Oh gee, Yankees won again
There's a surprise. Schilling has a torn tendon. Martinez gets no run support. Same story, different day. Ho-hum.
Making friends everywhere I go ...
Over at Michele's, I was involved in a series of discussions on the relative merits of the New York Yankees. I posited the Yankees have essentially broken baseball as a competitive sport. My language was a little saltier over at Michele's.
She told me I needed to get therapy. I told her my shrink was a Yankees fan. So there.
Reminds me of all the friends I made with my views on marriage without a bride or groom.
Meanwhile, the Yankees are leading the Red Sox and well, whatever, never mind ...
John Kerry is on TV right now and I have to say three debates is a better idea than I thought because instead of showcasing Kerry as a great debater, we're all getting an idea of what a tiresome bore Kerry is. I'm sick of him already.
She told me I needed to get therapy. I told her my shrink was a Yankees fan. So there.
Reminds me of all the friends I made with my views on marriage without a bride or groom.
Meanwhile, the Yankees are leading the Red Sox and well, whatever, never mind ...
John Kerry is on TV right now and I have to say three debates is a better idea than I thought because instead of showcasing Kerry as a great debater, we're all getting an idea of what a tiresome bore Kerry is. I'm sick of him already.
Hell
Did some renovations on the new house last weekend. Added a sliding glass door and a window ... looks great so far. [Yes, I had a builder do the work. I was a laborer.]
Anyway, I was burning the construction debris and the boxes the materials came in. Got quite a fire going in a burn barrel in the back yard, and with materials glowing and smoke spewing and the barrel tossing off heat, I started thinking about how much it would suck to be in that barrel. That is, I started thinking about hell. I realized that there is no one that I hate enough or think justice would be served by sticking them alive in that barrel. In the abstract, I can wish people to go to hell. [I always repent, though.] But with that barrel burning in front of me -- no, no one. I don't imagine myself unique in that, either.
What I don't get is why anyone didn't ask Jesus the following question about hell. They asked Jesus about the law and about marriage and about the kingdom of heaven, and they directly challenged him about taxes.
But after Jesus spoke about hell, no one said, "Yes, about this last point ... the eternal burning of sinners with no hope of reprieve or rest. Could you please reconcile this seeming act of unspeakable cruelty with your previous assertions about the goodness of God? I can understand God's ceasing the existence of sinners, and I can understand God's not wanting a bunch of schmucks as his eternal roommates, and I get the free will and choose for God or not thing, and that an abode for sinners separated from the grace of God would become a hell ... but I don't get the idea of an eternal punishment of burning someone with non-consuming flames. It seems mean. It seems a design flaw in the creation. If you didn't intend man to go there, well then a well-designed creation should assure that they really shouldn't go there."
No one asked that. Am I prideful for asking? What am I missing? I can understand the "hell is other people", "hell is the absence of God", and "hell is unrestrained and unfulfillable desire". But the teaching of Christ is that hell is a place not only of psychological torments but of physical pain, involving burning. And something about eternal worms gnawing at you while the burning. In any case, it seems over the top and very unpleasant and I don't get how a good God will prescribe that as a solution to unrepentant sin.
I mean, that barrel was very, very hot. No one in his right mind would choose to go in there.
Anyway, I was burning the construction debris and the boxes the materials came in. Got quite a fire going in a burn barrel in the back yard, and with materials glowing and smoke spewing and the barrel tossing off heat, I started thinking about how much it would suck to be in that barrel. That is, I started thinking about hell. I realized that there is no one that I hate enough or think justice would be served by sticking them alive in that barrel. In the abstract, I can wish people to go to hell. [I always repent, though.] But with that barrel burning in front of me -- no, no one. I don't imagine myself unique in that, either.
What I don't get is why anyone didn't ask Jesus the following question about hell. They asked Jesus about the law and about marriage and about the kingdom of heaven, and they directly challenged him about taxes.
But after Jesus spoke about hell, no one said, "Yes, about this last point ... the eternal burning of sinners with no hope of reprieve or rest. Could you please reconcile this seeming act of unspeakable cruelty with your previous assertions about the goodness of God? I can understand God's ceasing the existence of sinners, and I can understand God's not wanting a bunch of schmucks as his eternal roommates, and I get the free will and choose for God or not thing, and that an abode for sinners separated from the grace of God would become a hell ... but I don't get the idea of an eternal punishment of burning someone with non-consuming flames. It seems mean. It seems a design flaw in the creation. If you didn't intend man to go there, well then a well-designed creation should assure that they really shouldn't go there."
No one asked that. Am I prideful for asking? What am I missing? I can understand the "hell is other people", "hell is the absence of God", and "hell is unrestrained and unfulfillable desire". But the teaching of Christ is that hell is a place not only of psychological torments but of physical pain, involving burning. And something about eternal worms gnawing at you while the burning. In any case, it seems over the top and very unpleasant and I don't get how a good God will prescribe that as a solution to unrepentant sin.
I mean, that barrel was very, very hot. No one in his right mind would choose to go in there.
The Kerry Presidency
Say Kerry is elected. What will happen?
First, the Republicans in Congress will find religion -- and I mean religion in a fiscal way. Look for Kerry and the GOP Congress to rein in the deficit. Look for spending cuts and targeted tax increases. The economy could start to boom.
Second, look for Kerry to continue keeping pace in Iraq. He probably won't screw it up, but he won't succeed, either. There will be no Operation Linebacker. Perhaps, fearing being perceived weak, he'll have the military kill lots of Fallejanites. Good.
Third, look for relations with foreign countries to improve -- in the short term. France will give a long, "I told you so" but won't do anything. The Yankee-hatred will be toned down for the short term, but will continue to fester.
Kerry will conduct bilateral negotiations with North Korea and get screwed.
Next, Kerry will realize that he has to do something with Iran. He will fail. He will not be unique. Americans always fail with Iran. They have been spoiling for a war with us for 25 years now, and we keep denying them the opportunity. That frustrates them more. Some time during Kerry's term, Iran will do something so horrible that we will have no choice but to finally give the mullah-punks the thorough smackdown they deserve. Kerry, frustrated that all his peaceful methods and diplomacy didn't work, will lash out with all the fury of a liberal that's been mugged. He will unleash the military, saying, "Bring me the heads of the mullahs using methods reminiscent of Genghis Khan. We will send the bill to the EU."
He will be conservative by the end of his first term and while running for re-election with Iran and Iraq humbled, North Korea in a box, the economy booming, and the EU paying imperial taxes, National Review will endorse Kerry for a second term. The GOP will nominate Arlen Specter as a sacrificial lamb. Kerry will be re-elected in a landslide.
In January, 2009, John Kerry, with prosperity at home and peace abroad and backed by a Democratic Congress, will revert to his liberalism. He will double the size of the federal government, abolish state and local governments, abolishing property taxes, announce the creation of a Ministry of Culture -- which will rigorously enforce race, class and gender preferences, and abolish private schools and home schooling. He will then announce the need for the youth of today have an experience similar to the 1960s, and he will call this the Cultural Revolution. It will be a disaster. With the economy on the blink from central planning and the cultural revolution spinning out of control, Kerry will retreat into the Oval Office, claiming that the American people are far too stupid to be led by someone such as he. He will resign in 2011, move to France, and run for premier.
John Edwards, taking over as president, will claim himself to be the Anti-Christ. He will destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount, rebuild the Temple, and demand to be worshipped. Most Democrats will gladly do so, until they realize that Edwards is NOT the Anti-Christ and the whole thing was just a practical joke. The Muslims, not amused, will declare jihad against everyone else. Everyone else will win. The Muslims will go back to resentful sulking.
In 2012, Hillary Clinton will lose to Dubya, a write-in candidate. Dubya will decline, saying he refused to resign his job as commissioner of baseball. "Let my brother handle it," George will say. "He was the hardworking nerdy one who studied, anyway." With no president, the United States will agree to split up into 50 separate states and the federal government will be scrapped. Liberals will move to some states, conservatives to others, and the world won't have the United States to kick around anymore.
Mark my words. That's how it's going to play out. You heard it here first.
First, the Republicans in Congress will find religion -- and I mean religion in a fiscal way. Look for Kerry and the GOP Congress to rein in the deficit. Look for spending cuts and targeted tax increases. The economy could start to boom.
Second, look for Kerry to continue keeping pace in Iraq. He probably won't screw it up, but he won't succeed, either. There will be no Operation Linebacker. Perhaps, fearing being perceived weak, he'll have the military kill lots of Fallejanites. Good.
Third, look for relations with foreign countries to improve -- in the short term. France will give a long, "I told you so" but won't do anything. The Yankee-hatred will be toned down for the short term, but will continue to fester.
Kerry will conduct bilateral negotiations with North Korea and get screwed.
Next, Kerry will realize that he has to do something with Iran. He will fail. He will not be unique. Americans always fail with Iran. They have been spoiling for a war with us for 25 years now, and we keep denying them the opportunity. That frustrates them more. Some time during Kerry's term, Iran will do something so horrible that we will have no choice but to finally give the mullah-punks the thorough smackdown they deserve. Kerry, frustrated that all his peaceful methods and diplomacy didn't work, will lash out with all the fury of a liberal that's been mugged. He will unleash the military, saying, "Bring me the heads of the mullahs using methods reminiscent of Genghis Khan. We will send the bill to the EU."
He will be conservative by the end of his first term and while running for re-election with Iran and Iraq humbled, North Korea in a box, the economy booming, and the EU paying imperial taxes, National Review will endorse Kerry for a second term. The GOP will nominate Arlen Specter as a sacrificial lamb. Kerry will be re-elected in a landslide.
In January, 2009, John Kerry, with prosperity at home and peace abroad and backed by a Democratic Congress, will revert to his liberalism. He will double the size of the federal government, abolish state and local governments, abolishing property taxes, announce the creation of a Ministry of Culture -- which will rigorously enforce race, class and gender preferences, and abolish private schools and home schooling. He will then announce the need for the youth of today have an experience similar to the 1960s, and he will call this the Cultural Revolution. It will be a disaster. With the economy on the blink from central planning and the cultural revolution spinning out of control, Kerry will retreat into the Oval Office, claiming that the American people are far too stupid to be led by someone such as he. He will resign in 2011, move to France, and run for premier.
John Edwards, taking over as president, will claim himself to be the Anti-Christ. He will destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount, rebuild the Temple, and demand to be worshipped. Most Democrats will gladly do so, until they realize that Edwards is NOT the Anti-Christ and the whole thing was just a practical joke. The Muslims, not amused, will declare jihad against everyone else. Everyone else will win. The Muslims will go back to resentful sulking.
In 2012, Hillary Clinton will lose to Dubya, a write-in candidate. Dubya will decline, saying he refused to resign his job as commissioner of baseball. "Let my brother handle it," George will say. "He was the hardworking nerdy one who studied, anyway." With no president, the United States will agree to split up into 50 separate states and the federal government will be scrapped. Liberals will move to some states, conservatives to others, and the world won't have the United States to kick around anymore.
Mark my words. That's how it's going to play out. You heard it here first.
Why not deconstruction jokes first thing in the morning?
Gotta go. Mild deadline crunch. [Is that contradictory?]
The absence of Derrida
Absence. Deferral. Language points to nothing outside itself. Whatever the hell Derrida was trying to say, he usually opposed paraphrasing or clarification, insisting he wasn't trying to say that. That's because he was thought language deferred meaning, and he was always proclaiming the absence of meaning in language, and talking about what he wasn't saying, not what he was saying. Or something like that. I thought he was playing Zeno's Paradox with language, and that if Derrida understood calculus, he'd know that an infinite series can converge, but Derrida no doubt thought of all that and had answers that I wouldn't understand nor could refute. But these thoughts are now irrefutable because Derrida's not here to refute them!
Rest in peace, Jacques. Whatever you were trying to say or not say, you seemed like a nice enough person. After all, you can't judge a person by his followers — particularly the doctrinaire followers of deconstruction.
Rest in peace, Jacques. Whatever you were trying to say or not say, you seemed like a nice enough person. After all, you can't judge a person by his followers — particularly the doctrinaire followers of deconstruction.