Worth reading...

Pragmatists realize it is time wasting to create new words for well defined references in known machine design.

The Flagellum can be designated as a nano inboard motor. Beautifully constructed like no other inboard motor mankind has ever developed. But that is exactly what it is. Each part of this motor was conceived by intelligence for purposes of mobility in and out of water by engineers and inventors during our history.

(Full comment at UD)

I found the last sentence interesting because it seems that most of what people have invented is already in use but their inventions and trinkets pale in comparison to the efficiency of designs already in use and the layered genius encoded throughout Nature. You could see this by comparison of what already exists with what people try to accomplish with science and technology. For instance, it's difficult to develope a robot with bipedal motion, let alone one that can run for days on water and bits of plants and animal products. Then there is the issue of self-duplication...and making self-duplication fun or something worth writing songs about and so on. And so on and on...the artistry and genius that has been embedded in Nature continues on beyond words and human knowledge.

In a way it seems that it is bad for us that the technology/"logic" or Logos through which form and information is encoded in creation is still far beyond our understanding or that it would be better if we knew all now. For instance, much of medicine still seems to rely on merely cutting things out or killing cells with chemicals (however expertly) while hoping that the body once again essentially repairs itself and maintains its own form. If we really had a grasp of the knowledge (information) involved enough that it could be applied in technology (the formation of things) then body parts could be made and so on as in science fiction. Yet such knowledge/science and technology is not exactly all that it's made out to be among those who believe in scientism because we're still beings capable of good and evil at the end of science. All we will do with greater knowledge and its application in technology is accentuate willed actions of good or evil. And when you accentuate evil by using something like nuclear technology to make better power plants it opens the door to bigger bombs as well, so one day you'll probably get blown up by it all.

It seems that when it comes to ultimate power good/God must have to win all the time, the Devil/evil only once.

Merry Christmas

Merry...was originally a reference to the nihilistic merry making of the mob that would eat, drink and be merry in the moment, for tomorrow it dies. For the nostalgic:

Before we brood and protest too much over the ruin of what we think Christmas must have been like in generations long past, we might actually feel encouraged about the season we celebrate today when we consider what Christmas was really like in the days of old.

Only in relatively recent times, the past two hundred years, has Christmas even been celebrated by most Christians. Up until the 1800s, the day recognized as Christ’s birthday was largely a pagan celebration. Those who bemoan the lack of religious zeal in modern Christmases would have been appalled at the way people in early America celebrated the day. For a majority of people who embraced Christmas throughout history, Christ wasn’t a part of the day at all. In most of the world, especially in England and America, Christmas was not a time of worship, prayer, and reflection; rather, it was a day set aside to sing bawdy songs, drink rum, and riot in the streets.

For centuries, Christmas was anything but a holy day [i.e. holiday, ironically]. It was most often a sinful parade of excess, a day set aside for ignoring laws and even terrorizing citizens. Mummers, the British carolers of the day, were musicians and actors who roamed the streets, presenting plays and singing songs. Mirroring the boisterous nature of the English Christmas, these songs rarely acknowledged the Christian aspects of the holiday. Those who attended church did so in wild costumes, the messages of many priests were anything but scriptural, and gambling was common during the services. After church the poor often stormed the homes of the elite in moblike fashion, pounding on doors and windows, demanding the finest food and drink. If the hosts did not respond, the guests broke into the homes and took what they wanted...
The drunken celebrations hearkened back to the time when Romans and Greeks marked the winter solstice with a weeklong festival of self-indulgence.
[...]
[The history of Christmas in the West:]
...Cromwell managed to put a cap on the traditionally riotous English Christmas behavior. Yet after he died and was replaced by his son, the commoners demanded the restoration of the old-fashioned Christmas celebrations. ...Charles, and those who followed him, restored the debauchery of Christmas past. Many in the royal family even encouraged the social chaos and misbehavior by contributing liquor and food for the celebrations. [...]

With the holiday again a drunken street celebration, songs of the era, including “We Wish You a Merry Christmas,” alluded to the nature of the carnival. Large bands of men would go to upper-class homes demanding food, drink, and money. If the homeowners did not comply their houses were often looted.
[...]

Church leaders of all denominations were aghast at the return of the pagan Christmas celebrations, but they were also powerless to do anything about it. In fact, except for the Church of England and the Catholic Church, churches simply closed their doors and ignored Christmas altogether. The police usually wrote off the often violent day as a tradition, so few lawbreakers were arrested. For generations, in many areas of London, Christmas was a day when women and children feared to venture into the streets.

Over the next two centuries the hope for a Christ-filled Christmas might have been lost altogether if it had not been for many Catholic and Anglican churches stubbornly holding Christmas Eve and Christmas Day services. Other than these gatherings of worship and the quiet reflections of some families that shared the story of the Savior’s birth at home, Christmas was anything but holy in almost all of the English-speaking world.

After failing to stop the sinful nature of Christmas celebrations in England, the Puritans attempted to simply outlaw Christmas in the New World. Beginning with the landing of Englishmen at Plymouth Rock in 1620, the holiday was banned throughout New England. Churches did not meet on this day, and businesses were ordered to stay open. Anyone who was caught celebrating Christmas in any way was subject to arrest and fines. These laws remained in effect for more than 150 years, through the Revolutionary War. Christmas was so largely ignored in early America that beginning in 1789, and on each Christmas for the next sixty-seven years, Congress met December 25th. During these meetings, no one stopped to acknowledge Jesus’ birth.

In spite of the early success at outlawing Christmas in the New World, boatloads of immigrants soon overpowered the wishes of the Puritans. The anti-Christmas laws may have remained on the books, but they were soon ignored. In most American cities, the "Lords of Disorder" took over the streets on December 25th. The drunken parties and gang riots grew so bad that in 1828 that the New York City Council met in special session to discuss the issue, and a special police force was formed just to deal with the unlawful conduct of citizens on Christmas Day. Yet even as New York put men in uniform out in the streets to protect life and property from the unruly Christmas revelers, the spirit of the season was about to change.

(Stories Behind the Great Traditions of Christmas
by Ace Collins :9-17)

The spirit of the season changed, thank God for that (along with writers like Charles Dickens and Clement Moore).

If you don't like your culture then it seems to me that the best way to change it is through works of art drawn from creativity and passion.

I'd much rather have a Christmas in which the focus has been shifted to family, children and gift giving than one that is like a winter Mardi Gras.

[Related posts: Holiday Trees?]

Jefferson on the internet...

I read this quote and it seems to me that it's essentially Thomas Jefferson's opinion on the internet. He's all for it:

No one more sincerely wishes the spread of information among mankind than I do, and none has greater confidence in its effect towards supporting free and good government.

--Thomas Jefferson (letter to Trustees for the Lottery of East Tennessee College, 6 May 1810)

Documentaries

Here's a list of documentaries I've watched lately with a few comments on some of them.

Occupation: Dreamland (2005)

Combat Diary: The Marines of Lima Company (2006) (V)

Of these two, The Marines of Lima Company is a far better documentary in many ways, although it seems to be lesser known. Lima company is based in Columbus Ohio and had suffered the most casualties of any company in Iraq, something along the lines of 23 out of 125. Most of the documentary is based on footage from small handheld video cameras that the marines had with them which they would set them on a ledge in a firefight, etc. That's one of the big differences between these two documentaries, on is more like first hand documentation of what is going on and the other shows the marks of the documentarian too much. E.g., you can tell that a G.I. has just been asked a leading question by the documentarian and then you have to listen to his long-winded answer or short rejection of it. The problem with Dreamland is that it's generally structured that way and the company that it's based on is general infantry instead of marines and the G.I.s in it generally aren't very intelligent. They say as much, as one put it: "You shouldn't make A feel bad about being an A because A will never be B." or some such.

Also on the list:

Islam: What the West Needs to Know (2006)

Protocols of Zion (2005)

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West (2005)

I also watched Glen Beck's special that was on YouTube somewhere. He seems to be doing something on the issue every night, example. (A word of caution to the tender hearted, he's pointing out that the plot of Iranian TV shows are based on things like Jewish doctors stealing the eyes of Palestinian children. I.e. fascist hate propaganda mixed with some ancient blood libels.) Like the Pope, Beck is basically putting his life at risk because of this fantastic bit of logic typical to the Muslim street, as ignorant and stupid as it is: "You are citing evidence that Islam is not a religion of peace, therefore we will now riot in the streets and demand your death!"

Cool...

Hube seems to have decided to become a bit of a Leftist on an issue (and I need the exercise).

Samples:
"SW: All gay people are self-destructive??"

Pretty standard boilerplate there, "gay people" were never defined in the first place but given that the issue was teenagers "coming out" and self-defining as gay it could easily be argued that all such acts are self-destructive because the Self is being said to be defined by disordered sexual desires which can be known to be destructive. As I began to note there, there are various lines of empirical evidence that indicate that such an act is inherently self-destructive in a psychological way to the Self. It is also possible to go into philosophic reasoning as to why the metaphysical Self is being destroyed by physical appetites, as Socrates argued if one decides to be defined by or ruled by their appetites then the true Self can actually become a slave to its own appetites.

"Nice. Equating being gay with robbery, drug use, murder and rape.

Unreal."

This is a denial of logical argument and a shift to emotional appeal. Not that there's anything wrong with emotional appeals, for the nicety of it! "You're a Big Meanie but I'm nice." is also fun. But back to basic logic: IF people choose behaviors that others find objectionable THEN an argument that is structured around the notion that people would not choose a behavior that people generally find objectionable is invalid.

I would play at being a Leftist more in order to play the Devil's advocate but it sometimes seems like there aren't enough Rightists to try to set things nice and straight.

Good essay, interesting comments

Why I'm pro-life, by Anonymous Opinion

A comment on the last comment:

[P]arents...should be informed of what is going on with a child's health for many reasons. (18 and 13, a 5 year difference, is still slightly grey to me, just because the 18 year old may not know any better or they may have been dating or friends throughout middle/high school) On the other hand [As if his Right side isn't already blurred enough, here comes the hand that's left! This ought to be good.] if she can't go to her parents and di[s]cuss this, then there may be other problems; problems that we are not privy to due to confidentiality or because the girl didn't want to explain. I don't look at it as a cover-up, I look at it as a very delicate situation that they handled one way instead of another.

I.e. the wrong way. Because if they didn't handle it and take it in hand the right way (It's hard to handle things the right way with a limp right hand, after all!) then they probably settled into the wrong ways typical to the sinister Leftist mind and followed the left-handed path to the ways of the occult/hidden. It seems that the sinister is often hidden/occluded NOW in modern times by talk of privacy. Apparently pagans these days would maintain that they're not hiding because they do evil and only do so because they have a "right" to privacy that can hide what they agree is wrong...which seems right to them or somethin'.

More on right and wrong, rights which seem wrong and wrongs which seem alright:

If the parents aren't involved in their 13 year old's life to know that their daughter is having sex with someone significantly older, then I'm not sure how much right the parent's have to interfere anyway. If the doctor really did suspect something wrong then he should have (and would have) notified the authorities. This needs to be a case by case assessment.

It's interesting how the Leftist mind can justify itself based on how right society must be based on social justice defined by the general will or moral relativism based on supposed groups of people, yet it often rejects society or culture as the arbiter of what is right if society has gone against its left-hand way of indiscriminate blurring.

One of the few things that those who tend to seek a lack of judgment are willing to judge is the recognition of basic natural categories. So the recognition of the distinctions between categories such as child and adult, male and female, life and death and so on tend to draw out the Leftist mind to make the only type of judgment it makes, which is judging judgment. In this case it is illegal for a man (adult) to have sex with a thirteen year old (child) because the people have indeed made a judgment based on basic categories that they expect to be applied as a general law and not left to the decision of men on a case by case basis and so on. There are various lines of evidence that indicate that many abortionists do not care for or love the young women or girls on which they operate, so it is little wonder that evidence shows that they tend to help other men abuse girls, on a case by case basis. It's in the interests of child abusers to blur the distinction between child and adult, which is why the American people have made laws that are supposed to be generally applicable in order to uphold such distinctions. Basic natural categories exist objectively but civilized people still have to recognize them in order to maintain their civilization. Civilization rests on language, which rests on definition, which rests on basic generalizations and associations, which the Leftist mind tends to more and more actively reject as it emerges from the decadence and decline of civilization. American civilization is on the decline, so the recognition of basic natural categories is becoming blurred and so on. You can choose just about any basic natural category and advance lines of evidence in this respect. For instance the distinction between child and adult: American civilization has beauty pageants in which children pretend to be more adult while American adults have plastic surgery because they idolize youth, because of the blurring that goes on neither can actually be what they in fact are by their nature. Michael Jackson is not actually a child, yet he isn't really an adult either, thus his perversion. Children are denied their childhood because they cannot be what they are by nature in any decadent civilization, instead perversion is the rule.

Oh well, I still tend to think that the American Empire has hundreds of years left in it before the barbarians at the gates overtake it thanks to a combination of its own decadence, corruption, geopolitics and the usual things that seem to bring down a hegemonic power. It's interesting how any attempt to analyze civilization reads as a polemic, probably because language naturally calls us back to distinctions that we already know and since we've usually gone pretty far towards decadence, language naturally makes war on our state of being. It's likely that any higher form of language is ultimately based on the Word or Logos through which all things were formed, and so from which all things degenerate away from or reform and regenerate by. The Bible notes its polemical nature: "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Hebrews 4:12 Christians these days tend to focus on the Word of God as the Bible itself, yet according to the Bible itself the Word or Information through which all things were created, formed and keep their form has to do with much more than the Bible itself.