There are some things that, once eyes have been laid on, must be owned or experienced. Today I learned of one such thing and it is glorious.
Continue reading “A New Life Goal”
Remember the Horror
Once again let us remind ourselves that we were warned that Episode I, II and III were going to be awful:
Continue reading “Remember the Horror”
One of the Most Ignorant Videos I Have Ever Seen
In an argument in a different venue someone referred me to a video that is, as the title tells you, one of the most ignorant videos I have ever seen. Our discussion was about religious principles in the system of government for the United States. The video presented to me, as an argument that the U.S. government and Constitution are not based on religious principles, was a wonderful opportunity to present many fallacies, foolish ideas and deceptions commonly used by those who disagree with me. I was salivating as I watched it. Critical thinkers watching the video should be able to quickly pick up on many of the aforementioned types of problems.
Let’s dissect this puppy piece by piece:
Our Constitution, our founding fathers and our heritage have been hijacked by the lunatic fringe. They are either lying or they’re too stupid to know any better.
No argument there.
But the Glenn Becks, the Palins and the Limbaughs are claiming our founding fathers based the Constitution on religious principles. It’s simply not so.
Wrong. It is not based on a specific religion, but it is based on religious principles. The respect for one’s fellow man and the rights of the same, are most definitely fruits of Christianity and religious principles. Most major movements to help people outside of one’s own group have been religious movements, and the American Revolution is no different. The abolition movement in the U.S. and Britain, the civil rights movement and the fight to save Indians and central Americans from slaughter have all been religious movements. The teachings of Christ really did revolutionize the world and even the most ‘rabid’ non-believer benefits from that today. In today’s world we are “born on a moral third base, and think we hit a triple.” If we look back in time at Greeks, Romans and other civilizations we will see that they would enslave those who were not Greeks or Romans and they would slaughter newborn babies for being female or less than desirable. (Granted, babies are still slaughtered in the U.S., which is unconstitutional) The abhorrence for enslavement and slaughter of those not in one’s own group is rooted in religious teaching and correct understanding of that teaching.
Not enough? OK. The phrases “taxation without representation”, “consent of the governed” and “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” can be traced to the Reverend John Wise. The coining of these phrases is attributed to the Reverend studying his Bible and preparing sermons. Nearly 50 years after his death his sermons were printed as pamphlets and passed around the colonies. 51 years after his death a certain Declaration was made containing many of his words. The principles (taken from sermons created from Bible study for religious purposes) in the Declaration are the basis for the Constitution, thus the Constitution is based on religious principles.
Still not enough for you? OK. When drafting the Constitution the delegates relied heavily upon John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government which references the Bible roughly 1500 times regarding government. Locke extracted principles and wrote about them, after which, our founders based the Constitution on them.
Still, even now, not enough for you? Take a look at the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights which, anyone who knows that little bit of history would also know that the U.S. Bill of Rights(1789) was based on it. Article 16 reads “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” Sounds a bit like religious principles when it says, “Christian forbearance, love, and charity”.
I could go on……
Let me introduce you to the founding father and the gentleman from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson. The very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time. “Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the common law” – Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.
The first big problem any critical thinker might come to is the fact that he says that Jefferson is “the very person who drafted our Constitution…” If you are going to single out one person, and ignore all the other delegates, as having drafted the Constitution, anyone who knows a tiny bit about history would put James Madison way out above the rest.
For the second problem let’s ignore the first. The video man says, “the very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time.” then proceeds to give a quote supporting his position. The problem is that the quote is from 1814, well after 1787 when the Constitution was completed. How could Jefferson draft the Constitution after this statement if he had not made it.
The third problem is that Christianity is not part of the common law, but that does not exclude religious principles from the common law. In fact there are specifically Christian references in the Constitution itself, but that does not make Christianity the law of the land. It only makes certain ‘principles’ found in Christianity the law of the land.
” In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.
First off – again with an 1814 quote.
Secondly, anyone who would deny that there have been bad priests who sought power and control over people knows nothing of history. That does not mean that all priests have been bad. And even if Jefferson did mean that all priests, ever, are bad, that does not make it true. This once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles.
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia 1782.
Finally, one that could have possibly been drafted into the Constitution, but it once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles. This is merely a statement of fact that religions and/or people in any beliefs, are not uniform.
Why would our founding fathers want to forge a new nation under the same religious ethos that had supported the divine rights of kings and the class system that oppressed human endeavor, dignity and freedom for centuries? Still there were those who tried.
In answer to his question I just reply, “They didn’t, you idiot.” As for his follow up statement of, “Still there were those who tried.” it is moronic, unsupported here and doesn’t fit with his question.
The Reverend Dr. Jonathan Mayhew famously preached repeatedly against the divine right of kings and class systems. Mayhew is noted by John Adams as being one of the “most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential in the awakening and revival of American ‘principles’ and feelings”.
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the Holy Author of our religion;’ the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and Mohammeddan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.” Thomas Jefferson in reference to the Virgina act for religious freedom.
Idiots the world over think that if the Constitution is based on religious principles that a theocracy is what must result. This is an absolute abandonment of all reason, especially when a religious principle is: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” If you wish to be allowed to believe as you do you must allow others the same.
Once again this statement does not support the Constitution not being based on religious principles.
Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers weren’t anti-religious, but they recognized the inherent dangers in religious fanaticism and the importance of keeping it out of politics.
The video man seems to be conflating religious principles with religious fanaticism. Referring to religious principles as “fanaticism” is dishonest and stupid. Of course, any kind of fanatic can be dangerous; especially in politics. That still has nothing to do with “religious principles” in the Constitution.
The separation of church and state is a basic and essential tenet of our Constitution.
Wrong. The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution at all. Rather we have, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. By not using the real text of the Constitution people focus on keeping church away from state rather than state(congress) not being allowed to make a law respecting the establishment of religion(church) or prohibit the free exercise thereof. That is all it says.
To demonstrate the inaccurate interpretation of Jefferson’s words (“separation of church and state”), in the famous Danbury baptists letter, I must inform you that two days after the letter was written Jefferson went to church. He attended services at the U.S. capitol building and listened to John Leland give a sermon there. (As an interesting side note to this, since 1865 the U.S. capitol building has had a painting in the rotunda of George Washington becoming a god. That sounds pretty religious and actually very akin to Mormon teachings.)
Our Constitution does not belong to the lunatic fringe or a bunch of silly people playing dress up in 18th century costumes or shooting off replica muskets.
False; it does belong to them if they are citizens of this fine nation.
It belongs to all Americans whether your forebears came with the pilgrim fathers or on an immigrant ship from Europe or Asia. Whether your forebears were shanghaied and brought out in chains from Africa or they were of Hispanic descent and were overwhelmed by the rapacious greed of manifest destiny. The promise of the Constitution belongs to all of us and it’s about time we raise our voices in protest against those who would corrupt it’s message for their own opportunistic purposes or because they are simply to simple to understand the safeguards and the principles therein.
The principles in the constitution do belong to anyone. Even though they are based on religious principles, they can be claimed by irreligious people as well.
There is far too much of this ill-informed, poorly-argued media floating around and there are far too many simpletons ready to throw out links to such garbage in youtube comment arguments or message boards. It makes for plenty of ammo against such historically inaccurate or irrelevant arguments. This video is an atrocious example of many fallacies. To sum up this video’s argument:
There are no religious principles(A) in the Constitution(B). Thomas Jefferson(C) wrote the Constitution according to what he said. Thomas Jefferson said that Christianity(D) is not part of the common law. Thomas Jefferson said bad things about priests(E) and Thomas Jefferson noted the non-uniformity(F) of mankind, therefore there are not religious principles(A) in the Constitution. Or to put it more simply
Main Point = A is not in B
C wrote B according to what C said. (which is at the very least misleading, at most just false)
C said D is not in B at a date after C wrote B
C said bad things about E at a date after C wrote B
C said something about F
Therefore A is not in B
Awful, just awful and weak. What kind of unthinking idiot would fall for this dung heap of an argument? Probably the same kind of person who thinks that simply having “religious principles” in the Constitution would make us a theocracy.
One Lousy Grandfather
I enjoy the classic Willy Wonka film with Gene Wilder as much as anybody. I did not like the newer Johnny Depp version of the story at all. There is one huge thing that really bugs me about the story especially as told in the older version. Charlie Bucket’s Grandpa Joe is the worst grandfather in movie history. Let us explore some reasons for my conclusion.
Lazy Sack
While Charlie’s mother slaves away to support not only Charlie but many elderly people who all share the same bed, Grandpa Joe just sits there, in bed, wasting his time sucking up resources for tobacco money. When Charlie gets the ticket he doesn’t choose to take his hard-working, caring mother, he wants Grandpa Joe to come. Bedridden Grandpa Joe? How could he possibly make it? Oh wait, now suddenly he is singing and dancing around the bed. All this time he could have jumped out of bed and improved life for his family by working and didn’t. As soon as a chance to see a chocolate factory comes along he is Mr. Go-getter.
Bad Influence
Grandpa Joe later tells Charlie to steal the fizzy lifting drinks and almost gets him killed by the strangely-placed chopping fan at the top of the super tall room. Good idea Grandpa. This later gets Charlie yelled at by Gene Wilder and appears to cost him his winnings. It is at this point that Grandpa Joe with his great wisdom tells Charlie that they were going to give Slugworth the everlasting gobstopper. Luckily, that time Charlie didn’t listen to Grandpa Joe and he gave it back to Wonka.
This Video
The fact that Grandpa Joe didn’t react like this also makes him a horrible Grandparent.
It is things like these that make Grandpa Joe a shining example for his impressionable grandson. Way to go Joe.
The Only Way to Make a “Best of” Album
If you know me you know I don’t like greatest hits albums. Many times anyone who cares enough about a group or artist already has all of the greatest hits as released on previous albums. Making things more annoying for me is when there is one or two new, good songs on a greatest hits album, thus forcing the dedicated fan to buy an album of material they already own to get one song. You would also know that I do not like to buy singles from itunes and such. My favorite way to experience music is as an entire album on vinyl. All of this leads to frustration when a band I like puts out a “best of” album
This brings me to the latest release from The Black Crowes. They have previously released greatest hits albums, boxed sets and such. This time they set up and recorded acoustic versions of all the songs on this best of album which is entitled “Croweology”. It is often good to hear songs reworked and if you are as in-the-zone as The Black Crowes always seem to be it is definitely good.
Sample some reworked glory:
[gplayer href=”http://www.everydaynormal.com/files/soulsinging.mp3″]Soul Singing[/gplayer]
[gplayer href=”http://www.everydaynormal.com/files/goodfriday.mp3″]Good Friday[/gplayer]
[gplayer href=”http://www.everydaynormal.com/files/girlfromapawnshop.mp3″]Girl From a Pawnshop[/gplayer]
Clearly, I highly recommend that you go get it and get it in vinyl.
Halloween Links
Let’s get into the spirits of the season the right way with all of this stuff.
Constitution Mania
Laws are not established for the good people in a society. Laws are for those who cannot control themselves and therefore must be controlled. More and more in recent times laws have jumped out of their proper frame to come after the good people of society. The American Revolution occurred, in part, because laws were beyond their proper place and came after the common man (Stamp Act). The Constitution of the United States of America established the best system yet devised on earth for men to be free to act for themselves while maintaining some control on those in society who cannot control themselves.
There are many ways to get past the Constitution to gain more control over all people in society. Let’s look at a few, shall we?
First we have the “living document” crowd. This group declares that the Constitution was meant to evolve and change with the times. Just to keep it straight, there is a built in mechanism to adapt the Constitution to new challenges in the amendment process. The amendment process has been used before as a way to warp the Constitution and grab way too much power for the federal government. (ie. 16th, 17th and 18th amendments) Progressive and statist policies that are much related and similar to the aforementioned amendments have been easier to implement outside of amendments through things like case law and executive orders. Each of these help to detract from the original intent of the document.
Another way to be able to get past the Constitution is to pretend that it is some complicated document that is too difficult for the average person to understand. These people act as though it might as well be written in Sanskrit or hieroglyphics. For those who can read and don’t have extra motives it is plain that they are wrong.
The most obvious and, let’s just say it, the most fun people are those who just ignore it straight up. Here is a great collection of many people who are in power that have a deep love for the Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
10 Great Non-Album Songs: Updated: Updated
What were they thinking, keeping these off the album? In no particular order here are 10 of the great non-albums songs. You can listen along:
Continue reading “10 Great Non-Album Songs: Updated: Updated”
Dueling Brainiacs
Where do I begin on this one? Let’s start with the most famous proposed mosque in the world. A group of innocent, well-meaning Muslims bought a plot of land that used to house a failed Burlington Coat Factory and decided this place two blocks from ground zero would be perfect for what they are calling the Cordoba Initiative. This is to be a big mosque and community center. Let’s take a minute to unwind some facts about this project and set some things straight.
1. They are not building a missile silo.
2. It is not an Al Qaeda training camp.
3. They own the land and have the right to do what they want with it.
A. Cordoba Spain is the site of a mosque built over an old Christian church when the Moors came in and conquered.
B. The Imam behind the project has questionable ties to fun people and has been known to make statements that aren’t filled with love for America.
C. Funding for the mosque is uncertain at the moment and will most likely come from foreign bodies that hate America.
All of the above mixes together for one fun-filled, good time. To sum it up simply, the Cordoba people should understand the feelings of those who are offended and not use questionable foreign money to fund this horribly-named project and they should love America more. The people who are freaking out about the mosque should be ready to accept the fact that there will be a poorly named mosque near ground zero. They should accept the fact that they own the property and can do with it as they please. The freak out crowd is very much in the wrong when they are looking to the government to find a way to get rid of the mosque. Unless there is actual illegal activity coming out of the mosque, there should be nothing done by the government. Offensive as it is to many, it should not be stopped as long as there is nothing illegal going on.
Now from one stupidly offensive act to another. This super-genius leader of the small church that wants to burn the Quran on Sept. 11 this year is a real cerebral type. Of course he is only following his “What Would Jesus Do” bracelet. The Savior definitely wants to really stick it to those who disagree with him. He is all for book burnings and attacks at other groups of people. Nothing works better to spread the gospel than hating and offending those who do not follow it. (I really hope that the sarcastic tone comes through my text.) Then of course, on the other side of this shiny coin, we have those who don’t care about a right to free speech and a level up from them we will most certainly have those looking to kill these people who are burning the Quran.
It really is exhausting isn’t it? So many idiots doing so many fun things to each other. I say, “A pox on both your houses” in a great many situations and these are no different. The real lesson I take from all of this is that we should all shop at Burlington Coat Factory more.
The Movie I Wish Had Never Happened
Some movies are, of course, bad. And you feel they were a general waste of time. Then there are other movies that make you want to bust out the pitchfork and destroy anyone who was at fault. For me “Superman Returns” was just such a movie. I am a huge nerd for Superman stuff and when I heard the movie was going to be made a few years ago, I got excited. The more time passes, the more I loathe the existence of that movie. You will have to pardon me for my harshness and my desire to kick the perpetrators of this monstrosity in their faces.
I have no problem with most of the actors in the movie. Brandon Routh did a decent job and Kevin Spacey was a good Lex. Even Jam from Detroit Rock City didn’t seem out of place as replacement for the legendary Mark McClure. However, Kate Bosworth was a horrible Lois Lane; dare I say even worse than Margot Kidder.
The biggest problems I have with the movie are in the writing. First off, why would Superman go back to look at Krypton when it was destroyed? Did he not believe his Jor-El crystals? If it wasn’t obliterated, then the people on the planet obviously had the technology to get to Earth and he might have seen some of them by now. Also if he had been gone for so long, wouldn’t that kinda blow his cover since, “Oh hey, you and Clark Kent were both gone for exactly 7 years”?
Next up is the scene with the airplane versus the scene with the krypto-continent. It took Superman a long time and a lot of struggling to stop that airplane at the last minute. But, he lifted a whole freaking continent made out of Kryptonite at the end of the movie. So which is it, Superman has a hard time with a 130 ton airplane unimpaired or he can throw a continent made out of his weakness into space? How about some consistency? Of course Superman movies are not known for their consistency when it comes to his powers.
Then we have the twisted love triangle with Kate Bosworth, James Marsden and Superman. This is an overused plot device that just needs to die.
The most atrocious piece is up next with the discovery that Superman, the proverbial boy scout, is now a dead-beat dad. Now if you want to put another sequel on, you have to include an asthmatic Superboy whose parents both appear to have been teenagers when he was born. Superman has gone from someone who respects women and families to someone who owes on his child support. Although, his boy scout image was obliterated in Superman 2 when he took Margot Kidder back to his place, wined and dined her and slipped under the tin foil sheets with her. {shivers with fright} Another example of less respectable behavior is when he went back and used his power against a trucker in a diner purely for revenge. Way to help the humans Kal-El.
Finally the line uttered by Perry White, “Does he still stand for truth, justice, all that stuff?” “All that stuff???” If you are going to use the first two go ahead and have the guts to finish it off, “the American way”. The principles that America is based on are principles that will set the world free from oppressive government, if we can just get back to them and remove our own oppressive government that we have had for the last 100 years or so. Were they afraid of offending terrorists and commies? To exclude the phrase is just dumb, unless Superman really would do something like this:
Superman Returns has made it difficult for anyone to write their way out of the horrible corner these writers have made. But thinking on it more, Superman Returns is really a capstone on what has been a long line of horrible movies. Will anyone ever make a good Superman movie?
UPDATE:
Christopher Nolan really did good things for Batman after it had been dragged through the mud. Maybe he can help Superman out.