age segregation

interesting story from Mollie Hemingway about voluntary age segregation in churches and its unforeseen effects. number one on the list; no funerals.

“Cool! Your church has funerals,” a friend recently said after I told him about attending one for a fellow parishioner at my church.

My friend attends one of those churches that meet in a Cineplex. Ever since he first told me about his theater church, I had wondered about the logistics of baptisms, weddings, and funerals.

It turns out that the entire membership of his congregation ranges in age from late teens to late 20s. Baptisms are rare and handled at other venues. As far as he knows, they’ve never had a funeral. And when people get married, they rent out traditional churches for the occasion.

Story of Stuff

for something different, here is an outstandingly well done critique of a bit of leftist propaganda being shown in school to nine year olds across the country.

It is in four parts. So far I have only watched the first two, but bravo!

part 1

part 2

part 3

part 4

AP story on Matt Chandler

the Associated Press has a story on Matt Chandler and his battle with brain cancer. On Twitter, Matt says:

Associated press article on our battle with cancer…pray it moves people toward the gospelhttp://bit.ly/bvGzYG

and here is a clip from the story, but be sure to read it all (UPDATE: here is a longer version of the AP story on MSNBC):

Chandler is trying to suffer well. He would never ask for such a trial, but in some ways he welcomes this cancer. He says he feels grateful that God has counted him worthy to endure it. He has always preached that God will bring both joy and suffering but is only recently learning to experience the latter.

Since all this began on Thanksgiving morning, Chandler says he has asked “Why me?” just once, in a moment of weakness.

He is praying that God will heal him. He wants to grow old, to walk his two daughters down the aisle and see his son become a better athlete than he ever was.

Whatever happens, he says, is God’s will, and God has his reasons. For Chandler, that does not mean waiting for his fate. It means fighting for his life.

fotos on a Friday

trying Kodak Ektachrome 100G slide film in the Nikon F5.

love the 105mm and sun rays

maximal bokeh

sunset through the tree

and Natalie being the “tall girl in the middle.”

more reviews of The Shack

some big guns have turned their attention to Wm P. Young’s book, The Shack. Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian has read it and Dr. Al Mohler is concerned about the discernment ability of modern evangelicals in light of the fact that this book is so popular among them.

If you remember my main concern with the book was its false portrayal of God.

my summary is:

I am afraid that if someone reads the Shack and falls in love with Papa, then all they have fallen in love with is a fictional African American woman who likes to cook and give hugs. They have not been led to God. They have not fallen in love with the biblical Jesus.
They have instead been distracted by an anthropomorphic three headed idol created by Wm. Paul Young.

Therefore, I was pleased to see Tim Keller say:

But here is my main problem with the book. Anyone who is strongly influenced by the imaginative world of The Shack will be totally unprepared for the far more multi-dimensional and complex God that you actually meet when you read the Bible. In the prophets the reader will find a God who is constantly condemning and vowing judgment on his enemies, while the Persons of the Triune-God of The Shack repeatedly deny that sin is any offense to them. The reader of Psalm 119 is filled with delight at God’s statutes, decrees, and laws, yet the God of The Shack insists that he doesn’t give us any rules or even have any expectations of human beings. All he wants is relationship. The reader of the lives of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Isaiah will learn that the holiness of God makes his immediate presence dangerous or fatal to us. Someone may counter (as Young seems to do, on p.192) that because of Jesus, God is now only a God of love, making all talk of holiness, wrath, and law obsolete. But when John, one of Jesus’ closest friends, long after the crucifixion sees the risen Christ in person on the isle of Patmos, John ‘fell at his feet as dead.’ (Rev.1:17.) The Shack effectively deconstructs the holiness and transcendence of God. It is simply not there. In its place is unconditional love, period. The God of The Shack has none of the balance and complexity of the Biblical God. Half a God is not God at all.

I also very much enjoyed Dr. Mohler’s take. He points out the numerous serious theological concerns and wonders why so many people fail to see how the book contradicts Biblical theology.

here are some of the problems but be sure to read the whole article for others:

The relationship of the Father to the Son, revealed in a text like John 17, is rejected in favor of an absolute equality of authority among the persons of the Trinity. “Papa” explains that “we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity.” In one of the most bizarre paragraphs of the book, Jesus tells Mack: “Papa is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.”

The theorized submission of the Trinity to a human being — or to all human beings — is a theological innovation of the most extreme and dangerous sort. The essence of idolatry is self-worship, and this notion of the Trinity submitted (in any sense) to humanity is inescapably idolatrous.

The most controversial aspects of The Shack’s message have revolved around questions of universalism, universal redemption, and ultimate reconciliation. Jesus tells Mack: “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions.” Jesus adds, “I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, my Beloved.”

Mack then asks the obvious question — do all roads lead to Christ? Jesus responds, “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”

Given the context, it is impossible not to draw essentially universalistic or inclusivistic conclusions about Young’s meaning. “Papa” chides Mack that he is now reconciled to the whole world. Mack retorts, “The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?” “Papa” responds, “The whole world, Mack.”

emphasis added.

I think the bit that I bolded above is why the book is so popular. self love and self worship has been honed to a fine art in our culture including our church culture. we like hearing ourselves say to each other “you’re good enough, you’re smart enough and doggone it, people like you.”

We very much would like to believe that God believes the same thing about us that we believe about ourselves.

an interview with Hitchens

Marilyn Sewell, a unitarian minister, interviews atheist Christopher Hitchens here. hilarity ensues. here is a glimpse, but it continues on in this vein.

The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

ht to Kathryn Jean Lopez

the big day

well, the big day has arrived. the day we have all been anticipating with bated breath and beating hearts. Today Apple unveils its “Latest Creation.”

noon our time. be there or be square. should be interesting.

UPDATE:

introductory video here. Interesting, but too expensive for something that nobody who has a smartphone and laptop really needs.

couple of good ones

I have had a couple of windows open the last couple of days in order to post about them. one political and one theological. here we go.

first the political:

I believe it is crucial to understand that it doesn’t matter if the people engineering a collectivist state have sinister motives or not. In fact, the belief that their intentions make a difference is incredibly dangerous. It’s related to the catechism of the faculty-lounge Marxist, which holds that communism and fascism only failed because bad people were in charge of them.
…

It doesn’t matter if this is his sincere belief, spoken straight from the heart. His health-care plan was still an awful idea that united the country in opposition against the increasingly thuggish and arrogant methods he used to advance it. Those methods are integral to the collectivist enterprise. It will always become thuggish and arrogant, because when all virtue resides in the State, those who oppose the growth of the State become villains by definition. Consider the President’s assessment of his Republican opponents:

My hope was a year ago today when I was being sworn in that reversing that process was going to be easier partly because we were entering into a crisis situation and I thought that the urgency of the moment would allow us to join together and make common cause. That hasn’t happened. Some of it, frankly, is I think a strategic decision that was made on the side of the opposition that… I think that some of it had to do with a sense that the best political strategy was to simply say no.

Here, in a nutshell, is the heads-we-win, tails-you-lose mentality that keeps the State plodding blindly forward, crushing a formerly vibrant economy beneath it. If you don’t answer Obama’s trillion-dollar health-care plan with your own trillion-dollar program, you’re an obstructionist – not an opponent to be debated, but an obstacle to be swept aside.

emphasis added.

next the theological:

We know that, as believers, we are chosen from before the foundation of the world. We also know that God loves the whole world and desires all men to be saved. We know that whosoever will may come and that if we don’t share Christ with people then there is no other way they can be saved. How all that fits together might really stretch our minds, but in trying to resolve the tension we must not neglect the things that have been clearly revealed (Deut 29:29).

In other words… It is clearly our responsibility to share the message of Christ and our failure has eternal consequences for people (Acts 20:28). Yet, God also wants me to know, and be blessed by the fact, that I have been loved from all eternity and that was not conditioned on any merit or action of my own.

How both truths fit together may be one of the “secret” things (Deut 29:29) that belongs to God. We can ponder and write books about it, but the “paradox” should never keep us from obeying what has been revealed. Our responsibility to choose Christ and to share Christ; our responsibility to is rejoice in the security that comes from knowing we are foreloved from all eternity. Failure to do either because we can’t resolve the tension would be sin.

emphasis added.

go read the rest of both of these. There is some good stuff out there on the interwebs.

Glory of God

here is a message from John Piper about why he finds the Glory of God to be the central point of the Bible and all creation.

fascinating stuff.  the intro:

How does the Bible orient us around the glory of God?

I’m just overwhelmed, and have been for 40 years, with the centrality in the Bible of the glory of God.

It is presented to us pervasively as the goal of all existence.

• We were created for the glory of God (Isaiah 43:7).
• “Whatever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).

So it should be pervasive, right down to whether I just took that last swig of water for the glory of God. And here’s another one. [Drinks another sip of water.] So thank you, Father, for this. Please sustain my throat.

It’s amazing how pervasive in the Bible is the language of the glory of God.

why do you love the church?

if you love the church, why? (the “if you don’t, why not”? is a whole ‘nother post)

Josh Harris lists some wrong reasons why people sometimes love their church. what do you think?  Here are a couple to get you started, then go read the rest of his post including the reason we should love the church:

Don’t love the church because of what it does for you. Because sooner or later it won’t do enough.

Don’t love the church because of a leader. Because human leaders are fallible and will let you down.

on the occasion of the March for Life

on the occasion of the march for life, here is a repost from September 2008 of a survivor of an attempt to end her life:

here is a clip of a talk by a young lady who survived an attempt on her life and lived to tell the tale (albeit with scars). Makes for an interesting point of view on life. she gets the God centered view better than most of us.

hat tip to Adrian Warnock.

Roe v. Wade @37

37 years ago the Supreme Court issued its opinion legalizing abortion by fiat nationwide. That legally unsupportable seizure of state police authority remains in effect today, but there are increasing signs of cracks in the abortion on demand edifice.

Science and technology have marched ahead. 4d ultrasound and better resolution on regular ultrasound show any observer the reality of the presence of a human being in the womb. As a result of using these techniques to produce “better” and safer abortions, many abortion workers are faced with the undeniable truth of their actions and become converts to the pro-life cause.

Here is an interesting article “Mugged by Ultrasound” that investigates this phenomenon. very interesting reading.

[A]dvances in ultrasound imaging and abortion procedures have forced providers ever closer to the nub of their work. Especially in abortions performed far enough along in gestation that the fetus is recognizably a tiny baby, this intimacy exacts an emotional toll, stirring sentiments for which doctors, nurses, and aides are sometimes unprepared. Most apparently have managed to reconcile their belief in the right to abortion with their revulsion at dying and dead fetuses, but a noteworthy number have found the conflict unbearable and have defected to the pro-life cause.
…..
But although D&E is better for the patient, it brings emotional distress for the abortionist, who, after inserting laminaria that cause the cervix to dilate, must dismember and remove the fetus with forceps. One early study, by abortionists Warren Hern and Billie Corrigan, found that although all of their staff members “approved of second trimester abortion in principle,” there “were few positive comments about D&E itself.” Reactions included “shock, dismay, amazement, disgust, fear, and sadness.” A more ambitious study published the following year, in the September 1979 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, confirmed Hern and Corrigan’s findings. It found “strong emotional reactions during or following the procedures and occasional disquieting dreams.”

Another study, published in the October 1989 issue of Social Science and Medicine noted that abortion providers were pained by encounters with the fetus regardless of how committed they were to abortion rights. It seems that no amount of ideological conviction can inoculate providers against negative emotional reactions to abortion.

fridae fotoes

Natalie’s basketball team.

more depth of field experimentation

and I caught the grackels looking for a place to roost

“He’s Done Everything Wrong”

Mort Zuckerman of U.S. News and World Report is not happy.

Probably everybody has seen this editorial by now, but wow. Zuckerman is not a conservative, but he is WAAAYYYY disappointed in President Obama’s first year.

It is all interesting, but here are a couple of excerpts:

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”
I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

….

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election.

emphasis added

the Bible isn’t boring

John Piper on the Bible

Amos Story

new video released from Aaron Ivey.

Aaron is one of the worship leaders at the Austin Stone. He released an album last year Between the Beauty and the Chaos

Aaron and his wife Jamie embarked on the adoption of brother and sister Amos and Story from Haiti about two years ago. late last year, the paperwork was completed and Story made it home to Austin. Amos remains in Haiti waiting for the last stage of paperwork to be completed. He and the rest of the children in his orphanage survived the earthquake, but have been living outside for almost a week now. Pray for them to find a new place to stay and to have plenty of food and water supplied. Pray also for a miracle to allow Amos to get home soon.

This song and video is specifically about Aaron’s struggle to complete the process and get his children home. But do you see any metaphors here?

Book of Eli

Julie and I went to see the Book of Eli yesterday evening. it was a rollicking good time and such a pleasure to have our faith not ridiculed and instead treated respectfully.

It was an ordinary run of the mill B action movie except for two major things. number one is that Denzel Washington was the main character and Gary Oldman was the bad guy. great actors both and they both brought the star powers. number two was that Eli’s book was a Bible and Eli’s mission was given to him by God.

It was pretty clear that Denzel with his personal faith in Jesus had shaped the movie. This article from Canada confirms it.

Denzel Washington’s latest role in “The Book of Eli” has him playing a wanderer in a nuclear war-ravaged America who leans on his Bible for guidance, and the actor says if he was in that situation, he’d do exactly the same.

The movie, which opens in U.S. theaters on Friday, blends elements of old-style Hollywood westerns, in the form of desolate landscapes and frontier towns, and Old Testament spirituality — a change for Hollywood studios which tend to avoid religious themes in modern, big-budget action flicks.
….
For “The Book of Eli,” Washington worked on the script with directors Albert and Allen Hughes for weeks, playing out scenes and fine-tuning dialogue until it all sounded right to him.

“I don’t think there’s anybody in this business, anybody in that $20 million movie star (range), who puts that kind of work into it,” said Albert Hughes.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2429359#ixzz0cuSElW2R
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

emphasis added

here is a full movie review from John Nolte of Big Hollywood.

“The Book of Eli” isn’t just Christian, it’s off-the-rails Christian … literally. Heathens might as well hit the lobby at the end of the second act because the final act is all about the faith. You’re more than welcome to stick around, but I have a feeling those of you with red strings tied ‘round your wrist will be checking your watch for the last twenty-minutes. Not we Bible-thumpers, though. That’s when it all comes together; and it’s moving and smart and best of all, not some hyper-reverent snoozer.

anyways it was an enjoyable evening with good friends and good entertainment.

no man can serve two roles

James Ceaser has written a fascinating article about Barack Obama as the Leader of Humanity and the President of the United States.

It is long but delicious. Combined with Jonah’s book it explains a lot of the disconnect that Peggy Noonan and Charles Krauthammer have been noticing.

here is some of it regarding the intellectual foundations of progressivism, but go read the rest for its application to Obama’s first year.

The rise of the Religion of Humanity is what best describes this event. This strange term designates an actual sect, now defunct, that enjoyed a considerable following and prestige in intellectual circles in the 19th century. John Stuart Mill was a prominent convert, pronouncing the “culte de l’humanité [to be] capable of fully supplying the place for a religion, or rather (to say the truth) of being a religion.” In America, where the religion wore the respectable label of the “Church of Humanity,” the acolytes included the well-known journalist David Croly and his son Herbert, the founder and longtime editor of the New Republic. If it were not for the Religion of Humanity, Americans today might not have the pleasure of reading Jonathan Chait on “The Rise of Republican Nihilism” or E.J. Dionne “In Praise of Harry Reid.”

Mill and Croly were both intellectual disciples of the French social philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857). Though rarely studied in America today, Comte bequeathed an enormous legacy. He was the first to simplify and popularize the idea of a progressive movement of history, which he described as proceeding through three great epochs: the age of theological thinking, the age of metaphysical thinking, and the age of scientific or “Positivistic” thinking. (“Positivism,” referring to the scientific mindset and approach, was one of Comte’s many linguistic inventions.) The inevitable march of humanity (still with a small h) through these stages, albeit at different rates in different places, was the great story of history. Variations among nations and groups might continue, but they paled in significance next to the common destiny of humanity. Those who continued to view the world in terms of nations and their conflicts—Comte called them “retrogrades”—were caught in old thinking, unable to grasp the new global order being formed by the forces generated by Positivism.

Comte argued that it was time to expand man’s scientific knowledge of the physical world to the social realm. A new science of society, “sociology” (Comte’s term), was the latest and highest of all the sciences. Possession of knowledge of the laws of social movement was what ideally bestowed the title to rule. Comte and his circle were never much impressed by democracy and favored instead one system or another of governance by experts. (Saint-Simon, for whom Comte worked for many years, once proposed running society with “Councils of Newton.”)

But there was an important twist to Comte’s praise of science. In contrast to many who thought that the scientific method and scientific values were sufficient to bind society together, Comte insisted that people had to believe. As faith in the transcendent was no longer -possible in the Positivist age, he called for “replacing God with Humanity.” The aim of this religion without God was to build a global community that assured the betterment of man’s lot. Postulating this objective as an ideal is what Comte meant by Humanity (now with a capital H).

emphasis added.

reckon that makes me a “retrograde.” I’ll take it.

UPDATE:

Jonahlaunched!! cool. thanks man. everybody feel free to kick your shoes off and have a look around

james cameron’s intent

let’s ask the man what he intended with Avatar. my emphasis added below.

the director with his star Zoe Saldana said that  “Avatar” — with its depiction of mineral exploitation on a distant planet and a cadre of trigger-happy mercenaries charged with instituting a scorched earth policy — is very much a political film.

But he rejected comments by critics that the film is un-American even if it is an allegory for American military forays.

“I’ve heard people say this film is un-American, while part of being an American is having the freedom to have dissenting ideas,” Cameron said, prompting loud applause from a capacity crowd at the ArcLight Hollywood.

“This movie reflects that we are living through war,” Cameron added. “There are boots on the ground, troops who I personally believe were sent there under false pretenses, so I hope this will be part of opening our eyes.”

Conservative commentators such as John Podhoretz and John Nolte have blasted the film in recent weeks. In “The Weekly Standard,” for instance, Podhoretz wrote, “The conclusion does ask the audience to root for the defeat of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency. So it is a deep expression of anti-Americanism– kind of.”

….

The director said:  “I don’t know if there is a political agenda exactly, but as an artist I felt a need to say something about what I saw around me. I think we all need to take stewardship of our planet.”

“I think everyone should be a tree hugger,” Cameron added.

In creating the long limbed, blue skinned Na’vi, the aliens that lives in commune with the lush naturescape on the fictional planet Pandora, the director said he was attempting to create a race that was aspirational.

“The Na’vi represent the better aspects of human nature, and the human characters in the film demonstrate the more venal aspects of human nature,” Cameron said.

So it appears that James Cameron was trying to do what he appeared to be trying to do and that he was intending to make the statement that he appeared to be intending to make.

HT to Hot Air.

UPDATE:

Cameron tells Entertainment Weekly he is also fine with his movie being a recruiting tool for eco-terrorists. he “believes” in eco-terrorism. (maybe he was joking? maybe?)

EW asked Cameron to respond to some of the criticisms aimed at “Avatar.” Check out how he responded to this one:

EW: “Avatar” is the perfect eco-terrorism recruiting tool.”

JC: Good, good. I like that one. I consider that a positive review. I believe in ecoterrorism.”

retrospective on O’s first year

Peggy Noonan and Charles Krauthammer wrote pieces this week about Barack Obama’s first year as president and their view of what went wrong. Why did such a popular president crash so far in the polls so soon?

Here is a small part of Ms. Noonan’s article that I think gets to the nub of it:

The people are here, and he is there. The popularity of his health care plan is very low, at 35% support. Someone on television the other day noted it is as low as George Bush’s popularity ratings in 2008.

Yet—and this is the key part—the president does not seem to see or hear. He does not respond. He is not supple, able to hear reservations and see opposition and change tack. He has a grim determination to bull this thing through. He negotiates each day with Congress, not with the people. But the people hate Congress! Has he not noticed?

and here is the part where Mr. Krauthammer just nails it:

At first, health care reform was sustained politically by Obama’s own popularity. But then gravity took hold, and Obamacare’s profound unpopularity dragged him down with it. After 29 speeches and a fortune in squandered political capital, it still will not sell.

The health care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people — disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized — have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.

anyway, go read them and see if you agree or not.

Matt Chandler update

here is a video from Matt Chandler giving an update regarding his treatment and status.

HT to numerous people on twitter.

fridai fotoes

It is so much fun to mess with depth of field.

and sun rays.

and grass flash and sun.
Which one of these two? I think I like the less gold one better, but I am not sure.

Kay Bailey Hutchison on abortion

just now at the debate, Senator Hutchison ducked the question on whether she supports Roe v. Wade or not. She does. She has been explicit about her strong support for it in the past.

Here she is in 1993:

UPDATE:

From Texas Alliance for Life

[I]n 2003, [Hutchison] voted for a resolution that stated “‘It is the sense of the Senate that the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned.”

She has also voted twice in favor of embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos.

“Always” on the side of life? Hardly.

scott brown

I don’t know if a Republican can actually win in Massachusetts, but if one can, then Scott Brown looks like the one who can do it. I just love this advertisement:

And I loved the debate the other night where he reminded David Gergen that this isn’t Ted Kennedy’s senate seat, it is the senate seat of the people of Massachusetts.

Go Scott Brown. Here is his editorial in the Boston Globe. Good stuff.

here is his twitter feed @scottbrownma
here is his website. Man would it rock the political world if he wins!

easily offended

Kevin DeYoung asks why are we always so offended all the time in this culture.

I think he gets to the heart of the answer in this paragraph.

For starters, being hurt is easier than being right. To prove you’re offended you just have to rustle up moral indignation and tell the world about it. To prove you’re right you actually have to make arguments and use logic and marshal evidence. Why debate theology or politics or economics if you can win your audience by making the other guys look like meanies?

this is part of what I call the white hat syndrome. Everybody wants to be the one in the story wearing the white hat and definitely not the one wearing the black hat. we all want to be part of the good guys and not the bad guys. we all want to sit on the moral high ground with our peeps.

victimization is a short cut to getting the white hat in an argument. And in this culture with its general lack of ability to think, general inability to make rational arguments, and its general inability to follow an argument with more than one premise, the victimization shortcut is an effective way to get the white hat on.

what do you think? are we easily offended? why?