Time Immortal

The Devil does not tempt us with Tradition, but with Scripture.

Food for thought for all those Biblical literalists out there.

Which reminds me: Mark Shea has a new article up about just this very thing, and about the difference between a literalistic interpretation of Holy Scripture, and an interpretation that draws upon the literal sense of Holy Scripture.

Which, he notes, is rather like the difference between reading Scripture as a child, and reading it as an adult.

George Jonas muses on this subject in light of the recent fatal shootings which took place in Finland. I saw the newsbit about the shootings back when they happened, but didn’t really follow the story. Mr. Jonas, however, has taken his analysis in the same direction that my own thoughts went, at least initially. Whatever might have prevented the massacre at the Kauhajoki School of Hospitality, Gun control was not it: the Finns already have comprehensive gun control.

And in this particular case especially, it was the gun control apparatus of the Finnish state that contributed to the problem.

Note: per site policy and the excellent suggestion of Mark Shea from way back when, the name of the shooter has been removed from the excerpt below. May his name be blotted out!

One of [the shooter]’s two faces conveyed enough reassurance to make him the legal owner of a Walther .22 pistol, even after he featured himself on a Web site discharging his weapon in the direction of whoever was filming him, snarling at the camera in near-flawless English: “You will die next.” The video appeared on a local social networking site, causing the police to request an interview with him, but not to withdraw his permit. As police spokesman Mintala Urpo put it: “The officer made his decision — he thought there was no reason to take the gun off him.”

The officer probably let other people keep their guns that day who subsequently did nothing. [The shooter] did, though. The next day at around 11 a.m., he entered a classroom at the Kauhajoki School of Hospitality. He carried some Molotov-cocktails — initial British press reports described them as “petrol-bombs” — along with his Walther .22. The pistol probably had a five-inch barrel as the original 3.4-inch barrel made the model a concealable weapon, unavailable for recreational use in Finland. This wise regulation didn’t prevent [the shooter] from reaching the classroom with his gun concealed — until he put it to what he may have regarded as recreational use.

Having shot seven women and two men in the classroom, the apprentice chef set off his gasoline-filled bottles, broiling his nine victims beyond recognition. Another young woman was shot in the hallway, and died later in the same hospital to which [the shooter] himself was taken after shooting himself in the head. By around 12:30 p.m., it was all over.

What could have prevented the tragedy? Gun control? Finland has gun control. [An e]ighteen-year-old…who last year killed six fellow students, a headmistress and a school nurse in the Finnish town of Jokela before turning the gun on himself, had to do it with a wimpy .22, a SIG Mosquito, as police wouldn’t let him buy a 9 mm Beretta. They thought [the shooter] wasn’t experienced enough. Presumably, after his shooting spree, he would have been.

Of course, in the wake of such tragedies as this, people look for something to blame. Some call for a ban on handguns, as though this would have a deterrent effect on would-be mass-murderers. The kid also had Molotov cocktails — shall we ban petrol and glass bottles along with handguns? Could not the shooter have obtained a handgun illegally, or simply gone about the task of murder using a rifle instead? George Jonas glibly suggests that the Finns should blame America (he is obviously joking, but his point is not one of humour).

Nobody would ever think to blame gun control or the chances in social attitude toward personal protection and firearms that has taken place in recent decades, would they?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Dr. Andre Lalonde is worried:

Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ottawa, worries that [Sarah Palin]’s now renowned decision may cause abortions in Canada to decline as other women there and elsewhere opt to follow suit.

Because obviously, it’s a WRETCHED AND TERRIBLE THING that Canadian women opt not to engage in eugenics by targeting for abortion those unborn babies which test positive for genetic defects after blood screenings and amniocentesis, both of which may not give accurate results in the first place.

He says not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of Down babies, who have developmental delays, some physical difficulties and often a shortened lifespan.

I think Ms. Lucas says it best:“Just, WOW…You know, I was just thinking, not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of BABIES IN GENERAL, some of whom have developmental delays and other problems. Abort! Abort! Abort!”

George Jonas, not exactly known for his pro-life stance (if I recall correctly), said something interesting at the end of his most recent article: “So close to power with a woman so far removed from every reason for which feminists would wish to exercise it! The matriarchy feels betrayed. “Sadly, this election has become all about the rights of the unborn, and not about the rights of the born,” a correspondent wrote to me. Well, I don’t know: The born can at least vote and write letters to the editor. The unborn can only kick, squirm, and wonder whether Mommy grants them vacuum suction or life.

As an ex-fetus, in this predicament I’d like a pitbull on my side.”

And it’s worth mentioning Ace’s turn of phrase as well:“Hmmm… their “choices” will be reduced by their choice of a choice you obviously don’t approve of.”

Too true.

Dr. Lalonde frets that the example of Sarah Palin — and hers is a good example, to be sure — may cause more women to opt to keep their babies instead of choosing to abort them. Why should he care? If it’s really about women having “choice,” then is not one choice as good as the other? Is not the choice to keep the baby every bit as valid as the choice not to? Ah, but the doctor protests: the women might not be ready for the challenge of raising a disabled child. But so what? What does readiness have to do with it? I could have sworn the issue was concerned solely with choice, not readiness. If it’s really about women having “choice,” then can we really say that it matters if a woman chooses something for which she may not be entirely ready?

And if Dr. Lalonde insists that women must make informed choices, then would he support legislation mandating that abortion clinics provide information on alternatives to the procedure (e.g. Adoption services, parental support groups)? Would he support legislation mandating that prior to obtaining an abortion, young girls must seek parental permission and counselling? Would he support legislation mandating that prior to obtaining an abortion, women must view and/or read reference material about the development of the unborn child, and that they must be presented with images of the results of abortion as well?

Of course, it is unlikely that the doctor would support such things. So we must ask again: why his objection? Why does it matter if fewer women choose abortion?

As usual, Mark Shea has an excellent take on the matter:: “Golly, who could foresee that somebody who profits from death would want to have more death to profit from? And who could possibly have imagined that those who target a particular population for murder would come to hate that population in order to convince itself that the murders are justified and they aren’t committing grave evil? And who could have foreseen that somebody who defies this murderous wisdom and chooses to love a baby with Down’s instead of kill him would become a national lightning rod for all the guilt, shame, fear, and rage that comes from making this appallingly wicked choice? And who could have predicted that the very people who profit from the exploitation of this evil would continue encourage the hatred and tell soothing lies on behalf of the evil?”

Finally, the Shaidle suggests sending Dr. Lalonde pictures of your unaborted Down’s child, whom you very much love.

alalonde@sogc.com
phone extension 227

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
780 Echo Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5R7

Tel: 613-730-4192
or 1-800-561-2416
Fax: 613-730-4314

I’d suggest sending him pictures of your unaborted child, period, O Reader.

But not in a way that implies that the end of the piece is drawing nigh, mind you. It’s a crescendo in that sense of that two-chord sequence that percolates through the soundtrack for The Dark Knight; it swells and gets ever more grandiose each time it is heard, but it never resolves (there’s no third chord to close the sequence off)…it just leaves you hanging in this emotional limbo until the next time it thunders by (Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard are messing with us).

And it’s not just Heather Mallick, although her hit piece on Palin is a good example of what I’m getting at here. She’s not doing any better with her follow-up commentary about her “lunatic screed” (thanks to BCF for that turn of phrase), it should be noted…indeed, if nothing else, she is giving ample reinforcement to the notion that the last acceptable bigotries are those which are directed against earnest Christians and “hillbillys.”

But anyhow, no, it’s not just Mallick. Salon.com, known to be partisan but also known to be…well…at least somewhat reasonable, is running a screed against Palin penned by one Cintra Wilson.

I confess, it was pretty riveting when John McCain trotted out Sarah Palin for the first time. Like many people, I thought, “Damn, a hyperconservative, fuckable, Type A, antiabortion, Christian Stepford wife in a ’sexy librarian’ costume — as a vice president? That’s a brilliant stroke of horrifyingly cynical pandering to the Christian right. Karl Rove must be behind it.”

And as though that weren’t a doozy of an opener, Wilson is just getting warmed up:

Palin may have been a boost of political Viagra for the limp, bloodless GOP (and according to an ABC/Washington Post poll she has created a boost in McCain’s standing among white women to a 53 over Obama’s 41). But ideologically, she is their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread, revealing the ugliest underside of Republican ambitions — their insanely zealous and cynical drive to win power by any means necessary, even at the cost of actual leadership.

Sarah Palin is a bit comical, like one of those cutthroat Texas cheerleader stage moms. What her Down syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter unequivocally prove, however, is that her most beloved child is the antiabortion platform that ensures her own political ambitions with the conservative right. The throat she’s so hot to cut is that of all American women.

I don’t want Sarah Palin being the representative leader and custodian of my rights, my Constitution and my country any more than I want polygamist compound leader Warren Jeffs baby-sitting for my preteen goddaughters.

As a woman who does not believe what Palin believes, the thought of such an opportunistic anti-female in the White House — in the Cheney chair, no less — is akin to ideological brain rape. What this Republican blowup doll does with her own insides in accord with her own faith is her business. But, like the worst and most terrifying of religious extremists, she seems very comfortable with the idea of imposing her own views on everyone else.

…

I did not think that women being downgraded to second-class, three-holed chattel would be a pressing concern in my lifetime. I thought it was like polio, or witch burning — an inhumane error that had already been corrected. But after eight years of Republican hegemony, and now the potential ascendance of this sheep in ewe’s clothing, I am so mortally offended I feel like it is really time for women to be angry, hardcore and disgusted again.

Let’s quickly review. Palin — a working mother of five who was elected governor of an American state (Alaska) — is “an opportunistic anti-female.” She is a (willing?) participant in her party’s “brain rape” of American women. She is a “blowup doll.” She’s no better than a Mormon fundamentalist, really. She doesn’t actually care about her kids (clearly, if she did care, she’d have aborted that little defect Trig the moment the amnio screening came back positive)…her only concern is her stance against abortion.

Wilson covers almost every smear imaginable, but then adds a particularly excreable comment as well: “I did not think that women being downgraded to second-class, three-holed chattel would be a pressing concern in my lifetime.”

Exactly how is Palin going to be the overseer of such a downgrade, being that she is, herself, a woman…and then one who has rocketed to the heights of political (and actual) power? Exactly how is Palin — whose career has consisted, it seems, of shooting through one “glass ceiling” after another purely on the merits of her leadership and character, rather than by riding the coattails of any kind of enforced “equal opportunity” policy — the instrument by which women will again be reduced to mere chattel in the U.S.? EXPLAIN TO ME HOW ELECTING A WOMAN TO THE VICE PRESIDENCY SERVES TO UNDERMINE THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN, YOU BLITHERING IDIOT! Especially when the woman in question seems to be living the ideal of feminism!

Oh, right…Palin opposes abortion. Clearly, then, she’s not really a woman.

See, this is why modern feminism is losing credibility. Palin should be the feminist ideal, the wet-dream “this is the one we’ve been waiting for!” icon of women’s lib. Instead, she is hated with a level of vitriol one has never seen deployed before by the Left; even Bush hatred never went this far. As Jonathan Kay notes, “[t]he brachuckers of 1968 would have been shocked and gratified to know that a woman would change the face of U. S. politics (and perhaps turn an election result) just 40 years after their Atlantic City street theatre — even if today’s feminists have the luxury of tilting their noses at the likes of Palin because she doesn’t toe the left-wing line.”

(This isn’t the first hit-piece that Salon has gotten roasted for, by the way. Juan Cole ran an article that has been repeatedly slammed by commentators for its comparison of Palin — who is openly Christian — to Islamic fundamentalists, of the sort that fill out the ranks of Hamas or govern Saudi Arabia.)

Ace nails, I think, the reason why all of these various hate-pieces are getting published. In the end, he says, it comes down to simply hatred, and the fact that the Left is not at all embarrassed to hide its hate; it is hate as a form of virtue, a substitute ideology to hold up in place of a vacuous one (e.g. “hope and change”).

And the kicker in all of this? For as much as the feminist/Leftist commentators insist that Palin. Is. The. Enemy. Of. Women. Everywhere!, normal, rational people are beginning to distance themselves from the screeching…and, in doing so, are shifting their support from Barrack Hussein Obama to John McCain. Which has a lot of people rattled. And rattled people will do irrational things.

Good gravy, even Obama himself is so rattled by Palin that he can’t help himself. His statement that “[y]ou can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” may not have been directed at Palin specifically, but it’s a close thing, following a tad too closely on the heels of Palin making a joke about herself concerning pit bulls, hockey moms, and lipstick. As Mark Shea notes, by way of comparison:

The key to political humor is it has to be either self-deprecating or else genuinely funny. So when Palin asks “What’s the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom?” and answers “Lipstick”, that’s funny.”

When the Son of the living God [Obama's supporters have attempted to deify the man -- Ken]makes a veiled reference to Palin as a pig in lipstick?: Not so funny. The era of Obama’s cool transcendence of nasty politics is over. The Hero of the Solar Myth turns out to be a Chicago Machine Pol. Team Obama is losing it, and with it, the votes of all those women who could not care less that Gloria Steinem and the NY Times thinks they are not women at all.

Palin’s the first person who ever laid a glove on the guy and he is now beginning to crack up as a result. His “pig in lipstick” remark is a sign of that. It’s also (whether he wants it to be or not) a signal to the Freakish Enemies of the Normal that the gloves are off. These people will go apesh*t on Palin and her family — and the mass migration away from the Lightworker will continue.

It’s over. He’s got nothin’. He’s so desperate he’s forgotten he’s running against McCain.

That last point is also significant. Look, the dynamics of a presidential race aren’t that hard to understand. The VP nominees are supposed to be the “attack dogs” for their respective presidential candidates, while the candidates themselves are supposed to talk about issues and policies in an attempt to win voters. The candidates take the high road, and the VP nominees deal with the mud-slinging and gutter politics. It’s not a pretty tradition, but there it is.

Obama has forgotten this, it seems. And more than a few people are (maybe prematurely) suggesting that, for “the Lightworker,” the race may now be over.

The kid’s acting like an amateur is basically why. You don’t let the *Veep* of the other party drive your campaign and *especially* you don’t let her sucker you into making the sort of personal attacks it is the job of your surrogates and lackeys to mount. The moment the Pig In Lipstick campaign comes from Obama himself, he loses one of the few precious resources he has as an Empty Suit: the illusion that he is the Lightworker, an ethereal being floating above the Old Political Paradigm. That’s almost all the guy has going for him and now he’s throwing it away because she’s gotten into his head. He showed real class when he told the Freakish Enemies of the Normal to knock off the Gynecological Inquisition and reminded people that he was the product of a out-of-wedlock tryst.

But the moment the guy starts giving into the Inner Misogynist, he’s toast. He himself may get his game back and realize what a catastrophically bad move that was. But I doubt the Freakish Enemies in the Normal will be so swift on the uptake. Up till now, the bizarre hatred of the Ordinary American that has made Palin its lightning rod has been conducted over the protests of Obama and some of the rest of the Team who can see how it’s all playing in Paducah (huge spikes in the polls for McWhatsisname/PALIN!!!!!!!). Now Obama’s chosen to give a loud and clear signal to the Palin-flesh eaters to do their worst. That’s just about the stupidest thing he could possibly have done.

McCain’s campaign team is already making sure that Obama’s slip is going viral. Meanwhile, FactCheck.org is going to town on the various false assertions being made about Palin’s record. And over in Britain, Palin’s record in office — and the reason it qualifies her for the VP slot — has not gone unnoticed:

The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska’s energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes — the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having “no international experience” particularly absurd.

In short, far from being a small-town mayor concerned with little more than traffic signs, she has been a major player in state politics for a decade, one who formulated an ambitious agenda and deftly implemented it against great odds.

Palin’s selection was a brilliant move by the McCain team, it seems, for two reasons. First, Palin herself will do well in office; she seems comfortable with fulfilling executive branch duties, and seems equally at ease setting out to do what needs to get done. Moreover, she’s no stranger to international dealings at a high-end, policy-making level, and her record of standing up to corruption — even at the expense of career — is fairly solid.

Secondly, though, and then more importantly, Palin’s selection has utter destabilized the Obama campaign team, and thrown his supporters into disarray. Seriously…apart from one mention of tax policy in the past two weeks, what have we heard concerning Obama’s platform since Palin made her debut speech?

On such things do elections turn.