Outside The Asylum

Especially if you haven't yet invested in an emergency rubber raft

Bill Nye is in the news again, this time for a rant about creationism that I surprisingly agree with. But did you catch the subtle change in doctrine for him? Jump forward to 1:53 in that video when he claims we need children for the future. Compare this to an episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy on Populations where he seems to believe that we need FEWER children if this planet is going to have a future. Not just fewer dumb creationists, but fewer children at all. So which is it Mr. Nye? Are children the future? Or is the Environment? Or is this false dichotomy just as false as your fake war between science and religion?

Why is it when somebody is crying about another person getting something for no work, they're always talking about government and never about bankers or stockholders?

I am sorry I hurt her feelings by bringing her parents into it , but what I am NOT sorry for is pointing out her bullying by using the word homophobe. I did so by calling her a heterophobe- and of course, that means that in her eyes, her parents sinned by having a heterosexual marriage. I am convinced that gay marriage advocates are indeed heterophobic. Otherwise, civil unions would be an adequate solution.

I'm currently re-reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, starting with the 2nd trilogy that wasn't actually written by Asimov but was written after his death. I'm thus starting with _Foundation's Fear_ by Gregory Benford. It is just now occurring to me that Catholicism, as seen through the prism of convert Leah Libresco's mathematics-inspired Virtue Ethics , might, as Gregory Benford predicts with his use of the Joan of Arc and Voltaire simulations internal to the novel, provide a solid foundation for Asimov's concept of psychohistory. . To this end, I wonder if the researchers who are looking into the real psychohistory could in fact benefit by being given access to mathematics, virtue ethics, and the records in the Vatican Library that give 2000 years worth of experimental data into the subject of evolving morality.

Is the concept of a Favorite Sin falling prey to the pastoral concept that sin does not exist? An Anglican Bishop writing about favorite sin did his research and found "worry or anxiety" to be the sin 60% of Americans felt was a favorite sin they committed over and over. This is in stark contrast to what I would think would be the top three favorite sins of America: Fiscal Libertine Greed, Sexual Libertine Greed, Gourmet Libertine Gluttony. Our broken economic system, our broken homes, our incredibly obese bodies, bear witness to those three sins. But worry or anxiety? Not only is that not a serious mortal sin at all, but to me it seems a virtue- if you don't bother to think about what can go wrong, how are you going to avoid it?

Anywhere in America, set out a self-serve kiosk with honesty system rules and a 100% markup and YOU WILL EARN MONEY. Guaranteed.

Apparently, pedophiles are an oppressed minority that now wants the same rights as homosexuals. Tell me again what Pastor Perez and Fr. Perez did wrong?

I wrote a bit back on Fr. Angel Perez of Woodburn, OR and Pastor Angel Perez of Kissimmee, FL. Both men were charged with sex abuse of young children this past summer. But some curious differences have arisen between Fr. Perez and Pastor Perez . And while I'm not real sure, there seems to be a correlation between theological differences inspiring bias in the system. I invite any and all readers to leave their explanations for these differences in the comment box. Fr. Perez Pastor Perez Bail: Fr. Perez is being held without bail, his unlimited loan from the Archdiocese for his Lawyer is cited towards making him a flight risk, his position with the church is cited as giving him further contact with children, the fact that none of his victim's supporters showed up in court where several parishioners supporting him did turned out to be a negative. Pastor Perez was let out on bail as he protested his innocence, and proceeded to embezzle funds for the bail from the church. Fr. ...

Many left and right wingers believe the twin contradictory myths that voting third party is a wasted vote or a malevolent vote (in the first case, because the third party candidate can never win, in the second, because they think votes for a third party candidate mean that the mainstream candidate with the opposite view has a better chance of winning). Being the type of political Catholic with no home whatsoever in the major political parties (for instance, one of my pro-life views is that the children of a rape should be allowed to live, something the GOP has just come out AGAINST) , I often get the argument from one side or the other for voting for their favorite lizard. But an interesting theological argument I've been presented with from Mark Shea is that voting isn't about who wins the election- It is instead about integrity, conscience, and my ability to live with myself . Which puts an entirely different spin on my answer to such people- and gives me reason behind m...

What a difference a few decades can make. MOST of the clergy abuse sex scandals took place 1956-1986, with cases coming into view in the mid 1990s. In 2002, Fr. Angel Perez was ordained in the midst of the sex scandals, he often labeled this as a sin. Nobody ever expected such a pious priest to be accused. Now, less than a week after Fr. Perez fell from grace, everybody's talking it seems. Clericalism is indeed a heresy, but it seems in Oregon at least, the combination of the Archdiocese Bankruptcy and Americanist Liberalism as a result of the Clergy Sex Abuse Scandals has now destroyed *ANY* false respect for the priesthood when the priest is not worthy of it. This in and of itself is a good thing- our Church may be a hierarchy, but sometimes the people holding the office are not worthy of the office. Now, as to Fr. Angel's specific case. While clearly alcohol played a role, there are many other disturbing bits of evidence in this article. Thank God this child clearly ...

Paul Ryan at Georgetown made an interesting speech for the new Americanist Catholic Politician- replace debt with babies and the same speech and same philosophical points could have been made by Biden or Pelosi. What I find interesting though is that he doesn't explain his philosophical hatred of WIC- which is one of the most pro-life forms of welfare that there is. He claims he only cuts welfare for "those who don't deserve it". Well, if a supposed strong pro-lifer doesn't think that a fetus or a child under 5 years from birth is deserving of welfare, then I have to wonder who is. Charity is a duty. It isn't optional.

What Economic System Does Catholicism Promote? | The Lewis Crusade : E asily the BEST article I've read so far on the Cafeteria Catholic men chosen to be our next Vice President- and what the Church *really* supports in an economic system (hint- the Soviet Stock Exchange ain't it).

Steve Yegge has a whole new programming theory about politics in the office. I love his definitions of liberal and conservative: Conservatives are risk adverse, liberals are engaging in risky behavior. It gets us away from the stupid American Political definitions that have so poisoned the well as of late. Count me as spiritually and socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and software engineering centerist leaning right (but that may be because I play in the Microsoft sandbox, which this google programmer in the linked article lists as Batshit Conservative).

Well, mainline, Catholic, Christianity anyway: Fine for not covering an employee with health insurance after August 1, 2012: $2000/employee/year. Fine for not covering contraception and chemical abortion after August 1, 2012: $36,500/employee/year. . Tell me again why this is about women's healthcare and NOT about punishing Catholics specifically for an unapproved-by-Obama belief?

Celebrities are attracted to divorce, because after experiencing the love of the fans, no single human being can compare.

Is that there's no actual Christ in it. Or much of anything else. 400 blank pages is about right for a Catechism of Postmodern Christianity. There is no philosophical difference between postmodern Christianity, neo-Paganism, and Atheism- if it feels good, do it. We used to call that Hedonism. But really it's a form of Egoism- the worship of one's own selfish desires, sometimes turned outwardly towards good works, but only when convenient. This requires NO effort of conversion on the part of the individual- instead of changing to meet God, you change God to meet you- and in so doing, remove all objective definition of either God or Morality. I see no purpose whatsoever in postmodernist Christianity- you can be an atheist and run a shelter and a soup kitchen if it makes you feel good.

Neopaganism and No Starch | John C. Wright's Journal : "But first a long digression: for I must say before I say more that my example of disappointment with neopaganism comes not from any real life witches I know, all of whom I honor and love as friends (even when they call on fertility goddesses to bless their lesbian handfasting, unaware of the several ironies involved — come now: friends can smile at each other’s flaws, can they not?) but only from their stories they tell about themselves. Naturally the reality is more complex than the stories. That I bear them no enmity no honest man can doubt: I also pray for the salvation of their Witchy souls to the Virgin, whom my Protestant friends, or one of them, solemnly tell me is a pagan goddess. If my Protestant friends are right, then who better to act as intercessor?"