QUESTION OF THE WEEK

Okay, so last week’s completely blew. Sorry about that. I had other things on my mind and didn’t think it through, so this week’s should be more interesting.

Why is conspiracy theory inherently ridiculous? Why is labling something a conspiracy sufficient to dismiss it from consideration?

MOGAMBO!

The genius blesses us with his words: And I’m not supposed to tell you this, so keep this under your hat, but you know that Mars Rover thing? You know, the one where these two armored vehicles are running around Mars, sampling things and looking at things? The truth is, and don’t tell anyone I told you, that Mars was actually the first planet in this solar system that had a central bank and a fiat currency. Yeah! Surprised, huh? And now look at it! No water, no air, no Starbucks, no nothing! In fact, Earth was originally populated by a few rich Martians who barely escaped the devastation of Mars when the inflation reduced the value of the currency to the point where the economy was destroyed, and then the people were destroyed, and then the planet was destroyed. They barely made it here with their lives!

And I call myself a fiction writer. Pah! Unworthy, unworthy! The man can out-imagine Kim Stanley Robinson in a throwaway paragraph.

Warming the seat of Sauron

Okay, I added those who’ve requested it to the Reader Blogroll. And not to worry, Sarah, if I am ever named to the post of Planetary Dark Lord, I’m planning for my minions to run a little less on lines of deeply contemplative intellectual narcissism and be cut generally in the Marisa Miller/Veronica Verikova brain-optional mode. The standard uniform will, of course, be that of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders.

I’d probably be fiction’s worst Dark Lord:

“Sir, what shall we do?”

“Obviously, my dear Dark Captain, you’re mistaking me for someone who cares.”

“But, great and mighty Dark Lord, shall we not blow the great horn of Hayek, summon our forces and crush the armies of the West?”

“If you like, as long as you don’t bother anybody. And leave the poor armies of the West alone. Don’t hassle anybody who doesn’t feel like showing either.”

Now for something truly important

A good offseason for the Vikings – so far. The additions of Winfield (CB) and Marcus Robinson (WR) should help make a good offense even better and shore up what has been a weak spot defensively for years. We still need that outside rusher, although I’m glad they didn’t go after Kearse or Wistrom. The first has been a bust for the last three years and the second simply isn’t worth the price that Seattle paid. They’ll have to address D-line in the draft, although some linebacker help is needed too.

Fortunately, there’s no need to do anything on a very deep offense, except perhaps to draft a few late-round linemen. This could be a very decent year for the Vikings; I’ll be surprised if they don’t take the NFC North and at least threaten to make some noise in the playoffs.

Mailvox: Pyloctomy

Double-M writes: Talk about splitting hairs! I see Vox’s views like this: He would let his Libertarian views run worldly / political affairs and his Christian ones run his personal affairs. There aren’t neccessarily any contradictions. He would let it be legal to whore about and get high on any substance, but as a Christian would preach against it and avoid it himself. Vox, am I right here?

This is absolutely correct. You see, I believe there is a difference between legality and morality. Those who insist on conflating the two quickly find themselves in the position of either a) jailing adulterers – good luck with your police-state – or b) having to defend death camp operators who were acting in full obedience of the law.

Some might call this hair-splitting. I see it as a clear distinction between obeying God and obeying Man.

The evil librarian steps over the line

The Los Angeles Times reports: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has lent her name and presence to a lecture series co-sponsored by the liberal NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group that often argues before the court in support of women’s rights that the justice embraces. In January, Ginsburg gave opening remarks for the fourth installment in the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law…. Federal law says a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Several legal experts said Ginsburg’s ongoing affiliation with the legal activist group undercuts her appearance of impartiality.

When the next test of Roe v Wade appears, the pro-life attorney should demand that Ginsburg recuse herself. That will make it a little easier for poor Justice Kennedy to follow the Constitution instead of worrying about getting ostracized at Washington cocktail parties.

Maybe they should go back to coathangers

I have no more sympathy for the abortionettes and their bloody movement than I do for whoever blew up the Madrid train station this morning. But I do wonder why the abortionettes worked so hard for the easy availability of RU-486 while expecting society to be frightened of a return to the ur-mythic days of the coathanger and the back alley abortion. Since the death rate of young women hasn’t changed all that dramatically in fifty years, it’s clear that the horrors were exaggerated, meanwhile, RU-486 continues to add to its verified body count.

A young woman has died recently from an RU 486 abortion in the Swedish west coast city of Uddevalla. The Swedish pro-life group JA till Livet has informed LifeSiteNews.com that the country’s National Board of Health and Welfare has issued a report concluding that the death of the unnamed young woman was a result of the chemically induced abortion…. The abortion pill has been the cause of numerous deaths around the world. Legalized in the United States in September 2000 the pill has been responsible for the deaths of at least four women in North America, most recently 18-year-old Holly Patterson. In 5-8 percent of cases, RU-486 causes severe complications. Danco, the drug’s manufacturer, has reported at least 400 adverse events since RU-486 was approved in the U.S.

A Christian Libertarian clarification

I am occasionally told that I should reverse the terms, since religion trumps politics. I agree with the latter half of that statement. But the truth is that the term is a political one, and it is my Christianity that colors my libertarianism. My libertarianism does not – consciously – color my Christianity. In spiritual or religious terms, I am a Christian. In political terms, I am a Christian Libertarian. Chiaro?

Mailvox: Call me Pascal

The dubious dugong writes: Your commitment to Libertarianism in fact informs your theology. Shouldn’t your theology inform your political theory not the other way around? If your precommitment to a “free-will” political theory is false then what does it say about everything else you believe? Finding refuge in quantum mechanics to save your “freedom” is speculative at best. It’s just another scientific theory waiting to be overthrown by a more fashionable one. Besides even if it “works” – utility – has no bearing on whether it’s “true” – veracity.

It’s possible, of course, as I was a libertarian before I was a Christian. I don’t see the two as intrinsicly related, although certainly many people do. There’s plenty of Christian Democrats who believe Jesus mandated socialism and cheers any form of love between two men. I am not at all concerned about the “free-will” political being overturned, as my Christianity does not depend in any way on it, furthermore, considering the level of cognitive dissonance which is accepted by Democrats and Republicans everyday, I wouldn’t see any need to worry even if it did.

All theology outside Scripture is speculation, inherently so and far more so than political economy. My primary reason for believing in Jesus Christ is that I have seen his works in people’s lives. My primary reason for believing in libertarian political theory is that I have seen the total failure of every other theory in society and history. In both cases, there is logic that supports my witness as well. But yes, truth is what it is, and utility is nothing more than a useful instrument in attempting to comprehend it.

I believe there is a Vox’s Wager, if I may be so bold, to be made with regards to Free Will vs Omniderigence. If the choice and responsibility is mine, if God is limited for whatever reason and requires me to act, then I am compelled to act, speak and witness at every opportunity, for I will be held responsible for my failures. If, on the other hand, an omniderigent God is micro-managing my life, then I have a ready excuse for failing to act, failing to speak and failing to witness, for all such failures can be blamed on God’s Will that I not do so as he controls my actions. Vox’s Wager is that if I am correct, I will be proven to have acted wisely in attempting to serve God. If I am incorrect, I am still in accordance with God’s Will as he micro-manages my life.

Conversely, the proponent of God’s omniderigence is no better off if he wins his bet, for he has done nothing more than me. But if he is incorrect, then he run a risk of being misled into doing little of Kingdom value that will survive the fire of the believer’s judgment.