School shocked that student learned - responds by arresting dad

You can't make this up. Apparently, after years of teaching kids that toy guns are the same as real guns, a four year old drew a picture of her dad's "nerf" gun and said it was real. The school promptly had the father arrested for possession of a firearm, and when no "real" gun was found, he was strip searched and left in a cell (I have no idea where they thought he was hiding the gun.)

The father is righteously angry, and the school? Well, they blame the children for learning what they taught them.

Read More

Guns & Autos

New Jersey has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country. I never realized how much until a friend told me some of it and I started to investigate. The law is so strict, in fact, that the citizens are appealing to the Supreme Court for relief. I hope the Supreme Court will take up the case, as it is pretty clear that the Constitutional rights of the citizens of New Jersey are being infringed, in a big way. We'll find out if the court will hear the case in the next two to three months.

Last night I was thinking about what would happen if NJ gun laws applied to cars. After all, the second amendment affirms our right to bear arms, but there's no right to drive, so it would be perfectly legal and just as reasonable for the NJ state legislature to apply the same principles to cars, and then some. I'd like to include references to the NJ gun laws, but of course, the laws are arranged in such a manner that they can't be linked to, only the whole criminal code. So you'll have to look through a bunch of stuff or search piecemeal for non-authoritative descriptions of the laws.

As you read these, I'd like you to think about three things. First off, realize that this is a Constitutional Right (the right to keep and bear arms as defined by the second amendment) that we're talking about. Imagine another right, like voting, or practicing free speech or religion, being subject to such laws.

Secondly, note that none of these laws has anything to do with using the car for something illegal (like robbing a bank). They apply to all honest, law abiding citizens who merely want to use a car in a safe, legal manner.

Lastly, violating these laws is a felony, and for most, not just a felony, but a serious felony with a mandatory 10 year prison sentence (judge or jury has no ability to reduce the sentence), and no possibility of parole for 7 years. In other words, a perfectly good person (who passed criminal and mental health background checks) can find himself in prison, losing his job, family, and a good part of his life by doing something as simple as stopping at a gas station to get gas on the way home from the gun store with a legally owned, safe, unloaded, locked up gun in the locked trunk of the car.

So, if NJ gun laws applied to cars...

• Car are illegal to possess, period. The only exceptions would be in your garage, driving to or from the dealership or a repair facility, or to and from a test track. On these trips, no unnecessary deviations or stops are permitted. If stopped, you are presumed guilty. It it up to you to prove, in court, that you fulfilled the requirements for one of the exceptions mentioned.
• In order to get a license to drive a car (any other place except the dealership or test track) the potential driver must apply at his local police station and demonstrate "justifiable need." This means an immediate, urgent need to drive to prevent serious injury or death. He must show that there is no alternative to driving. If this case is successfully made to the local police, the potential driver must appear before a judge and make the case again. Due to the high barriers involved, almost nobody can get a driver's license, including emergency workers and retired police. Over 99.9% of citizens are forced to live within the "exceptions" noted above.
• Each person who drives must have his own car. In order for someone else to drive your car, you must be sitting in the front passenger seat.
• "High capacity" gas tanks are outlawed. Legal gas tanks must hold ten gallons or less.
• When not in use, the car must be stored in a locked garage with the tank empty. Fuel must be stored in a separate locked tank in a different part of your home. (Yes, I know these apply to a gun in transport, but a car can't be locked up during transport - the analogy is that the car is locked up when not "being used").
• "Assault" military cars, such as all Jeeps, Hummers, Ford Mustang, Ford Expedition, Dodge Viper, Dodge Challenger, Chevy Suburban, Toyota Corolla, motorcycles, and a host of other scary intimidating vehicles are banned by name.
• Cars may not have any of the following "evil" features: dual exhaust pipes, "hemi" style carburetor, "mag" or oversized wheels, chromed or stylized hub caps, spoilers.
• In addition, cars are limited to no more than two of the following features: "high capacity" engine (more than 100 HP), automatic transmission,"high capacity" seating (more than 3 people), GPS, satellite radio, ABS, courtesy lights.
• No one can work on the engine of a car without a license to manufacture.
• In order to go anywhere in a car, a driver has to fill out a form and submit it, in person, at his local police station, along with approximately $57. He must be fingerprinted and undergo mental health and background checks. If all goes well, in 30 days he will be issued an "Automobile ID" (AID) card.
• In order to purchase a car, a potential owner has to have and AID card, and fill out a form and submit it, in person, at his local police station along with $60. He must be fingerprinted, and undergo mental health and background checks. If everything goes well, in 30 days he will be issues a "permission to purchase" card good for 90 days.
• The federal "COPA" (Car Owner Protection Act) serves to allow out of state drivers to pass through New Jersey legally, but the state claims the right to a warrant-less stop and search of out of state vehicles if it believes your car might violate NJ law, and will prosecute for violations of NJ state automobile law anyway, even if your car is legal in the state where you are coming from and going to.

No doubt I'm leaving out some parts of the law, or someone could come up with better analogies, (for one thing, I don't have an analogy to the hollow point ammunition ban) but I thought this was a good start. I also haven't mentioned the 57 new gun laws proposed by the New Jersey legislature for 2014, some of which make the above laws look permissive.

If this upsets you, write your representatives about it, or consider joining an organization that supports your second amendment rights in New Jersey, like the New Jersey Second Amendment Society or the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, or a national organization like the Second Amendment Foundation or the National Rifle Association.

Read More

How to persuade a Christian to become an atheist

It is with both sadness and amusement that I came across this piece, on "how to persuade a Christian to become an atheist." Sadness to see people spreading yet more misinformation on the internet (surprise, surprise) and amusement to see how they have simply taken the pages from "how to persuade an atheist to become a Christian" and turned some things around. The graphics are kind of creepy and the logic is, well, absent, but the methodology is generic "how to persuade person X of argument Y."

One has to wonder why an atheist would want to convert a Christian to atheism, other than for the sake of meanness. A Christian is charged with spreading the Gospel - not so the atheist, who has no gospel. A Christian is charged to help his fellow man by educating him and correcting him when he is in trouble - not so the atheist who has no duty to his fellow man. The Christian can argue that more Christians in the world makes the world a better place in terms of peace and taking care of the poor. The atheist make desire company, but historically atheists have not known to be the most charitable peaceful people. So any reason the atheist has for evangelization would be personal preference based on an unconscious "Christian" desire to "help" others based on cultural surroundings or upbringing, rather than a tenet of his "faith."

I thought it would be interesting to see two people who have read these respective instructions go "head to head." So it occurred to me it might be fun to take this to the next level. "How to persuade an atheist who is trying to persuade a Christian to become an atheist to become a Christian." With that in mind, here are my responses to the responses to the questions in the Christian -> Atheist article. I've copied some of the text, and edited or paraphrased it for brevity. The question part (in bold) is what is asked by the Christian. The normal text is the suggested response, and my rebuttal is in bold italics).

• What existed before the big bang?
  • We don't know yet.
  • Another theory is that our Universe exists as part of a much larger multiverse.
  The question and answer both beg the issue. We can't properly speak of "before" without time, which as far as we know requires the big bang to have occurred. However, we can ask the metaphysical question, "is time required for causality?" Clearly it is not, since the big bang happened. So the question is not what existed before the big bang, but what caused the big bang? And if you say "the laws of physics" what caused them? And if there's a multiverse, what caused that?

• Order can't come from chaos, entropy wouldn't allow that.
  • Chaos and entropy describe different things. Entropy can be locally reversed.
  But entropy can't be globally reversed. If you're going to claim it can you have to show me which the laws of physics you wish to suspend for your argument, which undermines your scientific claims. The example used of order coming from chaos is not in fact, order from chaos, but an experiment designed to locally produce order. If the intent of the atheist was to show that an intelligence can design a system which produces order, then yes, I agree, an intelligence can design a system which produces order.

• Life couldn't come into existence by mere coincidence.
  • It didn't.
  So the atheist concedes the argument, and adds words which make him think he has "won." So be it.

• Life is too complicated to happen through mere coincidence and random events.
  • Evolution provides a mechanism that is anything but random or coincidental.
  Another concession. And I guess evolutionists who talk about random mutation are wrong as well. Thank you for agreeing.
   
  
• If people don't believe in God, where do they get their morality from?
  • It should scare you to think that the fear of Hell is the only thing stopping the Christian from committing atrocities.
  It would if that were true. However, this shows a lack of understanding of Christianity, since Christians do not claim fear of hell as the source of morality (or even the source of moral behavior). It also ignores the question (irrelevance fallacy). Where do atheists get their morality from?
   
  
• If God doesn't exist why does most of the world believe? (Argumentum ad populum}
  • Just because a majority of people in a group or the entire world believe something does not make it automatically true.
  Correct. The Christian has asked an irrelevant question. However, this says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the claim "there is a God."
  
  
• Something can't come from nothing. (Cosmological Argument)
  • If it is possible for a god to be uncaused then it is possible for the universe to be uncaused.
  Correct. However, Occam's razor demands we choose the simpler proposition. Which is simpler? That one exception exists, or that everything is an exception to the rule?
  
  
• The Bible proves God exists. Why would so many people write about God if it wasn't true? (Argumentum ad Verecundiam, Circular reasoning, Tautology)
  • Any critical examination of the Bible will clearly show it to be full of inaccuracies and contradictions.
  They're both wrong. The Bible doesn't prove God exists, it asserts it. Even if the Bible were perfect in every other way it still wouldn't be a proof. On the other side, where are the inaccuracies and contradictions? Because I have yet to see one which wasn't easily refuted if one looks at the actual text and context, rather than reading isolated misleading claims.
   
  
• The universe and life show clear signs of design.
  • Life reproduces and mutates by itself. The same cannot be said of an inanimate object.
  False. Life does not reproduce and mutate by itself. It needs material and energy outside of itself to do so. The atheist is using the same argument to show lack of design by claiming (without proof) that the universe is not designed. The atheist cannot show evidence of something complex created without intent (or design, but I think intent is a better word to use here), but makes the claim that "everything" is anyway. Intention is not something which can be measured scientifically.

Read More

It's not anti-religious, it's just stupid

There are a few things that irk me. One is triumphalism. Stories about how the Catholic Church is dead, or about how Planned Parenthood is dead strike me as prideful. Then there are the excessively pious posts (like the prayer of the Pharisee in Luke 18 "O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity"). Then there are the stories that are uncharitable in that they attribute motives that are not evident by the facts.

I've been reading stories about the track team disqualified because a runner pointed to God after a victory. A lot of people are crying "religious liberty" and they're right to worry about how this infringes on religious liberty. But like the author of the story I linked to, I don't think this is a case where religion is treated any differently from any other reason the young man might have had to raise his finger.

As I pointed out in my post Pretend Safety, the issue is the reliance on legalism in deference to common sense. Let's look at some Olympic athletes' victories:

and yet we tell high school students that they can't raise their arms because that would be "excessive celebration"? These are kids. Let them be happy with their accomplishments when they win. Let them praise God, or do a snoopy dance, or whatever.

Read More

A secular god

When my wife and I got engaged, we went to our parish to arrange for the wedding. One of the things we had to do was to sit down with the music minister and choose the music for our wedding. Now, my wife and I know little about music, and nothing at all about liturgical music, so we figured go with the standards. "Here Comes the Bride" may be hokey, but heck, every wedding has it so we'd start with that. The music director stopped us short right away and told us it wasn't appropriate for a Catholic wedding - all the music had to be appropriate for a mass.

We quickly learned that Hollywood had led us astray, no Catholic wedding mass had ever had "Here Comes the Bride". I can't for the life of me remember exactly what music we chose, but the music director was very helpful, and we knew that we were following in the footsteps of 2000 years of marriages, so it wasn't anything personal.

And so it is with some amusement (and sadness) that I read of a woman named Shannon Carr who is suing St. Joseph's Catholic Church because they wouldn't allow a NASCAR inspired headstone in their cemetery. According to the story "the headstone is shaped like a couch and features images of a deer, a dog and color logos of NASCAR and the Indianapolis Colts." Color logos, mind you.

[Reverend Jonathan] Meyer says in an affidavit that photographs of the monument were shown to the St. Joseph Parish Council six weeks before Carr purchased it and that the council determined the monument wasn't acceptable because of its secular nature. He said he informed Carr of the decision.

Sad, and a bit ironic, since her husband, NASCAR fan Jason Carr, was killed in an automobile accident. But apparently, the thing which he honored most in his life was not God, but sports, and so he wants that to be his message to future generations. I wonder how this would play out if he had chosen a more traditional god to worship, like Zeus or Isis?

Read More

Time

I have a ton of stuff I'd like to write about, but no time to do it. So here are some stories that I'm thinking about...

NEW YORK--(Business Wire)-- The National Father`s Day Council announced today that it has selected President Bill Clinton, Founder of the William J. Clinton Foundation and 42nd President of the United States, as a 2013 "Father of the Year" Award recipient.

"With the profound generosity, leadership and tireless dedication to both his public office and many philanthropic organizations, President Clinton exemplifies the attributes that we celebrate through the father of the year award."

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said on a syndicated radio program that going to jail may be an effective way to protest a federal mandate that employers cover contraceptives in insurance plans...
"My local bishop said he told a group, 'Well, you know, I told a group I'm ready to go to jail,' and I told him, 'Bishop, don't take this personally - you need to go to jail," Cuccinelli said, trying to balance levity with seriousness.

JACKSON, Ohio — So many people showed up tonight to take a stand for Jesus that a meeting to discuss whether a painting of Him should hang in a public school had to be moved to a bigger space...

The leader of Jackson City Schools said it would take a higher authority than the Freedom From Religion Foundation to force the painting’s removal after 65 years.
“I’m certainly not going to run down there and take the picture down because some group from Madison, Wis., who knows nothing about the culture of our community or why the picture is even there, wants me to take it down,” Howard told WKKJ.

Read More

Anti-Choice

"Celebrity chef" Jamie Oliver said, according to Yahoo News:

"We hear a lot about how we shouldn't be 'nannying' people with laws about how they live their lives, but with such a massive problem as the obesity epidemic to deal with, we are way past the point where [we] can trust people to make better choices. We have to help them make better choices."

According to a New York Times poll 60% of New Yorkers are opposed to the ban, and only 36% in favor. Yet another move of government to say it knows better than the people. Followed to its logical conclusion, the people can't be trusted to choose their representatives.

Reminded me of

Read More

Person

Person

Not a Person

Read More

Heterophobia

It is with disgust that I read this article about a "genderless" preschool in Sweden. According to the preschool:

The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.

Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.

So, if they are to be believed they are trying to solve this "problem". But instead of encouraging people to value girls more, the solution they have decided upon is to remove the "advantage" by attempting to alter the nature of the children themselves.

Some parents worry things have gone too far. An obsession with obliterating gender roles, they say, could make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.

"Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued," says Tanja Bergkvist, a 37-year-old blogger and a leading voice against what she calls "gender madness" in Sweden.

Those bent on shattering gender roles "say there's a hierarchy where everything that boys do is given higher value, but I wonder who decides that it has higher value," she says. "Why is there higher value in playing with cars?"

Which is exactly the question. Why should anyone think that playing with cars is better than playing house? I don't.

Director Lotta Rajalin notes that Egalia places a special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. From a bookcase she pulls out a story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless — until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg.

Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no "Snow White," ''Cinderella" or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes.

Rajalin, 52, says the staff also try to help the children discover new ideas when they play.

"A concrete example could be when they're playing 'house' and the role of the mom already is taken and they start to squabble," she says. "Then we suggest two moms or three moms and so on."

Now we get to the real reason for this radical agenda - trying to teach children to accept the gay lifestyle. These children who quibble over the role of mom already being taken already understand something their "educators" have become to smart to understand - that a child actually has one mother and one father.

Attempts to raise children genderless or reverse their gender roles in the past have all either failed or resulted in severe psychological trauma. That the state should approve wholesale experimentation on this scale is appalling.

Read More

Stupid Letters

OK, this is not news anymore, but I started blogging this and never got time to finish, so here it is.

One of the things about having a blog, or writing anything that it "published" in some way, is that anything stupid you say lives forever. Here are some stupid letters that came to light recently:

Senator Menendez writes to Santa:

Dear Santa Claus,

I am writing out of concern, because you may have to move from the North Pole due to the dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice. The Navy's chief oceanographer says that by the summer of 2020 the North Pole may not have summer ice and other scientists project that an ice-free Arctic is possible as soon as 2012!

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that polar ice is melting because of greenhouse gas pollution and I am working hard to reduce these emissions. But there is probably nothing we can do in time to save the North Pole. I am worried about your safety and your ability to deliver billions of Christmas gifts if the ice cap on the North Pole no longer stays frozen all year. What will happen to your house, your workshop, the elves' houses and your reindeer barns?

I want you to know that if you want to relocate to the beautiful state of New Jersey, I would be proud to assist you. But given the climate you are accustomed to, I will understand if you would like to relocate to the South Pole. Just be sure not to move to the Antarctic Peninsula or West Antarctic ice sheet, areas that are also experiencing rapid ice melt.

Please know that I will work to mobilize the U.S. federal government to assist when you relocate. I am sure we can both agree that on a warming planet, we need to do all we can to save Christmas.

Sincerely,
Robert Menendez
U.S. Senator

Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Distorter Reporter, even more stupidly pretends to be the pope. Note that I have elided parts of this because it is long and frankly, too embarrassingly stupid:

Dear Mr. Boehner,

I write to congratulate you on becoming Speaker of the House on Wednesday, only the second Catholic Republican to hold the gavel. It is a source of pride for you, for your family and for all Catholics in the Great Republic. Please be assured of my prayers and apostolic blessing.

I also want to congratulate you for articulating so strongly your commitment to the defense of unborn human life. The bishops tell me that this new health care law provides federal funding of abortion and that this is one of the reasons you opposed that law. I am not so sure. I am eighty-two, and at eighty-two, you learn to listen very attentively to the sisters about health care, and they tell me the new health care law does not provide federal funds for abortion. Nonetheless, I hope that even if you are able to strengthen the rules preventing any government monies for abortions, you will beat back any effort to overturn to the health care law as a whole. Frankly, the rest of the world has been laughing at the U.S. for decades because you spend so much on health care and don’t even cover all your people. I have not been laughing. I have been scandalized that a great and religious country like yours has taken so long to guarantee health care as a right. I have spoken about this as clearly as possible and I am sure that you, Mr. Boehner, as a good Catholic will heed my voice in this matter.
...
There are some other areas of Catholic social teaching that I wish to call to your attention. As you know, in the past few years, one of the dominant themes of my speeches has been the moral imperative to address global warming. (I am told that in the U.S. you have to say “climate change” because “global warming” does not poll well, especially during the winter months, but here at the Vatican we do not take polls so I can call it what it is.) I invite you, my dear son, to look at the future generations of the world the way you look at an individual unborn child, as demanding protection because of their inherent dignity. Being good stewards of the environment, sir, is being pro-life too.
...
Given at St. Peter’s, this third day of January 2011, the sixth of my pontificate, Benedict XVI, P.P.

Read More

Things I'm glad I didn't invent

A while back I did a post on things I wish I'd thought of. Here's an idea I'm sorry anyone thought of. The idea is to make a "virtual speed bump" by making a drawing on the pavement that from a certain angle looks to the driver like an object. This has been done before, in Philadelphia, Pheonix and Peoria, and I'm told they are common in Europe.

However, drivers soon find the drawings more annoying than anything else, and ignore them over time. So Canada has come up with a twist. The drawing is designed to look like a child chasing a ball into the road. Shall we list some of the things likely to happen? Accidents as people stop short? Cars swerving off the road, or perhaps into cars or real people trying to avoid the child in the road.

Of course, according to David Duane of the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation the fake girl should not cause accidents, stating:

"If a driver can’t respond to this appropriately, that person shouldn’t be driving….”

Riiiiight. What exactly is the appropriate response - drive slowly over what appears to be a child in the road? My psychic prediction: This won't end well.

Of course, perspective drawings on pavement can be used to good effect. Just ask Julian Beever! He does perspective chalk masterpieces on sidewalks, like the one below.

Read More