Mark Oppenheimer, "The Turning of an Atheist," which caused as much of a stir as Flew's own rejection of atheism. (See Roy Vargheses's rebuttal of Oppenheimer's article here .)
Flew's There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind has been panned by some atheists as the rantings of a senile old man and overly praised by some Christians, who seem to mistake deism for theism.
I have not read the book yet, but from what I understand, Flew's changed position was due to his reconsideration of Intelligent Design and disgust with the arrogance of the New Atheists.
Good night, Antony, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest. May that give you the remaining evidence you need to make the final turn.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
"Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis:" Analyzing Transcendence
Courtesy "Discovering Music," on BBC Wonderful Radio 3.
This is the music I want played at my funeral. It is the Gospel of John in music. Unfortunately, the host of the program completely misses the point at the end of his analysis. This music is about the One Who is Fully Human and Fully God, and the final chord is a witness to the reality of theosis.
Part 1:
Part2:
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
This is the music I want played at my funeral. It is the Gospel of John in music. Unfortunately, the host of the program completely misses the point at the end of his analysis. This music is about the One Who is Fully Human and Fully God, and the final chord is a witness to the reality of theosis.
Part 1:
Part2:
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Monday, April 26, 2010
Keep Government Small: Vote Democratic
via Brad, here is an interesting challenge to the popular wisdom. Of course, there may be other reasons not to vote Democratic, but
the old idea that Republicans are the party of small government is not one of them!
Keep Government Small: Vote Democratic
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world ...
--William Butler Yeats, 1919
In today's New York Times, David Brooks laments the loss of the political center. "In the first year of the Obama administration," he writes, "the Democrats, either wittingly or unwittingly, decided to put the big government-versus-small government debate at the center of American life." The result is polarization, with a strong tilt to the "antigovernment right." Brooks, who is somewhat right of center himself, does not call this "mere anarchy."
Indeed, the internet is full of anger against what many people see as "a federal onslaught," but Brooks must be referring to spin rather than facts when he characterizes Democrats as the big government party and Republicans as the small government party. That, of course, is what Republicans would like us to believe: they have been characterizing Democrats as the "tax and spend" party since FDR's time.
I decided to find out just how committed to big government Democrats really are. I was sure they spent more on government programs than Republicans did, but how much more?
Checking the figures
To find out, I went to the Historical Tables of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. This 342-page document includes a mind-boggling array of statistics. The one that seemed most helpful in gauging the size of the federal government appears in Table 3.1, "Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2013," running from page 47 to page 55. The bottom line for each year shows total federal outlays as a percentage of the gross domestic product. This looked like a good indicator of the federal government's role relative to the overall economy.
First, I listed this percentage for each of the 74 years covered. I then put the 38 years of Democratic administrations in one column and 36 years of Republican administrations in another and took the average of each. Federal outlays under Democratic administrations averaged 20.5%; under Republican administrations, they averaged 20.2%.
OK, I wanted to be fair. These figures projected a declining percentage under President Obama. Since the future is unknown, I deleted the years 2008 - 2013, which were based on projections, and I redid the averages. Republicans remained at 20.2%, while Democrats rose to 20.7%.
That still didn't seem quite fair, since Democrats were in power during World War II when for three years federal outlays topped 40% a year. So I deleted figures for 1943-45, and I also deleted the Republicans' highest three years (all under Ronald Reagan). Now the Democrats' average dropped to 18.4%, while the Republicans' came to 19.9%.
Surprisingly, these figures show that, since 1940, Republicans and Democrats are just about equally invested in big government. If anything, government gets slightly smaller under Democrats.
Clinton, Bush, and Reagan
Well then, how about recent history? I decided to compare the percentages under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. There was quite a bit of government expansion during those 16 years - and it wasn't under Clinton. I made a graph to show what went on:
It's possible that the bank bail-outs and social legislation favored by Barack Obama will increase the Democrats' percentages once more. Fortunately, even with the increases under George W. Bush, Obama has a long way to go before they reach the average percentage of the fabled small-government Reagan-Bush era: 22.2%.
Under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the federal outlay percentage was higher than under any other Republican president since 1940 with the exception of 1970-71 under Richard Nixon, when it climbed to 22.3% and 23.3% respectively.
It was also higher than under any Democratic president with the exception of Roosevelt and Truman from 1942 to 1946, when we were fighting and recovering from World War II.
"In 2008," Brooks writes, "the country was evenly split on whether there should be bigger government with more services or smaller government with fewer services. Now, according to a Pew Research Center poll, the smaller government side has a 10-point edge." If those small-government backers consider the history of federal spending, they may decide to vote Democratic.
the old idea that Republicans are the party of small government is not one of them!
Keep Government Small: Vote Democratic
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world ...
--William Butler Yeats, 1919
In today's New York Times, David Brooks laments the loss of the political center. "In the first year of the Obama administration," he writes, "the Democrats, either wittingly or unwittingly, decided to put the big government-versus-small government debate at the center of American life." The result is polarization, with a strong tilt to the "antigovernment right." Brooks, who is somewhat right of center himself, does not call this "mere anarchy."
Indeed, the internet is full of anger against what many people see as "a federal onslaught," but Brooks must be referring to spin rather than facts when he characterizes Democrats as the big government party and Republicans as the small government party. That, of course, is what Republicans would like us to believe: they have been characterizing Democrats as the "tax and spend" party since FDR's time.
I decided to find out just how committed to big government Democrats really are. I was sure they spent more on government programs than Republicans did, but how much more?
Checking the figures
To find out, I went to the Historical Tables of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. This 342-page document includes a mind-boggling array of statistics. The one that seemed most helpful in gauging the size of the federal government appears in Table 3.1, "Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2013," running from page 47 to page 55. The bottom line for each year shows total federal outlays as a percentage of the gross domestic product. This looked like a good indicator of the federal government's role relative to the overall economy.
First, I listed this percentage for each of the 74 years covered. I then put the 38 years of Democratic administrations in one column and 36 years of Republican administrations in another and took the average of each. Federal outlays under Democratic administrations averaged 20.5%; under Republican administrations, they averaged 20.2%.
OK, I wanted to be fair. These figures projected a declining percentage under President Obama. Since the future is unknown, I deleted the years 2008 - 2013, which were based on projections, and I redid the averages. Republicans remained at 20.2%, while Democrats rose to 20.7%.
That still didn't seem quite fair, since Democrats were in power during World War II when for three years federal outlays topped 40% a year. So I deleted figures for 1943-45, and I also deleted the Republicans' highest three years (all under Ronald Reagan). Now the Democrats' average dropped to 18.4%, while the Republicans' came to 19.9%.
Surprisingly, these figures show that, since 1940, Republicans and Democrats are just about equally invested in big government. If anything, government gets slightly smaller under Democrats.
Clinton, Bush, and Reagan
Well then, how about recent history? I decided to compare the percentages under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. There was quite a bit of government expansion during those 16 years - and it wasn't under Clinton. I made a graph to show what went on:
It's possible that the bank bail-outs and social legislation favored by Barack Obama will increase the Democrats' percentages once more. Fortunately, even with the increases under George W. Bush, Obama has a long way to go before they reach the average percentage of the fabled small-government Reagan-Bush era: 22.2%.
Under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the federal outlay percentage was higher than under any other Republican president since 1940 with the exception of 1970-71 under Richard Nixon, when it climbed to 22.3% and 23.3% respectively.
It was also higher than under any Democratic president with the exception of Roosevelt and Truman from 1942 to 1946, when we were fighting and recovering from World War II.
"In 2008," Brooks writes, "the country was evenly split on whether there should be bigger government with more services or smaller government with fewer services. Now, according to a Pew Research Center poll, the smaller government side has a 10-point edge." If those small-government backers consider the history of federal spending, they may decide to vote Democratic.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Two artistic punctuation marks
I want to remember two small, but mighty theatrical experiences today, one operatic, and one ballet.
1)The Met radio broadcast this morning was Tosca. Patricia Racette sang "Visi d'arte," to which which Bryn Terfel (Scarpia) responded with three slow, sarcastic claps of applause. What a brilliant idea! It's difficult to imagine anything better than the way Maria Callas and Tito Gobbi played that scene, but Terfel definitely added his own creative stamp.
2) Tonight while I was ironing, I turned on Classic Arts Showcase.They aired an incredible pas-de-deux from Roland Petit's "Proust," with Natalia Makarova. I wasn't exactly clear about the story line, but it seemed to be like a young man was remembering a long-gone romance. Makarova lay still as death on the floor, on top of a puddle of silk made by the long drape extending up high behind her. There was nothing else on the stage. Her partner lifted her from it, and gradually got her to become a bit more animated.
Makarova danced as if she were literally a memory; fluid, impossible to completely capture. After a long series of backward steps, her partner finally realized he had to let her go, and supported her as she returned to the silken puddle. She laid motionless. But he moved back, with his arm out, hand outstretched, the entire drape fell from above, and covered her, as if it were a shroud! That single bit of stagecraft took my breath away.
1)The Met radio broadcast this morning was Tosca. Patricia Racette sang "Visi d'arte," to which which Bryn Terfel (Scarpia) responded with three slow, sarcastic claps of applause. What a brilliant idea! It's difficult to imagine anything better than the way Maria Callas and Tito Gobbi played that scene, but Terfel definitely added his own creative stamp.
2) Tonight while I was ironing, I turned on Classic Arts Showcase.They aired an incredible pas-de-deux from Roland Petit's "Proust," with Natalia Makarova. I wasn't exactly clear about the story line, but it seemed to be like a young man was remembering a long-gone romance. Makarova lay still as death on the floor, on top of a puddle of silk made by the long drape extending up high behind her. There was nothing else on the stage. Her partner lifted her from it, and gradually got her to become a bit more animated.
Makarova danced as if she were literally a memory; fluid, impossible to completely capture. After a long series of backward steps, her partner finally realized he had to let her go, and supported her as she returned to the silken puddle. She laid motionless. But he moved back, with his arm out, hand outstretched, the entire drape fell from above, and covered her, as if it were a shroud! That single bit of stagecraft took my breath away.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Awkward Family Photos
This is a great site--always good for a chuckle. Or a groan. My favorite is actually not a photo, but The Thanksgiving Letter.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Terrorists "R" Us?
Yesterday on "Fresh Air" Terry Gross interviewed Richard Clarke on the growing "Cyberwar" threat. Richard Clarke served as a counterterrorism adviser to Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Clarke now heads a security consulting firm in Virginia and is a contributor to ABC News. He also teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
At the conclusion of the program, Gross noted that her interview was occurring on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombings; while in 1993, The Branch Davidian Compound near Waco, Texas, was destroyed in a fire after 51-day stand-off; and that in 1775 the American Revolution began in Lexington Common, with the shot "heard round the world."
"It is also the day that was chosen for a pro-gun, pro-second ammendment march in Washington, D.C., and another march in Virginia, and in the Virginia march, marchers have been encouraged to bring their guns." Gross continued. "Now ..as somebody who has worked a lot in counterterrorism, what do you think of a progun march being held on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing?"
Clarke responded: "Throughout our history we have had right wing people who say they don’t like the U.S. government, they want to take down the U.S. government, they think violence against the U.S. Government is okay; and since the election of Barak Obama these people have grown in volume, and I think they have grown in number.
We have to remember when we worry about Al Quaeda and foreign threats that one of the biggest—certainly the second largest and second most destructive terrorist attack in our history-- inside our borders-- was was done by these people, American right wing people, extreme right wing people, anti-government, violent people. I think the United States today has a serious threat from those people, because legitimate public officials are egging them on, and legitimate public officials who are conservative, and who are Republican, aren’t criticizing them; or aren’t criticizing them enough. We need to de-legitimatize these people, or we will have another Oklahoma city."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to the entire interview here
Monday, April 19, 2010
"Busy Beaver Numbers"
Don't ask how I stumbled on this one!
The Biggest Numbers in the Universe
By Bryan Clair
" ....We have found a sort of holy grail for large numbers: even busy beaver twelve is bigger than everything else in this article put together. This is the mathematician's equivalent of deep space. It's the arrow to the right off the end of the number line. These numbers are so enormous that they're beyond comprehension, yet there is always an infinite horde waiting to make them look tiny. The busy beaver numbers are far exceeded by an even larger uncomputable sequence called the "super busy beaver" numbers, which are beaten by the "super super busy beavers," and so on.
But big numbers never get boring, because "and so on" isn't good enough -- the path you're on is always too slow. Piles of pebbles are dwarfed by powers of 10, which are dwarfed by towers of exponents, which are dwarfed by busy beavers. Each significant increase required a new idea, and always will. The big number hunt is still on!"
The Biggest Numbers in the Universe
By Bryan Clair
" ....We have found a sort of holy grail for large numbers: even busy beaver twelve is bigger than everything else in this article put together. This is the mathematician's equivalent of deep space. It's the arrow to the right off the end of the number line. These numbers are so enormous that they're beyond comprehension, yet there is always an infinite horde waiting to make them look tiny. The busy beaver numbers are far exceeded by an even larger uncomputable sequence called the "super busy beaver" numbers, which are beaten by the "super super busy beavers," and so on.
But big numbers never get boring, because "and so on" isn't good enough -- the path you're on is always too slow. Piles of pebbles are dwarfed by powers of 10, which are dwarfed by towers of exponents, which are dwarfed by busy beavers. Each significant increase required a new idea, and always will. The big number hunt is still on!"
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Meditation for Worship: April 18, 2010
Psalm 30
Rev. 5:11-14
John 21:1-19
Joshua 20 (sermon text)
For today's meditation, I sought to give a Christian response to the Buddhists' confession of the Three Jewels.
Driven by fear, people go for refuge to many places—
to malls, schools, banks, theaters, the outdoors.
Driven by confusion, people go for refuge to many teachers--
celebrities, self-help books, technology.
Driven by guilt, people go for refuge in many distractions—
work, sports, games, fashion, food.
Lord, we admit our helplessness and sinfulness.
Today, we celebrate your power to lift us from the depths.
We take refuge in Jesus Christ,
We take refuge in His Word.
We take refuge in His Church.
This indeed is the safe refuge, this the refuge supreme:
Not that we have found it in ourselves, but that You have found us.
Now, Lord, through Christ’s righteousness
Help us to feed His lambs, and tend His sheep,
So that we all might follow Him, and rest together in You.
___________________________________________
NOTE: Buddhists are said to "take refuge" in, or to "go for refuge" to the Three Jewels (aka the "Three Refuges").
Chinese (Mahāyāna)
南無帰依仏 (to the Buddha for refuge I go)
南無帰依法 (to the Dharma for refuge I go)
南無帰依僧 (to the Sangha for refuge I go)
Driven only by fear, do men go for refuge to many places — to hills, woods, groves, trees and shrines.
Such, indeed, is no safe refuge; such is not the refuge supreme. Not by resorting to such a refuge is one released from all suffering.
He who has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Teaching and his Order, penetrates with transcendental wisdom the Four Noble Truths — suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the Noble Eightfold Path leading to the cessation of suffering.
This indeed is the safe refuge, this the refuge supreme. Having gone to such a refuge, one is released from all suffering.
— Dhammapada 188-192
Rev. 5:11-14
John 21:1-19
Joshua 20 (sermon text)
For today's meditation, I sought to give a Christian response to the Buddhists' confession of the Three Jewels.
Driven by fear, people go for refuge to many places—
to malls, schools, banks, theaters, the outdoors.
Driven by confusion, people go for refuge to many teachers--
celebrities, self-help books, technology.
Driven by guilt, people go for refuge in many distractions—
work, sports, games, fashion, food.
Lord, we admit our helplessness and sinfulness.
Today, we celebrate your power to lift us from the depths.
We take refuge in Jesus Christ,
We take refuge in His Word.
We take refuge in His Church.
This indeed is the safe refuge, this the refuge supreme:
Not that we have found it in ourselves, but that You have found us.
Now, Lord, through Christ’s righteousness
Help us to feed His lambs, and tend His sheep,
So that we all might follow Him, and rest together in You.
___________________________________________
NOTE: Buddhists are said to "take refuge" in, or to "go for refuge" to the Three Jewels (aka the "Three Refuges").
Chinese (Mahāyāna)
南無帰依仏 (to the Buddha for refuge I go)
南無帰依法 (to the Dharma for refuge I go)
南無帰依僧 (to the Sangha for refuge I go)
Driven only by fear, do men go for refuge to many places — to hills, woods, groves, trees and shrines.
Such, indeed, is no safe refuge; such is not the refuge supreme. Not by resorting to such a refuge is one released from all suffering.
He who has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Teaching and his Order, penetrates with transcendental wisdom the Four Noble Truths — suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the Noble Eightfold Path leading to the cessation of suffering.
This indeed is the safe refuge, this the refuge supreme. Having gone to such a refuge, one is released from all suffering.
— Dhammapada 188-192
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Spiritual midwifery
Priest: This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.
All: Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.
------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday one of my most gifted students wrote to tell me he has made the journey from the Disciples of Christ to the Episcopalians to the Catholic Church. He was received and confirmed last Saturday at the Easter Vigil.
------------------------------------------
Socrates: And have you never heard, simpleton, that I am the son of a midwife, brave and burly, whose name was Phaenarete?
Theaetetus: Yes, I have.
Socrates: And that I myself practice midwifery?
Theaetetus: No, never.
Socrates: Well, my art of midwifery is in most respects like theirs; but differs, in that I attend men and not women, and I look after their souls when they are in labor, and not after their bodies: and the triumph of my art is in thoroughly examining whether the thought which the mind of the young man brings forth is a false idol or a noble and true birth. And like the midwives, I am barren, and the reproach which is often made against me, that I ask questions of others and have not the wit to answer them myself, is very just -- the reason is, that the god compels me to be a midwife, but does not allow me to bring forth. And therefore I am not myself at all wise, nor have I anything to show which is the invention or birth of my own soul, but those who converse with me profit...
----------------------------------------------
Father, bless N. as he continues his graduate studies at Berkeley. May the Lord sharpen his mind, deepen his faith, and increase his love for Him and all that He has created, as N. follows Christ across the Tiber.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
State of the Union: Literacy and ADD
Obama has been criticized for his 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman's claim of being 'over-taxed.'
But why should this be news? Even the most rabid fans of Lost, who follow Doc Jensen's weekly musings at Entertainment Weekly's Totally Lost were upset with his 12 page, 6129 word discussion of the episode, "Ab Aeterno." Ah, we Americans love our sound bytes!
Derek wrote:
12 pages, really?!? OMG
Matt wrote:
12 pages? Are you kidding me!?
Skylar wrote:
12 Pages? Wow, I think I should be able to finish this by next week's episode
Jutsy wrote:
Gonna have to put on my hip-waders to muck out the bs in these 12 pages.
Jordan wrote:
12 pages? no way i'm reading all of this.
So if many Americans can't follow Doc Jensen, why should we expect them to follow the President?
But why should this be news? Even the most rabid fans of Lost, who follow Doc Jensen's weekly musings at Entertainment Weekly's Totally Lost were upset with his 12 page, 6129 word discussion of the episode, "Ab Aeterno." Ah, we Americans love our sound bytes!
Derek wrote:
12 pages, really?!? OMG
Matt wrote:
12 pages? Are you kidding me!?
Skylar wrote:
12 Pages? Wow, I think I should be able to finish this by next week's episode
Jutsy wrote:
Gonna have to put on my hip-waders to muck out the bs in these 12 pages.
Jordan wrote:
12 pages? no way i'm reading all of this.
So if many Americans can't follow Doc Jensen, why should we expect them to follow the President?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)