Oklahoma So Hot, Streetlamps Melting in Over 110 Degree Heat

To contact us Click HERE
Oklahoma is so hot that street lamps are melting"
By Tecca | Today in Tech, Yahoo News | August 2, 2012

Highs of 115 degrees are taking its toll on the nation's heartland

It's hard to not be concerned with global warming when its effects are right in front of your eyes. Sure, it's one thing when the ocean begins to reclaim islands, but when you can see the effects in your home town, well, that's another story altogether. Case in point: KFOR TV in Stillwater, Oklahoma is reporting that temperatures are so high that the street lamps have begun melting.

To be sure, Stillwater is suffering from one heck of a heatwave. It's expected to reach 115 there today, 108 on Friday, and 109 on Saturday. And warmer temperatures are nothing new: July represented the 23rd month out of the last 28 that came in warmer than average.

It's possible the heat itself isn't responsible for the event — it's being reported on Facebook that a nearby dumpster fire may have been the cause of the melting plastic light housings. Still, that dumpster fire was caused and aggravated by the record heat and dryness. And if dangerous, spontaneous fires aren't reason enough to go green, we don't know what is.

[Image credit: Patrick Hunter via Facebook]

This article was written by Fox Van Allen and originally appeared on Tecca

Fortunately, despite 15 straight days of 100 degree + temperatures, there have been no heat-related deaths.
"This July, EMSA [Emergency Medical Service Authority] responded to 127 heat-related emergencies and took 82 people to the hospital . . . .
This year, Grandfield has had 41 days of triple-digit heat, and Oklahoma City has had 20 days. No official heat-related deaths had been reported in 2012 going into Wednesday, according to the medical examiner’s office."

Veep Pick Ryan Makes Plutocratic Ticket; Ryan's Wealth Sources

To contact us Click HERE
Paul Begala: With Ryan, Romney Has the Plutocrat Ticket[scroll down: Ryan and his wife's wealth, includes a trust fund]by Paul Begala Aug 11, 2012 8:47 AM EDTBy choosing Paul Ryan—the guy who wants to slash taxes on the rich and gut the government—Romney shows he’s decided to go nuclear in the class war.

In selecting Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has doubled-down on the one thing he has never flip-flopped on: economic elitism. Romney, born to wealth, has selected Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who was also born to wealth. As the former University of Oklahoma football coach, Barry Switzer, once said of someone else: both these guys were born on third and thought they hit a triple.There's nothing wrong with inherited wealth. Lord knows great presidents from FDR to JFK came into their fortunes through the luck of birth. But there is something wrong with winners of the lineage lottery who want to hammer those who did not have the foresight to select wealthy sperm and egg.Finally, we have peered into Mitt Romney's core. It is neither pro-choice nor pro-life; neither pro-NRA nor pro-gun control; neither pro-equality nor antigay. But it is pro-wealth and very anti–middle class. Mitt Romney has decided to go nuclear in the class war.Paul Ryan, the darling of the New York–Washington media elite, is almost certainly not the most qualified person Romney could have picked. Unlike governors like Chris Christie or Tim Pawlenty, or a former high-ranking White House official like Rob Portman, Ryan has never run anything larger than his congressional office or the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile. The elite love Ryan because he speaks for more cowardly members of their class; his stridently anti–middle class policies are music to their ears.You will often hear people who ought to know better dress up Ryan's savage economic priorities with euphemisms. Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare. No, he doesn't. He wants to kill it. Saying Paul Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare is like saying the vet wanted to "fix" my dog Major; that which used to work very well no longer works at all—and Major is none too happy with the procedure.Think about that. As my buddy James Carville has said, what would all the Best People say if Nancy Pelosi made her staffers read, say, Margaret Sanger? Or if Barack Obama made interns study Das Kapital? Sure, a few months ago, facing Catholic protestors at Georgetown University, Ryan said he renounced Rand. But as the national Catholic weekly, America, wrote, he did not change the substance of a single policy. Some renunciation. It seems to me Ryan has renounced Rand's politically incorrect atheism, not her morally bankrupt philosophy of Screw Thy Neighbor.Politically, the choice does the one thing Romney needed least of all: it shifts the focus of the 2012 presidential election away from the soft economy and onto the Ryan—now, Romney-Ryan—budget. The most radical governing document in a generation, the Romney-Ryan budget would dramatically alter America's basic social compact. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich called it "right-wing social engineering".Don't be fooled. Ryan is no deficit hawk. He voted for all the policies that created the current ocean of red ink: the Bush tax cuts for the rich; the war in Iraq; the Bush Medicare prescription-drug plan, the first entitlement without a dedicated revenue source. Ryan cloaks his brutal budget in the urgent rhetoric of fiscal responsibility, but that's a Trojan Horse. As the Center for American Progress has noted, under the Romney-Ryan budget, "the national debt, measured as a share of GDP, would never decline, surpassing 80 percent by 2014, and 90 percent by 2022."Ryan's real goal is to destroy the ladder of opportunity for the poor and the middle class. Look at his budget: Medicare would be shattered and replaced with a voucher system wherein seniors would be given a stipend and told to negotiate with the health insurance goliaths. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ten years after the Ryan plan was enacted, seniors would pay $6,400 per year more for the same health care, as the stipend would fail to keep up with projected cost increases.And that's just for starters. One out of every four dollars spent on transportation—which is already underfunded—would be cut. Veterans' benefits would be cut 13 percent from what President Obama says is needed. Young men Paul Ryan voted to send into combat would suffer once more on the home front. Education would be cut, food safety, air traffic control, environmental protection—almost everything that makes us safer, smarter or stronger—would get hammered.How can a budget so brutal not make a dent in the debt? If you have to ask you have not been paying attention. What is the holy grail for princelings like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan? Of course: tax cuts for the rich. The Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers and found that under Romney's proposal, 95 percent of Americans would see their taxes go up by an average of $500, but millionaires would receive an extra $87,000 tax cut. The net result: an $86 billion annual shift in the tax burden away from those making over $200,000 a year and onto those making less.And so Romney Hood has his Friar Tuck. And somewhere in hell, Ayn Rand is cackling with glee. Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.Paul Begala is a Newsweek/Daily Beast columnist, a CNN contributor, an affiliated professor of public policy at Georgetown, and a senior adviser to Priorities USA Action, a progressive PAC.For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.Ryan's budget is the fiscal embodiment of the deeply evil, wholeheartedly selfish so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand. In fact, Ryan has described Rand as "the reason I got involved in public service," and reportedly makes staffers read her works.

Ryan has family business connection to earth moving industry. A mini-Dick Cheney II in some senses: In recent years, he has significant investments in Oklahoma mineral industries. Read on in Politico.

Unlike Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan’s personal wealth is no mysteryRead more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79611.html#ixzz23KjyOcVT By DAVE LEVINTHAL | 8/11/12 11:46 AM EDTThe details of Paul Ryan’s personal wealth are no mystery — unlike those of Mitt Romney.And while Ryan is nowhere close to the nine-figure wealth Romney boasts, he isn’t exactly hurting, either.Latest on POLITICO Hirono, Lingle prevail in Hawaii Meet Janna Ryan Ryan is liked by friends and foes Is Ryan just Mitt squared? 8 Dem slams against the Ryan budget Mitt hugs Ryan, not budgetRyan’s overall net worth falls between $927,100 and $3.20 million, making him the 124th wealthiest member of the House, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics of the new Republican vice presidential candidate’s 2010 personal financial filings.(PHOTOS: Scenes from Romney's running-mate announcement)Additional personal financial disclosures by Ryan, who by law has each year filed such reports since entering Congress in 1999, indicate that the Wisconsin congressman has maintained well-above-average wealth for the duration of his congressional tenure.Ultra-wealthy Romney, in contrast, has largely occluded his recent personal financial history.He’s refused to release his recent tax returns before 2010, and unlike Ryan, is under no obligation to release annual personal financial disclosure reports.While running for president in 2007, Romney did file a federal public financial disclosure report that listed hundreds of assets across numerous financial categories.Ryan, meanwhile, has to date been under no significant pressure or obligation to release his personal Internal Revenue Service filings, although calls to do so will likely begin immediately.“It’ll be very, very interesting to see if Ryan releases his tax returns,” said Kathy Kiely, managing editor for the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which tracks political money.Ryan’s latest personal financial disclosure report, which covers calendar year 2011, lists several dozen stocks and mutual funds he or his wife, Janna, own.Ryan’s individual investments are generally modest, ranging in value from $1,001 to $15,000. (Federal law only requires lawmakers to report their assets and liabilities in broad ranges.) These include stock in well-known companies that run the gamut from tobacco and oil interests to fast food and athletic wear.Among them: Amazon.com, Air Products Chemicals, Accenture, Berkshire Hathaway, Estée Lauder, McDonald’s, Kraft Foods, Nike, Praixair, Ralph Lauren, Starbucks, Priceline.com, Mastercard, Google, Wells Fargo, Procter & Gamble, IBM, United Technologies, Visa, General Electric, ExxonMobil, Apple, Bristol Myers Squibb, Citrix Systems and tobacco companies Altria and Phillip Morris.Ryan also reported a holding in the Ryan Limited Partnership worth up to $250,000. He reported no financial liabilities.(PHOTOS: Paul Ryan through the years)Janna Ryan also individually reported a living trust fund worth $1 million to $5 million, that ranks as the largest asset they collectively reported for last year.She also individually reported up to $250,000 in assets tied to gravel rights with Blondie & Brownie LLC, $100,000 in mineral rights holdings, as well as up to $100,000 worth of holdings in the Little Land Co. All are located in Oklahoma.Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79611.html#ixzz23Kk7jtXC

BREAKING: Ecuador Offers Assange Asylum; UK Interferes

To contact us Click HERE
Breaking News in the last half hour, today, August 16, 2012:Ecuador has offered Wikileaks founder Julien Assange asylum,
Britain will not guarantee Assange's safe passage.
Coverage from the Guardian of Manchester, UK:
"Ecuador grants WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange political asylumForeign Office 'disappointed' at announcement from Quito"

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has been granted political asylum by Ecuador after taking refuge in the country's embassy in London.

The announcement will increase tensions between the UK and the South American country, which has been warned that the situation could have "serious implications" for diplomatic relations.

Assange sought sanctuary in the embassy in Knightsbridge in an effort to avoid deportation to Sweden, where he faces sexual assault charges.

Ecuadorian ministers have accused the UK of threatening to attack the embassy to seize Assange after it emerged that a 1987 law could allow the revocation of a building's diplomatic status if the foreign power occupying it "ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post".

Under international law, diplomatic posts are considered the territory of the foreign nation.

The Foreign Office has said the decision on Assange's application for political asylum would not affect the UK's legal obligation to extradite him to Sweden.

The asylum decision was announced by the foreign affairs minister, Ricardo Patino, in the Ecuadorian capital Quito.

The news was seen live by Assange and embassy staff in a link to a press conference from Quito.

Patino said the Ecuadorian government had conducted lengthy diplomatic talks with the UK, Swedish and US governments.

None could give the guarantees about Assange's future that the South American country was seeking and had shown "no willingness" to negotiate on the issue.

US authorities were specifically asked if they had any intention to seek Mr Assange's extradition so they could start legal proceedings against him and what maximum penalty he could face.

"The response from the United States has been that it cannot offer any guarantees. With these precedents in mind the Ecuadorian government, loyal to its tradition to protect those who seek refuge with us and in our diplomatic mission, have decided to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr Assange."

Patino called for Assange to be guaranteed safe passage to leave the embassy but the Foreign Office insisted this would not be offered.

The minister said: "We trust that the United Kingdom will offer, as soon as possible, the guarantee for the safe passage for this asylum of Mr Assange and that they would respect those international agreements that they have signed in the past and that they have always respected."

He hoped the "friendship" with the UK would "remain intact".

"We share the respect for the same values of human rights, democracy and peace which are only possible once fundamental human rights are respected," he added.

A Foreign Office spokesman said the Government was "disappointed" by Patino's statement and stressed that the UK had a "binding obligation" to extradite Assange.

Tom Smith, Speaker of Misogynist Nonsense, Pennsylvania's Verbal Cousin of Todd Akin

To contact us Click HERE
Just when you thought Missouri Congressman and Senatorial candidate Todd Akin takes the cake,meet Tom Smith, Republican Senatorial nominee from Pennsylvania who talks about women like it's 1952.From Daily Kos:

Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 08:25 AM PDT
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote
by Joan McCarter

Why, oh why, aren't Republicans doing better with women? I mean, they've got guys like this:
[ Then there's a link to this 48 second Youtube video of dumb utterances by Tom Smith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1MhN8F7L7FI ]

That's Tom Smith, anachronistic Republican Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, the guy who said earlier this week that "having a baby out of wedlock" was pretty much like rape. That's a guy with six daughters, so he's got great insight to women.

He's generous, he "allowed" his wife to get a new dress for the event he was speaking at. He's relatable, making a point of talking to the little ladies.

A video released Thursday by the Pennsylvania Democrats shows Smith, who introduced Ryan at an event last week, greeting two women in the crowd and asking them what they're talking about.

"We're talking about the power of petite women," one of the women says.

"Oh," Smith responds. "My guess would have been you were talking about shoes."

"Hahahaha! You women and your shoes. See how well I know your concerns?!"

And he also understands the problems of the economy, and can express it in terms everyone can understand.

"Perhaps where we're making our mistake is that we are asking President Obama and Senator Bob Casey to do something they have no knowledge of. They've never been in business, they've never ran [sic] businesses, they don't have that knowledge," Smith said. "It would be like, your wife wrecks your car. You're gonna take it to the beauty salon to get fixed? No."

"You women and your bad driving and beauty salons. Aren't you precious!"

Ladies, and gentlemen too, that's your 2012 Republican Party. It's hardly a wonder that they don't think we're capable of making our own decisions about our health care and our bodies. We're too busy wrecking cars and thinking about shoes.

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote



August 28, 2012, Philadelphia Inquirer: No abortions for rape victims, says GOP Senate candidatehttp://articles.philly.com/2012-08-28/news/33425906_1_abortion-missouri-candidate-gop-senate-candidate
Plus, it looks like he's trying to compaign for the Todd Akin voter in his own state, as columnist Karen Heller wrote on August 30, 2012 in Philly.com:

Specifically, his daughter's unintended pregnancy to rape, after a Harrisburg press luncheon in front of a group of reporters.

Mark Scolforo of the Associated Press asked Smith, "How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will?"

Smith answered, "I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But fortunately for me, I didn't have to. . . . She chose the way I thought. Don't get me wrong; it wasn't rape."

Scolforo: "Similar how?"

Smith: "Having a baby out of wedlock.

Scolforo: "That is similar to rape?"

Smith: "No, no, no. Well, put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean it is similar."

Smith, incidentally and like Akin, is not attending the national Republican confab in Tampa, joining the Romney campaign's ever-expanding list of untouchables, ne'er-do-wells, foot-in-mouthers, and don't-even-think-about-its.

Let's give Smith his due. He's a self-financed, wholly inexperienced candidate who isn't particularly savvy with the press.

Then again, he's a self-financed, inexperienced candidate who, because he's a multimillionaire, hasn't bothered learning the ropes while attempting to launch his elective career in the U.S. Senate, the Augusta National of politics. No baby steps, if you'll pardon the expression, for this guy.

The reason Smith was asked such an indelicate question is because he and his fellow conservatives are on a crusade to outlaw a procedure that's been legal for four decades. They would prohibit abortion even in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger, because that's how much they care about women.

Powerhouse Mother Jones site with Romney's 47% comments

To contact us Click HERE
Here's the powerhouse lode of Mitt Romney videos slamming the 47 percent

by David Corn at Mother Jones:

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.
—By David Corn | Mon Sep. 17, 2012 1:00 PM PDT3149

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17 and we've removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]

Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:



At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, "I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."

More MoJo coverage of Mitt Romney:

The Mystery of Romney's Exit From Bain
Exclusive Audio: Inside the Koch Brothers' Secret Seminar
Documents: Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses
Romney Invested Millions in Firms That Pioneered High-Tech Outsourcing
6 Things Mitt Romney Is Hiding
Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation." When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, "Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars." He added, "The fact that I'm either tied or close to the president…that's very interesting."

Asked why he wouldn't go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:



We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right." What he's going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful, or who's, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.

(Note: Obama did not promise his policies would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 50 percent of college graduates are not unemployed.)

To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:



I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn't realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I'd tell them to you, but I'd have to shoot you.

When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn't attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:



Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don't think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact…My dad used to say, "Being right early is not good in politics." And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn't win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of "hope and change."

Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:



They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

Advertise on MotherJones.comAt the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney "sparingly…so that people don't get tired of her." And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance "has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential."

Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

COMING SOON: More from the secret Romney video. (Romney tells his donors he doesn't believe in a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that resolving this conflict is "almost unthinkable," and that he would merely "kick the ball down the field.")

Video production: James West, Adam Serwer, Dana Liebelson, and Erika Eichelberger

Research assistance: James Carter

This story originally contained versions of the videos that were blurred out. You can find those videos, in the order they appear in this post, here, here, here, here, and here.

Rep. Steve King Echoes Todd Akin: I’ve Never Heard Of A Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory Rape Or Incest

To contact us Click HERE
From Democratic Underground.com: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014201819

Rep. Steve King: I’ve Never Heard Of A Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory Rape Or Incest

Source: TPM

Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.

King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.

“Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way,” King told KMEG-TV Monday, “and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”

A Democratic source flagged King’s praise of Akin in the KMEG interview to TPM. But potentially more controversial for King is his suggestion that pregnancies from statutory rape or incest don’t exist or happen rarely. A 1996 review by the Guttmacher Institute found “at least half of all babies born to minor women are fathered by adult men.”

Read more: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/steve-king-statutory-rape.php?ref=fpb

Tues PM: Todd Akin reaffirms decision to stay in the Senate race

To contact us Click HERE
From Democratic Underground.com: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014201941

Todd Akin reaffirms decision to stay in the Senate race

Source: Washington Post

Rep. Todd Akin, the embattled Senate candidate who used the phrase “legitimate rape” in talking about abortion and pregnancy, said Tuesday afternoon that he would stick to his decision to remain in the race.

In an interview with Mike Huckabee, who was an early endorser of the Missouri Republican, Akin said that his supporters have asked him to keep campaigning.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-eye-tuesday-deadline-for-akin/2012/08/21/fcf695a2-eb8c-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_story.html

Tom Smith, Speaker of Misogynist Nonsense, Pennsylvania's Verbal Cousin of Todd Akin

To contact us Click HERE
Just when you thought Missouri Congressman and Senatorial candidate Todd Akin takes the cake,meet Tom Smith, Republican Senatorial nominee from Pennsylvania who talks about women like it's 1952.From Daily Kos:

Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 08:25 AM PDT
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote
by Joan McCarter

Why, oh why, aren't Republicans doing better with women? I mean, they've got guys like this:
[ Then there's a link to this 48 second Youtube video of dumb utterances by Tom Smith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1MhN8F7L7FI ]

That's Tom Smith, anachronistic Republican Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, the guy who said earlier this week that "having a baby out of wedlock" was pretty much like rape. That's a guy with six daughters, so he's got great insight to women.

He's generous, he "allowed" his wife to get a new dress for the event he was speaking at. He's relatable, making a point of talking to the little ladies.

A video released Thursday by the Pennsylvania Democrats shows Smith, who introduced Ryan at an event last week, greeting two women in the crowd and asking them what they're talking about.

"We're talking about the power of petite women," one of the women says.

"Oh," Smith responds. "My guess would have been you were talking about shoes."

"Hahahaha! You women and your shoes. See how well I know your concerns?!"

And he also understands the problems of the economy, and can express it in terms everyone can understand.

"Perhaps where we're making our mistake is that we are asking President Obama and Senator Bob Casey to do something they have no knowledge of. They've never been in business, they've never ran [sic] businesses, they don't have that knowledge," Smith said. "It would be like, your wife wrecks your car. You're gonna take it to the beauty salon to get fixed? No."

"You women and your bad driving and beauty salons. Aren't you precious!"

Ladies, and gentlemen too, that's your 2012 Republican Party. It's hardly a wonder that they don't think we're capable of making our own decisions about our health care and our bodies. We're too busy wrecking cars and thinking about shoes.

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote



August 28, 2012, Philadelphia Inquirer: No abortions for rape victims, says GOP Senate candidatehttp://articles.philly.com/2012-08-28/news/33425906_1_abortion-missouri-candidate-gop-senate-candidate
Plus, it looks like he's trying to compaign for the Todd Akin voter in his own state, as columnist Karen Heller wrote on August 30, 2012 in Philly.com:

Specifically, his daughter's unintended pregnancy to rape, after a Harrisburg press luncheon in front of a group of reporters.

Mark Scolforo of the Associated Press asked Smith, "How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will?"

Smith answered, "I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But fortunately for me, I didn't have to. . . . She chose the way I thought. Don't get me wrong; it wasn't rape."

Scolforo: "Similar how?"

Smith: "Having a baby out of wedlock.

Scolforo: "That is similar to rape?"

Smith: "No, no, no. Well, put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean it is similar."

Smith, incidentally and like Akin, is not attending the national Republican confab in Tampa, joining the Romney campaign's ever-expanding list of untouchables, ne'er-do-wells, foot-in-mouthers, and don't-even-think-about-its.

Let's give Smith his due. He's a self-financed, wholly inexperienced candidate who isn't particularly savvy with the press.

Then again, he's a self-financed, inexperienced candidate who, because he's a multimillionaire, hasn't bothered learning the ropes while attempting to launch his elective career in the U.S. Senate, the Augusta National of politics. No baby steps, if you'll pardon the expression, for this guy.

The reason Smith was asked such an indelicate question is because he and his fellow conservatives are on a crusade to outlaw a procedure that's been legal for four decades. They would prohibit abortion even in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger, because that's how much they care about women.

Powerhouse Mother Jones site with Romney's 47% comments

To contact us Click HERE
Here's the powerhouse lode of Mitt Romney videos slamming the 47 percent

by David Corn at Mother Jones:

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.
—By David Corn | Mon Sep. 17, 2012 1:00 PM PDT3149

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17 and we've removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]

Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:



At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, "I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."

More MoJo coverage of Mitt Romney:

The Mystery of Romney's Exit From Bain
Exclusive Audio: Inside the Koch Brothers' Secret Seminar
Documents: Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses
Romney Invested Millions in Firms That Pioneered High-Tech Outsourcing
6 Things Mitt Romney Is Hiding
Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation." When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, "Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars." He added, "The fact that I'm either tied or close to the president…that's very interesting."

Asked why he wouldn't go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:



We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right." What he's going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful, or who's, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.

(Note: Obama did not promise his policies would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 50 percent of college graduates are not unemployed.)

To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:



I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn't realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I'd tell them to you, but I'd have to shoot you.

When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn't attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:



Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don't think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact…My dad used to say, "Being right early is not good in politics." And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn't win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of "hope and change."

Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:



They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

Advertise on MotherJones.comAt the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney "sparingly…so that people don't get tired of her." And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance "has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential."

Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

COMING SOON: More from the secret Romney video. (Romney tells his donors he doesn't believe in a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that resolving this conflict is "almost unthinkable," and that he would merely "kick the ball down the field.")

Video production: James West, Adam Serwer, Dana Liebelson, and Erika Eichelberger

Research assistance: James Carter

This story originally contained versions of the videos that were blurred out. You can find those videos, in the order they appear in this post, here, here, here, here, and here.

Inerrancy again!

To contact us Click HERE
I’m going to comment on thispost:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/07/scriptural-inerrancy-again.html
Bill Vallicella is abrilliant philosopher, as well as an astute critic of liberal ideologues.However, whenever he turns to the Bible, his objections are amateurish.

The following is from areader who wishes to remain anonymous but who wants me "to hear adifferent perspective on the matter than that of the Calvinists who comment onyour blog: I don't want you thinking they are the ones rightly interpreting theChristian texts."

It’s flattering to thinkCalvinists have cornered the market on the inerrancy of Scripture, but that’snot quite fair to some other theological traditions. For instance, confessionalLutherans (e.g. WELS; LCMS) also affirm the inerrancy of Scripture.  So do “fundamentalists.”
It’s true, though, that othergroups like Arminians are not committed to the inerrancy of Scripture. 

Jesus and Paul had a ratherliberal interpretation of the Old Testament Law, by which I mean a non-literal,moralist interpretation. I shall explain this in further detail by offering afew exemplary statements from them both.Jesus famously said that"What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out oftheir mouth, that is what defiles them" (Mt 15:11), specifying what hemeant a few verses later: "But the things that come out of a person’smouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart comeevil thoughts — murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony,slander. These are what defile a person" (vv. 18-20). This is directlycontradictory to the teaching of the Old Testament Law; after a long list ofanimals the eating of which is strictly forbidden, Lev 11:24 reads: "Youwill make yourselves unclean by [eating] these." Jesus denies the literaltruth of Lev 11:24 by denying the reality of ritual purity and impurity;instead he gave a spiritualized, moralist interpretation of purity andimpurity: the only true (im)purity or (un)cleanliness is moral (im)purity or(un)cleanliness.

This objection is vitiated byequivocation.
i) To begin with, Jesus isn’treferring to the OT purity codes. In context, Jesus is referring to the oralTorah. Pharisaic customs.
ii) More to the point, Jesusisn’t talking about ritual defilement, but actual wrongdoing. That’s evidentfrom his examples.
Ritual impurity isn’tequivalent to sinfulness, unless you contract ritual impurity through indulgingin ritually forbidden behavior.

A further expression of thedenial of the reality of ritual purity and impurity and, implied with this, arejection of the temple sacrificial system of worship is involved in Jesus'quoting the verse from Hosea 6:6, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." Whenthe Pharisees see that Jesus eats at the same table as many tax collectors andsinners -- i.e., those who would render him ceremonially unclean and incapableof participating in the temple cult, thus removed from the blessings of God --Jesus responds that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Mt 9:10-13)."Sacrifice" is connected to a concern for ritual purity, as well asparticipation in the temple religious system; what God wants is not this, butmercy towards those who are in need of love: particularly those rejected by thereligious figures and "holy men" of his time. God evidently is notconcerned with ritual purity; he wishes that men be kind to one another, and hemakes an effort to show such kindness himself through Jesus. But a rejection ofritual purity, the requirement for sacrifice, the legitimacy of the temple,etc., is a rejection of a literal reading of many Old Testament texts.

i) The statement in Hos 6:6is hyperbolic. Obviously there was a general obligation to perform sacrifice.But Jesus and Hosea are ranking obligations. Not every obligation is equallyobligatory. Some take precedence over others.
ii) Likewise, obedience tothe law involves right intentions as well as right conduct. It’s not just amatter of going through the motions. OT law doesn’t involve a mechanicalcorrelation between cause and effect. Rather, your obedience needs to bemotivated by genuine piety. A “circumcised heart.” Punctilious attention to theexternals is no substitute for inner devotion.
It’s easy for sinners to turnhuman duties into divine duties. To act as if merely or cynically performing areligious rite obliges God to do something for us.

Consider also Jesus' andPaul's affirmation that the true fulfillment of the Law is obedience to thecommand "Love thy neighbor as thyself" (see, e.g., Mt 22:34-30; Rom13:8-10, Gal 5:14). This cannot be literally true, for the various ritual andceremonial injunctions of the Law (e.g., regarding circumcision, dietaryhabits, sacrifices, etc.) cannot in any plausible way be interpreted as mereinstances of love for neighbor; no one would ever get the impression that thecommand to circumcise one's child on the eighth day is an instance of"love thy neighbor" by reading the relevant OT texts. What thisstatement suggests, rather, is a non-literal and moralist interpretation of theOld Testament: what is really of value is the moral teaching about loving yourneighbor; all that ritual and ceremonial stuff doesn't mean much of anythingand can even at times be ignored.

That objection is simplistic.
i) To begin with, this isn’teven an accurate quotation. It omits the prior and all-important command tolove God.
ii) Moreover, the statementthat loving God and loving our neighbor fulfills the law is a summary statementrather than an exhaustive statement of their legal obligations.
iii) Furthermore, itprioritizes legal obligations. Some are more important than others.
iv) Finally, different lawscan reflect different specific instances of a common generic principle.
v) BTW, these distinctionsdon’t imply a “nonliteral” reading of OT law.

One more example would bePaul's affirmations regarding the ultimate insignificance of circumcision:"A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcisionmerely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; andcircumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the writtencode" (Rom 2:28-29); "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision isnothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts" (1 Cor 7:19);"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts isthe new creation" (Gal 6:15). No one would ever come to such a conclusionmerely reading what the Old Testament says regarding the requirement ofcircumcision: "Every male among you shall be circumcised . . . . Mycovenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcisedmale, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from hispeople" (Gen 17:10, 13-14). Paul elevates obedience to the moral commandmentsof God, especially "love thy neighbor", above the command ofcircumcision, so much so that the latter command is effectively annulled.
No one would come to theconclusions that Jesus and Paul did merely by reading the salient Old Testamenttexts themselves; their interpretation is non-literal and moralist, and ismerely one manifestation of the tendency towards spiritualized, internalizedinterpretations of inherited religion that appears in other places (e.g.,ancient Greek religion with the advent of the philosophers) as well. (For moreon this, see Stephen Finlan, The Background and Contents of Paul's CulticAtonement Metaphors (Boston: Brill, 2004), 47ff.)

i) To begin with, Paul isdealing with a shift from the old covenant to the new covenant. Circumcision isa sign of old covenant membership. Naturally the new covenant will have adifferent sign of covenant membership, to distinguish the new covenant from theold covenant.
Paul isn’t distinguishingbetween lower and higher obligations within the old covenant, but between theold covenant and the new covenant.
ii) Yet even within the OT,there was a distinction between physical circumcision and spiritualcircumcision (“circumcision of the heart”). Physical circumcision had noultimate independent value.
iii) Circumcision isobligatory so long as the covenant it signifies is obligatory. If the oldcovenant expires, then circumcision expires.

That is not quite what I amasserting. Lev 11:24 asserts that eating certain foods makes one rituallyunclean, not morally unclean (there is a difference!), and therefore assertsthe reality and the importance of ritual purity for religious life. (Take, forexample, the affirmation of Lev 13 that after childbirth, a woman is unclean:that is because (just as in other ancient religions, e.g. primitive Hinduism),touching bodily fluids and losing bodily fluids makes one unclean and unfit forparticipation in the cultus; it is has nothing to do with morality whatsoever.)

Jesus’s statement takes forgranted the difference between ritual impurity and moral impurity.

Ritual purity and impurity isnot the same as either moral or physical purity or impurity; it is a distinctcategory of purity that is distinctive of very old, ancient religions and whichis no longer very intelligible to the modern mind; we simply don't believe inthis stuff anymore. Ritual purity is one more condition one must have in orderto participate in the sacrificial systems in ancient religions, such astraditional, non-philosophical Hinduism and ancient Judaism.

Ritual purity symbolizes theholiness of God while ritual impurity symbolizes the iniquity of man. That’sthe point of the OT purity codes. To cultivate an awareness of man’s iniquityin the presence of a holy God (cf. Lev 11:44-45).
In some cases, the puritycodes may classify certain things as unclean due to pagan connotations. It’s away of disassociating Jewish conduct from pagan idolatry. But that’s a specialcase of cultic holiness. It falls under the same general rubric.
A state of ritual impuritywas not inherently sinful. A pious Jew could remain ritually unclean for anindefinite period of time. That only became unacceptable when he had to performa cultic duty, which required him to ritually purify himself before performingthe cultic duty.

Over time, in variousreligious traditions that advanced such as ancient Greek religion, the categoryof ritual purity and impurity was reinterpreted as being symbolic of moralpurity and impurity, and not as having any significance or being of its own.(E.g., when Socrates says in Phaedo that only the pure may see the Forms upondeath, he is understanding "purity" in a moral sense, not a ritualsense, though the terminology is ritualistic.) This is what happens in Mt 15. Inresponse to the argument of the Pharisees that his disciples have defiledthemselves (from the point of view of ritual purity) by eating with unwashedhands, Jesus at Mt 15:11 asserts that nothing that enters into a man makes himunclean, which in this context clearly is a denial of the reality of ritualimpurity, the presupposition of his critics' complaint; this is areinterpretation of the ancient category of ritual (im)purity into moralisticterms. The terms "(im)pure", "(un)clean", etc., originatedas terms describing ritual cleanliness, and were eventually transformed andreinterpreted as referring to a moral reality.

i) Mt 15:11 doesn’t deny theexistence of ritual impurity. Rather, it makes the point that ritual impurityshould not be confused with moral impurity. The Pharisees inverted the properorder, elevating symbolic moral pollution above actual moral pollution.
ii) Moreover, the Phariseesinvented their own purity codes, which sometimes negated OT law. 

In other words, my argumentis this: the Leviticus text presupposes the genuine, independent reality of anancient category of religious life, namely ritual purity and impurity, whereasthe Matthean text asserts the reality only of the moral category of religiouslife. The Leviticus text represents an ancient way of religious thinking,asserting that there is such a thing as ritual purity distinct from moraluprightness.

Ritual purity is distinctfrom moral uprightness. Ritual purity symbolizes holiness. But symbolismdistinguishes the sign from the significate. A symbol is not identical withwhat it stands for. Rather, it’s a relation between two things: the emblematic sign,and the reality which the sign illustrates.

If his laws are not based onthe nature of the things the laws are about -- e.g., if the law against contactwith the dead is not based on an actual polluting power of a deceased body --then his laws would seem to be entirely arbitrary.

i) All laws are not of akind. Moral laws are based on the nature of things.
ii) There’s a sense in whichsymbolism is to some degree arbitrary. There's no necessary, one-to-onecorrespondence between a symbol and what it symbolizes. You could havedifferent symbols for the same thing, or the same symbol for different things.Symbolic meaning is ascriptive rather than inherent. Culturally assigned.
At the same time, thatdoesn’t make the relation “entirely arbitrary.” Some symbols are more naturalthan others. There’s a reason Isaiah says “all flesh is grass” rather than “allflesh is brass.” One metaphor is more suited to the sentiment than another.

Regarding ritual purity: likeI said, ritual purity/impurity is a concept we do not believe in as moderns andcan no longer really understand, but it was evidently clear enough to thoseancients for whom it was a great concern.

We can grasp the conceptof symbolism. And symbolism can be believable. A particular classification may beobscure to us, given our cultural distance, but the broader principle isintelligible.

This does not line up withhis behavior -- he [Jesus] regularly comes into contact with the rituallyimpure and there are no recorded instances of his undergoing purificationafterward -- nor with his words -- as, for example, in Mt 15.

That’s a fallaciousinference. Jesus didn’t have the same relation to the ceremonial law as anordinary Jew. According to the Gospels, Jesus is the Son of God Incarnate.Naturally God can’t be defiled by contact with his creatures.
Moreover, Jesus is the Saviorand the Redeemer. In the nature of the case, he will socialize with sinners.That’s a part of his mission.

BV comments:  I find the foregoing persuasive andwould extract the following argument against inerrancy from it:
1. If the Scripture isinerrant, then no later passage revises, corrects, contradicts, annuls, orabrogates any earlier passage.
2. There are NT passages thatcontradict OT passages, e.g. MT 15:11 contradicts Lev 11:24.
Therefore
3. It is not the case thatthe Scripture is inerrant.
The argument is valid in point of logical form.  If the first premise is not true, thenI simply do not know what plenary inerrancy means. (I assume we mean byinerrancy plenary (full) inerrancy. Otherwise I could maintain that my blog is inerrant, provided you ignoreall assertions in it that are mistaken. "It is everywhere inerrant except where it isn't.")  The first premise is true and so is thesecond as the anon. contributor demonstrated.  Therefore, the Scriptures are not inerrant.

That's grossly simplistic:
i) Not all laws are moral laws. There are laws of utilityas well as laws of morality.
ii) Moreover, in the case of moral laws, we need todistinguish between the generic principle which the law exemplifies, and thespecific instance. Even if the underlying principle is universal, the specificinstance may be indexed to the socioeconomic conditions of a particular timeand place.
For example, a law against cattle rustling exemplifies ageneral prohibition against theft. But that law is not culturally universal. Itonly obtains in the socioeconomic context of farming and ranching.
iii) We need to distinguish between higher and lowerobligations. Not every obligation is equally obligatory. In case of conflict, ahigher obligation supersedes a lower obligation.
iv) On a related note, we need to distinguish betweenintrinsic obligations and instrumental obligations. Every duty is not an end initself. Some duties are means to ends. They are designed to facilitate aparticular outcome. They have no inherent value. 

v) In addition, even moral laws may be concessive. Not all moral laws reflect an ethical ideal. They may set the bar fairly low. 
vi) The ceremonial laws have symbolic value. Their value isindexed to a particular function. And that can terminate.
vii) Likewise, it’s often possible to nullify a contractthrough breach of contract, although the violation will incur contractuallystipulated penalties for nonperformance.

New York Times story, “Jesus Wife Fragment,” judged to be a fake

To contact us Click HERE
Not sure how many of you are continuing to follow the story about the “Jesus’s Wife” fragment, first published in the New York Times. That now has been judged to be totally fake.

Mark Goodacre, on his academic “NT Blog”, has carried four stories by Francis Watson that pretty much definitively debunk the story.

This morning, Dan Wallace published this news:

Jesus’ Wife fragment judged a fake
Posted by Daniel B. Wallace on 26 September 2012

“News flash: Harvard Theological Review has decided not to publish Karen King¹s paper on the Coptic papyrus fragment on the grounds that the fragment is probably a fake.” This from an email Dr. Craig Evans, the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia University and Divinity College, sent to me earlier today. He said that Helmut Koester (Harvard University), Bentley Layton (Yale University), Stephen Emmel (University of Münster), and Gesine Robinson (Claremont Graduate School)–all first-rate scholars in Coptic studies–have weighed in and have found the fragment wanting. No doubt Francis Watson’s comprehensive work showing the fragment’s dependence on the Gospel of Thomas was a contributing factor for this judgment, as well as the rather odd look of the Coptic that already raised several questions as to its authenticity.

This episode, in my opinion, shows the power of the Internet as a tool that can be a servant of the truth: and New Testament scholars as a (rather disparate group) used it as a tool to quickly respond to a piece of information that has “news media” glitz. I wonder if these results will be trumpeted as loudly by the NY Times as the first story was? The world of academic New Testament scholarship responded very quickly to debunk this “discovery”. It’s true that anyone can do anything and anyone can say anything to get their five minutes of fame in the Internet age. But a group of people intent on knowing the truth and disseminating the truth have the ability to respond quickly and with certainty and to just as quickly tamp down the media glitz.

It’s a kind of “truth serum”, if honest people will only use it that way.


* * *

Update: Wallace has now published a quasi-correction:

http://danielbwallace.com/2012/09/26/htr-not-rejecting-the-jesus-wife-fragment-now/

After I posted the news which I received from Dr. Craig Evans that HTR was not going to publish the fragment because it had been judged to be a fake, I then got news that HTR was going to publish it. Here’s the link that gives the data: http://www.religionnews.com/faith/beliefs/harvard-theological-review-gospel-of-jesus-wife-not-rejected ...

* * *

Update 5:15 am September 27:

Hurtado and Wallace have both linked to further updates which eventually lead to a Huffington Post column by Jaweed Kaleem where the conclusion is a bit more muddy.

Hurtado says “According to the article, a number of Coptologists are raising doubts about the authenticity of the item (and it’s significant that they’re Coptologists, not theologians)”. But King (the Harvard scholar who made the initial announcement) says there will be “ongoing studies about the ‘scientific dating and further reports from Coptic papyrologists and grammarians.’” Hurtado says “It’s too bad that the tests in question, however, weren’t conducted earlier.”

The bottom line here seems to be that King (and the New York Times story) jumped the gun with the announcement. It still seems to me that Evans, Watson, et. al. responded appropriately in their rapid response to the news story that something significant had happened.

Stay tuned.

Scholarship and Scripture

To contact us Click HERE
Inresponding to Catholic spooftexting, Protestants like me emphasize thegrammatico-historical method. But this raises a question: what aboutProtestants who lived and died before biblical archaeology shed so much newlight on Biblical languages, customs, and historical allusions?
To begin with, Scripture hasa macro meaning as well as a micro meaning. The micro meaning consists ofindividual words and sentences. But over and above that are larger units ofmeaning, viz., the flow of argument or narrative arc. You can often get thegist of a story even if certain culturally coded references elude you.
Likewise, much of Scripturewas written to be heard, and the spoken word is more redundant than the writtenword. So even if you miss certain things, repetition often compensates for theloss.
But there’s another point tobe made. In commenting on a book like Daniel, Calvin or Matthew Henry lack thespecific knowledge that someone like Terence Mitchell would bring to bear. Insome respects their interpretation will be less precise, less detailed, than ascholar with a better knowledge of the period.
Yet that can be offset byanother consideration. Daniel deals with themes like tyrannical government,official idolatry, and religious persecution. And these are things which menlike Calvin and Matthew Henry experienced firsthand. In certain respects, theirhistorical situation was analogous to the situation of Daniel. They understoodwhat it was like to be a persecuted religious minority. Calvin understood whatit was like to be an exile. They personally knew what it felt like to remainfaithful in the face of a hostile regime. To some degree, their experiencerecapitulates the experience of a man like Daniel.
In that regard they canidentify with aspects of Daniel better than a scholar who has a more accurateknowledge of the period. Up to a point, they are living out the message of thebook. Their situation is comparable. So their situation automaticallycontextualizes the interpretation. These are tradeoffs.

Progressive covenantalism

To contact us Click HERE
I already did a little poston Kingdom Through Covenant:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/kingdom-through-covenant.html
But this book has proven tobe unexpectedly controversial, so I’m going to spend more time interacting withsome of the arguments.
The book has even beenboycotted in some quarters. I think that’s unnecessary. The position of theauthors is a respectable position. And they make a case for their position. Soeven if you disagree with them (as I do), their argument ought to be takenseriously.
The authors label the oldcovenant as the “covenant with Israel” (635). The implication of thisdesignation is that the new covenant is not a covenant with Israel. Yet theirOT prooftexts for the new covenant consist of passages in which God is speakingto Israel. Where God is making promises to Israel. For instance, Ezk 36:22-36is explicitly and specifically addressed to Israel. In terms of the historicsetting, moreover, God is addressing the Jewish exiles in Babylon. God isevidently referring to their postexilic restoration.

As noted above, the oldcovenant has a built-in tension. God demands obedience from Israel, yet theydisobey. The law holds out life, but due to sin it cannot ultimately save.There is nothing in the law-covenant that changes the human heart, which iswhat the people desperately need (639).

But don’t we see the sametension in the NT church? Don’t many NT epistles bear witness to a similartension?
Isn’t this tension inevitablein a fallen world? In inaugurated eschatology, we have a foot in both thefallen world order and the new world order.

In the New Testament, it isclear that the new covenant texts are applied to Christ and the church (cf. Lk22:20; 2 Cor 3; Hebrews 8, 10). Even though the new covenant is made with the“house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31)…the NT applies it tothe church through the mediatorial work of Jesus Christ (645-46).

i) The authors spend a lot oftime exegeting the OT. But they need to show how their application arises fromtheir OT prooftexts.
ii) It’s one thing to saytheir OT prooftexts apply to the church, quite another to say their OTprooftexts include the church to the exclusion of Israel, even when their OTprooftexts have specific reference to Israel. How can they use their OTpassages to erect an antithetical contrast between Israel and the churchdespite the setting and the wording of the very passages they adduce? Even ifyou say Israel typifies the church, those are not polar opposites. And from aPresbyterian standpoint, “the church” is another phase in the history of theGod’s people.
Their OT prooftexts don’tsingle out the church to the exclusion of Israel. It wasn’t given as a promiseto the church rather than Israel. At least, that’s not something you can derivefrom the OT passages on their own terms.
iii) The mediatorial work ofChrist can apply to Israel as well as the church. That’s not a differentialfactor that uniquely selects for the church. Jesus is Israel’s Messiah, as wellas the Savior of the nations.
iv) They appeal to Heb 8-10,but that’s arguably a Jewish church. A messianic congregation. That’s how manyscholars and commentators classify the audience. Because the members of thatchurch were messianic Jews, they were tempted to revert to Judaism (i.e. theMosaic covenant) in the face of persecution. Unlike Christianity, Judaism was areligio licita.
It’s counterintuitive toinvoke Heb 8-10 as a way of contrasting Israel to the church when that veryletter was addressed to Jewish Christians.

[The new covenant] willindeed have a (human) covenant mediator, namely Jesus Christ, who is prophet,priest, and king in one person. In the old covenant community, these covenantmediators sinned and the community suffered because of faulty mediators. In thenew covenant, however, our covenant mediator is without sin and as a result,the community will never suffer because of a faulty mediator (510).

i) But this fails todistinguish the Baptist position from the Presbyterian position (e.g. WCF).  Presbyterians can draw the samedistinction.
ii) In addition, thisdistinction can stand on its own. It doesn’t need to be grounded in a theory ofimmediate revelation.

Under the new covenant allwill know the Lord, not in a mediate but in an immediate fashion, and all willhave the law written on their hearts and will experience the full forgivenessof sin (649).

It’s unclear what the authorsmean by this:
i) Christians don’t enjoyinnate knowledge of the gospel. Knowledge of the Gospel is mediated by thewritten word (i.e. the NT). And that’s something the new covenant shares incommon with the old covenant.
Indeed, why to the authorsspend so much time prooftexting their position from Scripture if the HolySpirit gives Christians direct knowledge of the gospel? Their methodologycontradicts their argument.
ii) Inscribing the law on theheart is a picturesque metaphor. They seem to think it denotes regeneration(649). Does that mean they think regeneration was mediate under the oldcovenant, but immediate under the new covenant? Surely they don’t believeLevitical priests mediated regeneration.

Therefore in the new covenantcommunity there will no longer be a situation where some members urge othermembers to know the Lord (510).

Really? Christian parentsshouldn’t urge their kids to know the Lord? A pastor shouldn’t urge hisparishioners to know the Lord? We can just take that for granted?

The newness of the newcovenant, at its heart, is found in the promise of complete forgiveness of sin(650).

That’s unclear. Weren’t OTsaints completely forgiven? Are the authors suggesting the old covenant onlyoffered partial forgiveness whereas the new covenant offers full forgiveness?If OT saints weren’t completely forgiven, did they go to hell when they died?
Fact is, the sacrificialsystem didn’t actually confer forgiveness–not even partial forgiveness. Rather,it symbolized forgiveness, and prefigured forgiveness. It’s not a difference ofdegree. OT saints were fully forgiven through the retroactive merits of Christ.

The church, unlike Israel, isnew because she is comprised of a regenerate, believing people rather than a“mixed” group. The true members of the new covenant community are only thosewho have professed that they have entered into union with Christ by repentanceand faith… (685).

i) Profession, regeneration,and faith are not mutually inclusive. It’s possible to be regenerate, yet lackconscious faith. It’s possible to have conscious faith, yet lack profession.Consider infants, the retarded, or the senile.
ii) How does their claimoperate at a concrete level? As a rule, families form the core constituency ofchurches. Nuclear families or extended families. “Tribal groupings.” This is noless true in Baptist churches than in Presbyterian churches. And it’s often thecase that some family members are pious while other members are impious. Thisgives rise to a distinction between the invisible church and the visiblechurch.
There are ways of finessingthis distinction in practice. A church can reserve communicant membership forthose who make a credible profession of faith.
iii) It’s unclear how ourauthors define membership. Do they mean formal church membership? A public riteof initiation (e.g. baptism)? Or do they mean what God does to constitutemembers of the covenant community, irrespective of what we do by way ofmembership ceremonies?

Under the new covenant, whatwas true of the remnant (elect) within Israel will now be true of the entirecovenant community and in greater ways (688).

Remnant themes aren’tconfined to the OT. The same themes are sounded in the NT. Cf. G. Hasel,“Remnant,” ISBE 4:134; M. Elliot, “Remnant,” New Dictionary of BiblicalTheology, 725.

First, the “mixed” communityinterpretation of the warning passages assumes that the nature of Israel andthe church is basically the same, but this begs the question (692).

i) It doesn’t require thatassumption. For passages like Heb 6:4-6 & 10:26-39 have reference to thechurch. That doesn’t necessitate comparing the church to Israel. Rather, thatstands on its own two feet.
ii) But as a matter of fact,the author of Hebrews does compare NT apostates to OT apostates. He begins withOT apostates (Heb 3-4), then draws a parallel with NT apostates. So the oldcovenant community and new covenant community are analogous in that respect. Itsupplies an ominous precedent.
To the extent that theydiffer, it’s a difference of degree, not of kind. NT apostates are even moreculpable than OT apostates.

Second, this interpretationcontradicts biblical teaching regarding the nature of the new covenant church(692).

That rejoinder begs thequestion. The nature of the new covenant church is the very issue under review.And the apostasy passages are part of the evidence we use in defining thenature of the new covenant community.
No one disputes the fact thatapostasy takes place in the new covenant age. What is at dispute is the statusof those apostates. Should they be viewed as “new covenant breakers” (assumingthey were once full covenant members) or, as those who professed faith, whoidentified with the church, but who, by their rejection of the gospel,demonstrated that they were never one with us? (692-93).
i) That’s a false dichotomy.
ii) Doesn’t the author of Hebrewsdescribe the would-be apostates as covenant members on the brink of becomingcovenant-breakers (e.g. Heb 6:1-5; 10:26,29)? If that’s not the language ofcovenant incorporation, what terminology would he use to describe covenantincorporation?

When apostasy takes place, wereevaluate the person’s former profession and thus their covenant status (693).

Why bundle those together?Certainly we reevaluate their former profession, but must we also reevaluatetheir covenant status? The authors assume what they need to prove.

Christian miracles

To contact us Click HERE

There is also evidenceconcerning Christian miracles from more recent times. Well-documented miracleaccounts can be found in the following biography of the Lutheran pastor andtheologian Johann Christoph Blumhardt:
Dieter Ising, JohannChristoph Blumhardt: Life and Work: A New Biography, Translated by MontyLedford, Eugene 2009.
In the following excerpt fromanother biography of Blumhardt, written by his friend Friedrich Zündel(1827-1891), we find a description of the miraculous events surroundingBlumhardt’s work:
http://data.plough.com/ebooks/Awakening.pdf

http://sd2cx1.webring.org/l/rd?ring=apologeticsandbi;id=2;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Echristiancadre%2Eorg%2F

King Obama

To contact us Click HERE
Obama has been mum about hisintentions, if reelected. However, I was able to obtain a leaked draft copy ofhis second term agenda:

11 These will be the ways ofthe king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them tohis chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12 And hewill appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, andsome to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements ofwar and the equipment of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to beperfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields andvineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take thetenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and tohis servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and thebest of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He willtake the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18 And in that dayyou will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, butthe Lord will not answer you in that day.