Traditional “Christian” marriage is outlawed by the Bible
"Christian" marriage is outlawed by the Bible. I'm not exaggerating. You'll find all of the stunning details, along with citations to the Bible, at Dwindling in Unbelief. How does the Bible outlaw traditional "Christian" marriages? Here are some of the Bible rules listed:
- The Bible says that Christians should not marry.
- But if a Christian man decides to get married (which he shouldn't), he can have more than one wife.
- And if he doesn't like one of his wives (like if she's unclean or ugly or something), he can divorce her.
- If a Christian man gets married and then discovers on his wedding night that his new wife is not a virgin, then he and the other Christian men must stone her to death.
- Christians shouldn't have sex (even if they are married, which they shouldn't be).
- Christian parents must beat their children (which they shouldn't have, since they shouldn't get married or have sex).
- Good Christians must hate their families. (If they abandon them for Jesus, he'll give them a big reward.)
Republicans as clowns
Matt Tabbi of Rolling Stone is one of my favorite political writers. Once again, he's on the money with this week's article (entitled "The Class Clowns"), when he points out the buffoonery of the Republicans during the Obama era. Truly, do these guys have any clue as to how they would begin to address any of the major issues facing us?
Following the Republican Party of late has been a movingly depressing experience, sort of like watching Old Yeller die — if Old Yeller were a worm-infested feral bitch who spent the past eight years biting children at bus stops and shitting in neighborhood swimming pools. As a useful force in American politics, the Republicans have been dead for a while now. But in the seven months since Sarah Palin's nomination, they have taken on an intriguing new role: providing much-needed comic relief during dark times, serving as the unofficial rodeo clowns of the Financial Crisis Era.
I don’t understand high volume text messaging
I know this is a dramatic example from Yahoo News. I'm not trying to paint with a brush that's too wide:
Their thumbs sure must be sore. Two central Pennsylvania friends spent most of March in a text-messaging record attempt, exchanging a thumbs-flying total of 217,000. For one of the two, that meant an inches-thick itemized bill for $26,000.
I understand email. I understand a text message here and there. I don't understand the allure of volume texting personal updates to friends (any more than a dozen per day). And, yes, I don't understand the allure of Twitter (and see here). Not everyone is like these record-setters, but our society is now filled with people who are truly obsessed with communicating in micro-messages. Many parents are concerned that their children aren't developing traditional conversational skills. It really seems like quantity over quality. Or is it insecurity: the need to be reassured that someone exists on the other end and cares enough about your almost-mindless phrase that they reciprocate with their own almost-mindless phrase? If you care about someone, why not join them for a face-to-face conversation, or call them on a phone and have a real conversation, or video-Skype them (a truly remarkable and free service which I recently discovered)? Are people becoming afraid that they won't be able to string more than a few sentences together? That they won't be able to conversationally perform under the pressure of the moment? Why the rampant preference for conversationus interruptus? In my experience, most of the important things in life cannot be said in a short burst of words, and quantity cannot make up for quality. But maybe I'm just old fashioned.The Kennedy family will need to put up with looking at new offshore wind turbines
The hypocritical and short-sighted Kennedy family will just need to get used to the view, for the common good. As reported by Discover Magazine.
The U.S. Interior Department announced new rules today that will allow the first offshore wind turbines to go up along the Atlantic Coast, including the site near Cape Cod that the Kennedy family famously opposed. This was a chance for the Kennedys to step up and do the right thing, but they blew it for years and years. Now the federal government is forcing it on them and I'm glad. Consider what a tiny burden this was on them to look at those admittedly huge turbines in the distance. It's no worse a burden than for any of us to have to look at the gaudy Kennedy compound from a distance. The turbines will be about 8 miles from Kennedy's trophy house in Hyannis Port. In clear conditions, the wind turbines will appear one half-inch above the horizon. They will look like this from the Kennedy compound. We're going to all have to make some sacrifices for the common good if we want to maintain some semblance of our lifestyle. It has continually amazed me that the wealthy Kennedys couldn't have made a good example of themselves by advocating, not stifling, this worthy wind project. How much energy will it produce? Cape Wind's website provides the answer:
Cape Wind will be rated to produce up to 468 megawatts of wind power as each wind turbine will produce up to 3.6 megawatts. Maximum expected production will be 454 megawatts. Average expected production will be 170 megawatts which is almost 75% of the 230 megawatt average electricity demand for Cape Cod and the Islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket.
Where do the Kennedys think they will get their energy if they don't get it from clean wind? In my mind this is a classic case of compartmentalized thinking all bound up in status-seeking power.