Sunday, April 08, 2012

He is Risen!

Shit...maybe I better stop with all the Zombie Easter jokes.

Well, either that, or water on the ground absorbs heat from the sun and environment, energizing the water molecules and causing them to move around quickly enough to escape the water tension and carry that heat away as a vapor, rising into the atmosphere in evaporation.

This vapor obeys the second law of thermodynamics, as heat transfers from high temperature to low temperature, the upper atmosphere being cooler than the lower as low density hot air pushes above higher density cold air in convection currents helped along by the Earth's rotation.

As these water molecules continue rising they lose energy to the cooler ambient air, eventually condensing and retuning to a liquid. This liquid collects, some of it even freezing, becoming a solid, and mixes with particles in the air, forming a cloud. Eventually, gravity takes effect and starts pulling the heavier molecules toward the Earth.

As the heavier molecules fall to the lower portion of the cloud, colliding with incoming vapor, electrons are knocked free, separating charge: negative electrons in the lower portion of the cloud and positively charged droplets at the top, creating an electric field. The negative field at the bottom of the cloud becomes so intense that it repels electrons in the Earth's surface, which acquires a positive charge.

This field becomes strong enough to ionize the surrounding air, separating its positive ions from electrons, creating a more freely moving plasma which creates a conductive path between the ground and cloud, allowing an electrical current to flow. As positive streamers grow from the Earth's surface, step leaders propagate toward the Earth from the cloud,attempting to bridge the gap, and once they meet...a circuit is completed, allowing charge to flow along the conductive path creating a discharge to neutralize the charge separation.

This current, measuring in the tens of thousands of amps, is accompanied by tremendous heat-hotter than the surface of the sun-which produces a white-blue flash and expands the surrounding air so rapidly it explodes, literally producing a thunderous shockwave.

Either that or the supreme creator of the universe has a bad sense of humor and worse temper, and is striking out at me in a spectacular temper tantrum.

Probably that.

Thursday, April 05, 2012

Clarifying the 5th

From a forum thread ~2006

Lil DevilWrote:

Really? I thought the original wording was lo tirtzach (sp?) which means "thou shalt not" (lo) and "any kind of killing whatsoever" (tirtzach) which together means "Thou shalt not kill." I don't pretend to speak Hebrew, but I remember hearing about it from the studies of Dr. Alcalay who I think is some kind of Hebrew/Old Testament expert and also from the writings of Rabbi Milgrom.

This is a much disputed issue. But the dispute exists only because of bias of beliefs (i.e. how to get the Bible to say what you mean, as opposed to mean what it says). However, the Hebrew is quite clear.

Aseret HaDibrot aka The Decalogue bka "10 Commandments" are derived from the Tanakh, more specifically in the Torah: Exodus 20:2-17, Exodus 34:12-26, and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. I will note that all are different, the most commonly cited is Exodus 20, and Exodus 34 are the only set of (roughly) ten actually described as "commandments", and they are completely different than what we're used to hearing (there are 613 "commandments" in the Jewish "bible").

Now, in those passages, what words are used in the original Hebrew, how are they different from the English translation, and how did it get to be this way (intrinsic in the last question is "what did the original Greek and Latin translations say?")?

In both Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17, the word translated as "kill" is the Hebrew verb ratsach, which undoubtedly carries a meaning of murder, as opposed to merely kill, as in "extinguish life" (more commonly reserved for harag and, in some places, nakah or muth).

So, the original Hebrew reads, "Thou shalt not MURDER."

(If needed, I can provide verses which discuss situations of killing that isn't "murder" according to Law, and discuss which Hebrew words are used respectively.)

The Greek in the New Testament Matthew 5:21, where Jesus is quoting the Law (Torah), used the word phoneuo (murderer) from phoneus which distinctly means criminal murder (i.e. homicide), as opposed to slaying a man (which could be criminal or not), for which it used the word anthropoktonos (see 1 John 3:14-15). The word phoneuo (i.e. homicide) is also the word chosen in the translation of the "commandments" in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Therefore, the original Greek translation of the "Old Testament" (Septuagint) reads: "Thou shalt not MURDER".

So, if Hebrew—the original written language—and Greek both clearly say "MURDER", where do we get "Thou shalt not KILL" in our English-language bibles?

The answer lies in Saint Jerome, who translated the "Old Testament" into Latin in the Latin Vulgate. In all instances where the Tanakh and Septuagint used "murder"—and indeed, in incidents where those versions simply used "kill"—Jerome wrote "non occides", from the Latin root occidere, which means "die". So, the Latin renders both murder and kill simply as "to make die", which doesn’t carry the distinction found in the Hebrew and Greek.

And which language did the Church Fathers prefer, and was the official language of the Church? Latin. They used the Latin Vulgate and it's rendition of the Commandment as "kill".

As far as the translation lo tirtzach, we have to understand Hebrew. Hebrew did not make use of vowels. So, the base word in the original Hebrew was rtzch—which we add vowels to and make ratsach (discussed above). In each of the 49 times rtzch occurs, it refers to humans only (not animals) and describes murder. It has always been translated as "murder".

So, where does the translation of rtzch as "any kind of killing whatsoever" come from? A pacifistic Rabbi named Jeremy Milgrom.

At first I thought you may have been referring to the Noahide Laws, which are listed and discussed in the Talmud (Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 56a). There are seven Mitzvot (Laws) for Benei Noach (non-Jews; "sons of Noah"). Number 3 is Shefichat Damim, which is the restriction of murder. The Noahide Laws are derived from Genesis 9:5-6.

For a good paper on this subject, see here .

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Slavery Isn't Very Civil...

I have recently had the misfortune of being presented with the delusional, wanton molestation of historical fact and reality that is the claim that the Civil War was "not about slavery".

This unsettling bit of tripe is often found falling from the lips of a certain segment of society as an attempt to distance their socially conservative stance against "big government" from the American elephant in the room: a certain "peculiar institution". Indeed, they’ll insist, brother was pitted against brother over the issue of "States’ Rights". Ah, the elusive specter of States’ Rights so often evoked but seldom defined. But which particular right or rights were being trampled on by big-bad federal government? And which states were making this complaint of violation? If only we had a way to determine what they had to say for themselves...

Sadly, this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the first time this particular flavor of Bizarro World history has been presented to me. My interlocutor on this occasion quoted a Wikipedia entry on the Civil War, I’ll assume as some form of "proof":

"In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal"

As befuddled as I am by this selection, I suppose his intent was to suggest that slavery was not an issue until Lincoln decided to make it one in 1862, almost a year and a half into the war.

One would wonder, then, what Confederate officials had to say on the topic. In 1861, in his Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis said:

"It [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts...Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God - let him go to the Bible...I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation...Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments - in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere."

Thirteen years prior, as senator from Mississippi he told congress:


In 1856 he said:


Again, in his role as President of the Confederacy, he stated:

"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

Davis had a strong opinion about the Union:

"Were it ever to be proposed again to enter into a Union with such a people, I could no more consent to do it than to trust myself in a den of thieves...There is indeed a difference between the two peoples. Let no man hug the delusion that there can be renewed association between them. Our enemies are...traditionless."

Need one wonder precisely which tradition he could have possibly been referring to?

I readily admit that these are merely the recorded opinions of one individual Confederate, on one particular topic and, as such, do not necessarily say anything at all about the causes of the Civil war. Therefore, I will refer to pertinent official legal documents.

A study of the Constitution of the Confederate States presents one glaring difference from that of the United States—the mention of slavery:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]"

Of course, this too merely demonstrates that the Confederate states approved of slavery, not necessarily that it was a major factor in the Civil War. So, as it can hardly be argued that actual secession of states from the Union was the primary catalyst of the Civil War, we should investigate the reasons for secession. Luckily, each state presented these reasons, and the majority clearly mention slavery as the primary motivating factor, usually within the first paragraph and typically throughout.

The SECOND sentence of the Georgia Declaration of Secession:


The SECOND sentence of Mississippi's Declaration:


"Thoroughly identified with...slavery". How much more clear can it get? From that same document:


A common theme from all of the "slave states" is the complaint of government theft. What "property" are they talking about? That’s right, humans.

South Carolina's Declaration bemoans the refusal of other states to abide by the Fugitive Law Act and return escaped slaves:



The Alabama Ordinance of Secession:


Virginia's Ordinance:


This "oppression" was the pressure to stop oppressing human beings.

The Texas Ordinance of Secession makes it obvious:


Finally, Texas' Declaration of Secession is rather blunt:


"When we advert to the course of individual non-slaveholding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude."










And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slaveholding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States."




I don’t think a stronger indictment can be made. The governments of each state, in announcing their secession, provided reason for that action, and each was quite clear that the strongest and primary grievances centered firmly around slavery.

Yet, in light of all of this primary source evidence, some people will still insist that the Civil War was not about slavery. The real question is, why?

[In an attempted stab at brevity I excised relevant sections from the quoted documents, all of which can be found in their entirety at]

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Something to think about (just don't actually think)...

This story is a complete lie. This is overwhelmingly obvious, and anyone reading it with an open mind and applying critical thinking should immediately see the numerous red flags it raises. It unabashedly and blatantly uses numerous telltale signs of spuriousness and follows a standard outline of sensationalist propaganda and urban legend.

But that's just the start.

I'm quite curious as to exactly what this makes you think, and what "insight" it offers.

It is designed to make people think that academic institutions are godless, that atheists are cruel, that intellectual fickleness is acceptable, that critical thought is bad, and that Christians don't have the de facto religious privilege in this country. It reinforces both ignorance and hate. It perpetuates negative stereotypes and fosters unfounded fear.

Atheists are oppressed and discriminated against in the US. Christians are favored and given a free pass, yet they attempt to present the opposite, and claim victim status. Nobody in this country suffers for being Christian. Faith is the ONLY topic in this society that gets unquestioning acceptance. You are NOT allowed to question faith. This type of blatantly false propaganda does nothing but contribute to this inequality.

This is IDENTICAL to white people losing their minds and claiming "reverse discrimination" when White privilege and Black oppression start to be addressed and measures ensuring equal rights are put in motion. Nobody is taking anything away from White folk, but they panic because their history of entitlement is questioned, so they blow shit out of proportion and spread hateful lies.

Imagine an obviously fake story detailing a supposed angry, mean Black civil rights figure imposing his beliefs on innocent, scared Whites, until some brave, proud White man stood up for the White race.

What it makes ME think is: Why does a bad person have to resort to bad means to emphasize the ultimate good? Why should someone have to lie to preach the truth?

Seriously, though, believe all you want. But why tell a lie to endorse belief in an "ultimate truth"? How can a group of people who supposedly hold exclusive rights to morality so thoroughly endorse lying?

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

On Kooks and Libertarians...

Just in time for my previous post, we have more gun-toting dumbasses showing up to Obama events.

One particular cowboy receives special notice. Partly because he is Black, and partly because he chose to brandish two loaded firearms: a Glock 17 at his hip and an AR-15 strapped to his back. Now, admittedly, when I first saw this on the news, I couldn't hear the accompanying audio and didn't know whether he was just another nut case anti-Obama kook, or a somewhat overzealous Obama supporter attempting to make a point.

Turns out he's a Libertarian. And, oh, how I love me some Libertarians.

In a Youtube video they show him "reasoning" with other event attendees. In one of his early rants, he's accusing the government of thievery, making brilliant analogies through hypothetical sarcasm such as "Oh, I want education and I'm just going to take it from you", apparently unaware that public education already exists through taxation. Should I presume he has something against education? Or those paved roads he's walking around on? Or those publicly-funded police officers who are present protecting his right to open-carry, which was granted him by government officials who are also paid with tax money? Or the military industrial complex which provided the R&D that lead to the design of his beloved guns? Or the government-ran regulating bodies that ensured that the garments he's wearing were safe for consumption and presented him no eminent danger of bursting into flames, or that his motorcycle was safe for transportation, or that the money he used to pay for either held any value? He ends this particular tirade with "Taxation is theft...all taxation".

Now, while we're discussing theft, perhaps he's unaware that the capitalistic system that he depends on to earn the money he used to purchase those firearms is based upon theft in the form of profiting off of other's labor. Or that the very land he standing on was stolen, or that it's highly likely that the fact he's even standing there is due to the theft of his ancestors. I'll assume he's oblivious to the fact that he'd probably find it quite difficult to gather enough resources to pay for those weapons or that spiffy shirt and tie if, instead of living in a cooperative society of 312+ million people, he was a loner scrapping out an existence in the wilderness all by himself. Perhaps he would barter off some livestock or other fruits of his labor to the local gunsmith in return for a sleek semi-automatic military-style assault rifle, but, OOPS!, if it wasn't for a division of labor and the manual drudgery of other people in society, there would be no food surpluses to enable the idle time utilized to developing and manufacturing such material possessions.

He then parrots the insane and willfully deluded thought process that the world would be a safer place if everyone carried firearms. I'm sure he doesn't really mean "everybody"; that he has definite restrictions in mind. Now, I won't bother to attempt a debate about firearms, pro or con, but if anyone seriously thinks you can take a crowd full of people who honestly believe public option health care is socialism, government death panels will euthanize grandma, and Obama is comparable to Hitler, mix in some guns, and the end result will be an increase in safety...well, they have quite frankly lost their fucking mind.

He also thinks it would be "insane" NOT to constantly be armed, citing the "dangerous world" we live in as rationalization. Here's where I could—and probably should—cite a multitude of sources showing how ridiculous the "dangerous world" fairy tale is in our particular society, with a dash of stats showing that the one thing that actually is dangerous about our society versus comparable others is the prevalence of, what else, guns. But again, I won't. I'll just ask him when was the last time he had to fend off roves of raping and pillaging lunatic thugs.

At one point (3:13 into this video) he utters a rational thought and illuminates that merely having melanized skin tends to make people nervous. Although his tense ("at one time" and "made") is way off, I'm sure there's a reason he chose to dress in the manner he did. I'm somehow sure that, deep down, he realizes that people like our government officials—who are paid by taxes—and fellow tax-paying citizens—whom he doesn't feel any allegiance to in the form of assistance—made it possible for him to even be considered a full five-fifths human guaranteed the rights by our Constitution that he is speaking so in favor of. All while he hints at the better times of wise men when that Constitution was written: times when he would have most definitely had a very, very different perspective on things.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Welcome to Bizarro World...

Quick hypothetical situation:

It's 2007. A Muslim (or Black or Latino man) comes to an event at which President Bush is speaking and stands along the route the President is expected to travel. He holds a sign which endorses violence against political leaders. On his thigh is a holstered firearm. What happens?

If you think for one second that the end result mimics what happened to William Kostric, the white man who did this Tuesday, you're simply delusional.

Now the reality. 2008: Mr. Kostric attended a New Hampshire event at which President Obama was speaking, openly displaying his loaded firearm whilst holding a sign that read "It's time to water the Tree of Liberty" (a reference to the Jefferson quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"...and I sincerely doubt Mr. Kostric considers President Obama the patriot in this equation).

Was he arrested, charged, prosecuted, imprisoned? None of the above. From footage and reports it's unclear whether or not he was even questioned or observed/followed.

He states that a firearm is a defensive tool (an odd belief in a country with nearly 10,000 homicides by firearm per year). He states that he feels the event would have been safer if everybody attending had a gun. This poppycock is too irrational to event attempt rebuttal.

Now, just in case one think me a tad hyperbolic, peaceful anti-Bush protesters were arrested in Tampa Bay, NYC, Crawford,TX, Charleston, WV, and Kennebunkport, ME (just from a quick Google search). Protestors were also arrested at the 2008 RNC.

And just in case I'm accused of playing the dreaded race card, I'll provide a reminder that although the avowed white supremacists who were captured with rifles in a plot to assassinate then Senator Obama at the 2008 DNC were arrested, no charges were brought against them. Although the very same prosecutor charged an inmate—who just happened to be black—who had mailed a threatening letter containing baby powder to John McCain, stating "we won't stand for threats of this kind in Colorado". Because we all know how much more threatening a black man who is locked down at a penitentiary is than a car full of Neo-Nazi tweakers with rifles roaming about free in public.

There are rather blatant double standards at play here. It sorta reminds me how a Black Harvard professor can be (falsely) arrested for "disturbing the peace" in his own home, while angry white mobs can violently attack a man at a townhall meeting in Florida with no fear of recourse from law enforcement officials. But it's probably just me and my crazy biases overreacting again.

"I Am A Conservative American Shitheel"

A profound Whole Foods forum post by MB shopper, originally attributed to a Something Awful forum poster called randomnoise (who claims no previous knowledge of "Joe Average Conservative").
Replying to:

"You're an ignoramus. Look at the facts. Anything the government has involved itself in haS [sic] becomes less efficient and more expensive. That's not partisan it's reality. The CBO has twice now substantiated that this trend will only continue if the government gets involved. We need to address the cost of health care but the gov. is not the solution."—Posted by Stump

Once again, for the benefit of the government-can't-get-anything-right flock:







And apparently, the Global Positioning Satellite system is POS, right?

The only reason government doesn't work is because conservative Republican administrations defunded and/or patronage staffed them with people with ties to special business interests: to wit the last FDA, Dept of Interior and Agriculture under Bush. No one seems to have a problem with pumping over $500Bil to the Defense Department which last I hear is a socialized entity."