(Well, not exactly “Sunday” by the time I got this posted.)
As noted last Sunday, I’ve been given the “Food for Thought Award” (nominated by Citizen Tom)— and it has some obligations. Among them are these writings, on seven Biblical verses that have been significant or inspirational to me. This is the second. There are nominations involved as well, and a few sprang immediately to mind. My old friend the extraordinary SeraphimSigrist would be an ideal candidate, for one — his thoughtful writings reflect his beneficent doings in his travels far and wide spreading his faith and helping his fellow man. I always learn something interesting from him and enjoy his deep, compassionate mind.
Versions of 1 Timothy 6
This is the source of the much quoted, and it seems misquoted, verse about money and evil. I tend to favor Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), which was a well-regarded attempt in the late 1800s to preserve as much of the intent of the original languages as possible. But in the case of this particular line, the rendering has subtle differences which are significant:
In this case, a flood of EPA legislation. The Obama administration plans a glut of new EPA rules implemented by fiat, since some of them have already failed to become law in Congress, and the rest are so bad that they’ve never even been voted upon or in many cases even offered.
From this article: PBS had to go out of their way in “Climate of Doubt” to create the impression that skeptics of global warming catastrophists are “unscientific.” One of the ways they accomplished this was to show a signature card for a skeptical petition, and imply that only nutcases and non-scientists had signed it.
But the two signature card images available online were those of Dr. Edward Teller and Dr. Freemon Dyson, two very famous and highly regarded scientists. So they used Teller’s signature card, blurred out his name and omitted mentioning it.
Here’s the original image:
Most of the commenting action — nearly 60,000 comments so far — take place on my LiveJournal site, as that’s where most of the readers are. You’re always welcome to comment there or here, but a larger number of readers will see (and respond to) comments there. I have always allowed anonymous comments there; the only reason I don’t do that on DeHavelle.com is the infestation of blog-focused spambots.
So far, in more than a decade at LiveJournal, I’ve never had to ban anyone nor delete any posts or comments, other than the rare cleanup of a spambot (especially in the earlier days of LJ).
So, feel free to join in, on the posts here on on their identical appearances in the LiveJournal blog where I have been writing for years as “Level Head” (an anagram of DeHavelle).
To get there, click the link to “Level_Head’s LiveJournal” on the right of this page. And, if you’re seeing this on the LiveJournal site, you can click on the right side of the page to get to www.DeHavelle.com. Thank you for reading — I value your time and your participation.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
A thoughtful post from a friend of a friend has me thinking about the issue of torture. Is it permissible? Is it moral? Is it right? Not quite the same questions, and I wrote a sort of a rambling reply to her about a framework for considering this unpleasant topic:
My Lady and I enjoyed it. There was a certain discontinuity from the actors being different. Hank Reardon is very reminiscent of Ed Harris here, huskier of voice but in the range that Harris can do. Dagny’s pretty-boy brother is well-portrayed, as is Dagny herself. And I think this Francisco d’Anconia is a significant improvement over the one from the first movie. The suave man from the rich Chilean family is now suggestive of Antonio Banderas, and that’s entirely believable.
But his most famous speech — if you Google["money speech"] you’ll get all sorts of links to his name, was very abbreviated in the film. This was a little disappointing; the speech is quite rightfully famous.
In both the both the film, Francisco d’Anconia, head of Chile’s d’Anconia Copper, is at a very exclusive party with wealthy and celebrity guests. He hears one of the attendees naively asserting that “money is the root of all evil” and “money is made by the strong preying on the weak.” This annoys him, and he challenges the people at the party. This version is from the book, and it begins:
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Aconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor � your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions � and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
The YouTube presentation gives you both, actually, as the text is on-screen as well. That version is from the abridged Atlas Shrugged, and I recommend it highly.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
In this instance, it isn’t my own verse involved. My humble online digs were just nominated for a “Food for Thought Award” by Citizen Tom. I recognize that this is a small thing, this award, but I am nonetheless flattered and accept in the spirit that it was given. And I am more than a little surprised, as I am apparently the only non-religious recipient of the award.
As Citizen Tom puts it, “I suppose many people will find this nomination inexplicable, but here is the basis for it...” He’s just added an additional comment expanding on his rationale a bit.
In any event, thanks! Here’s a long and rambling beginning…
I am astounded at this article. This is part of the cover-up for Barack Obama, but it may just have exposed another idiot. The new story (evidently from the brilliant Director of National Intelligence James Clapper) is that Zawahiri’s dictate on September 10th (that jihadists attack the US in Libya September 11) had nothing to do with jihadists’ attack on the US in Libya on September 11:
The analysts seem confident that al-Qaida’s new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, played no direct role in the Benghazi events, even though he called on Sept. 10 for revenge attacks against the U.S. “He’s not a manager, he’s not a planner, he’s not an operator. He’s a theologian, and that doesn’t have much resonance now. He’s almost irrelevant, he’s so concerned about his security, so hunkered down,” said the senior official.
“He’s a theologian” they said. I feel compelled to inform this fool that Ayman Zawahiri, who has been the operational commander and chief strategist of al Qaida for the past decade, has been considered by intelligence agencies around the world (including our own) as being one of the most dangerous men on the planet. He’s been described as “the real brains of al Qaida” and merged his own force, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, with al Qaida a decade and a half ago.
He has run countless operations, before and since merging these two Muslim Brotherhood franchises, and he’s been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents. Irrelevant? I will wager that this same fool (probably Clapper, who stated that the Muslim Brotherhood was “secular”) has just demonstrated his irrelevance.
And Ayman al Zawahiri has got to be laughing aloud at the demonstrated foolishness of the intelligence in the United States, assuming that term is applicable.
It is sad. There are many good, dedicated men and women who risk much to be part of our intelligence community, which consists of more than thirty different agencies. They deserve better than to have a politically compliant idiot placed in charge of them.
This same Clapper, when Republicans complained about politically useful-to-Obama information was leaked to the press early this year (which cost people their lives and cost us intelligence), launched a Very Serious Investigation to find the leaker. And, of course, no one talks about it any more, because there was evidently no one to find.
It is just as well that President Obama attends very few sensitive briefings. The premature disclosures after the strike that took out bin Ladin last year were similarly ham-fisted. But this “he’s only a theologian” description of Zawahiri has got to have our allies as well as our enemies around the world wondering if the leadership of the US can be a stupid as is appears.
The Monday debate on foreign policy will be interesting.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
It’s been suggested that a “theory” is supported by evidence, and a “hypothesis” is just an idea that hasn’t been tested yet. These are sort of in the right direction, but miss the mark. And this has implications for discussions about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, or CAGW.
A more strict definition: A hypothesis comes about from observing the world, developing a guess that explains the observations, making predictions that support the guess, then testing/observing further to see if those predictions hold up.
Those testable predictions must: