Pro Rege Papers

I watched this NOVA episode last night about the Scablands. The Scablands are an area in eastern Washington that contain unusual geographic features, such as sudden huge potholes, rocks dropped onto the ground randomly, steep drop-off cliffs, and unusual enormous scars. It has been a mystery for years as to how that landscape came about, but now geologists believe they have finally figured it out. They say it was a megaflood in Washington that carved this landscape. According to the theory, a glacier flowed down a mountain until it crossed through a valley in Idaho across the path of the Clark Fork river that was previously flowing through that valley. A huge lake (bigger than Lake Erie and Ontario combined) formed on the 2,000 foot high ice dam, and the water eventually broke through the ice barrier to flow down through eastern Washington in a huge flood miles wide, and hundreds of feet tall. This caused the staggering formations we see today.

They go to great lengths to show us the enormous effects of flood water upon a landscape. They perform tests, and conclude that they have previously underestimated the power of huge catastrophes. (Does this sound familiar yet?)

The program went through the history of what scientists have thought about the origin of the Scablands, and told the story of one man, J. Harlen Bretz, who had the same hypothesis as the modern scientists do. In the 1920s he said that a huge flood had carved out the valley, but he didn’t know where the water had come from. Scientists excused his ideas as crazy, saying that it sounded too much like a “biblical flood”. The narrator even said that Bretz’s views were viewed as “heresy” to geology at the time because of the pervasive view of slow and gradual erosion over millions of years that evolution supports.

These geologists today obviously aren’t putting two and two together. They point out the enormous power of water and what it can do to a landscape. But they deny that a much bigger, more forceful worldwide flood could have done basically the same or slightly larger things. The hypocrisy is funny sometimes. More and more evidence is turning up that massive catastrophes have played a major part in shaping our planet, but geologists still hold to the gradualist evolutionary view of earth history. There’s another PBS show on today, and one next week that both talk about catastrophes causing enormous geographic features.

They also won’t admit clearly that science is deeply wrong sometimes, and they never tie previous errors to the fact that science could be deeply wrong today. I noticed that the geologists of the period quickly dismissed Bretz because of his views of a “biblical” sized flood (which everyone obviously knows is completely impossible). The evolutionary community is dismissing creationism today in the same type of way.
The evolutionists need to consider seemingly “far-fetched” ideas again and look at the world around them. Oh wait, that’s actual science.

The program with the transcript.

This is a topic that I’ve been wanting to write on for a while, and never got around to it. But some prodding came from an anonymous person’s comments on my previous post. He questioned the wisdom of getting involved in the North Korea situation, and apparently holds to isolationist views. You can see his three whole comments on my previous post, along with my complete resonse. I’m only going to post one of his statements that really brought up the question, with my answer (with the latter being larger of course):

I sincerely believe it is not the United State’s job to solve world affairs.

Nor do I. But this state of affairs has been forced upon us by the conditions that we live in today. I firmly believe that the United States should not go around as a police state in the world. However, there are certain cases nowadays (like the nuclear threat from North Korea) where we have to come in and make a stand, whether it’s diplomatically or militarily. Here are a few reasons why:

We were forced into WWII by Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, and the threat of terrible Nazi domination of the world. After that, we were forced into the resulting Cold War because of the power vacuum in Europe and the USSR’s constant threat to blow everyone up, including us. Now that the USSR has fallen, we are left as the only superpower in the world, which leaves us with responsibilities and liabilities that we would not otherwise have if the above events did not happen.

You also have to consider the fact that in the world today we have nukes, long-range missiles and warships, massive armies that can be deployed quickly, and rogue nations with crazy leaders that can do serious damage to many nations, including us.

These two things, history and current technology, inhibit us from pursuing an isolationist policy in the world today.

our getting into other people’s affairs is a direct violation of the Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine was just that: the doctrine of a President that he followed that worked well in his day. I believe it is a good idea, but it is impractical in the world today, as I stated above. It is also just a certain foreign policy, not a law.

I think we should do something about North Korea before they become an even more serious threat, which is happening very fast. Not to mention that they already are a fairly serious threat.

I’d really appreciate feedback on these views.

I feel very sorry for the people of South Korea. They are sitting on the other side of the border from a communist rogue state, and their government seems to think that they can support that state unboundedly without consequences. The people are protesting, but they need to do something quickly if they want to keep their national sovereignty. You’ll notice that there is fairly high rate of suicide in South Korea.

The UN isn’t doing anything about the situation. They didn’t do anything when the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) kicked out the UN inspectors prior to their finishing of the nuclear weapon. They haven’t done anything when DPRK has repeatedly been absent at key UN meetings, and if you think that this new resolution that they finally passed is going to do anything, you’re wrong. This resolution comes as a response to North Korea’s recent testing of a nuclear bomb underground. However, it still implies no serious consequences to North Korea for its blatant defiance of international demands, treaties, and regulations. Apparently the UN feels perfectly content to impose on our national sovereignty, but cringes at the prospect of actually laying down the law on rogue nations. This resolution that passed would still be helpful though, if it was actually enforced. But it isn’t.

China is still supplying weapons, technology, food, and other aid to North Korea. This further proves the suspicion that some people have that DPRK is just the proxy of China to see how the Western world responds to a threat. However, you can expect a communist country like China to do that; what you don’t expect is South Korea, the nation most endangered by DPRK, to go easy on them. They are still pouring economic aid into North Korea in the name of friendly steps toward reunification (difference here between Germany and Korea: common people abolishing the divide themselves; and a free government trying to compromise with a rogue state that wants to kill everybody). South Korea continues to operate a resort inside DPRK for their government employees. Both these nations are refusing to abide by the rules set down in the UN resolution. Japan seems to be the only involved country that is actually implementing sanctions in punishment against North Korea. Japan has banned all trade with DPRK, and is stepping up surveillance on the country. However, they did this before the UN resolution was even passed, so it’s not like they are following the UN’s lead.

We need to toughen up on North Korea for its recent threats against the Western world, and show them that they can’t just threaten us and push us around without consequences. It’s not as if they can nuke the USA or possibly even Japan or South Korea currently, and if we take measures now, it will avoid the trap that we will be in when they get more technologically advanced. In the world today, and with the policy that we have already followed, we need to take affirmative action (in foreign relations, not racial matters, mind you).

*Image from World Magazine

I think you all know that I don’t like Truman very much, but this is one of his better quotes:

“If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word.”

Harry Truman

New York Times, June 24, 1941

From Wikiquote

I’ve been reading over a few of the things that were said during the whole debate with Percival about bigotry with Islam. If you haven’t read the posts containing that debate, I recommend them for insight into the theological liberal and agnostic mind. I’m going to give some of the highlights of the ignorance of what they said. With some of it you laugh, some of them you feel pity for the people.

WARNING: EXTREME IGNORANCE THAT WILL SHOCK YOU AHEAD!

Well, here goes:

Homo Escapeons:

it is absurd to divide people into good or bad…
people are either charming or tedious.

Sirbarret:

The religious origins of Muslim, Christian and Judaism all stem from a philosophy of love, charity, and peace.

Boneman: (this non-Christian is pretty preachy)

Am I t’understand that Altusius is now judging who is and isn’t a christian by what he does or does not believe in?…

christians killed Christ, so, how can you say that about killing?…[[shaking my head from this point on]]
GOD LOVES FAGS! The fact that yer misunderstanding the bible doesn’t diminish that one bit…

you’re a christian, which right now, I definately doubt…

Paul didn’t even know he was going t’be put in the bible. His aim and method he plainly stated, t’be a chameleon (paraphrased) fer GOD and who he called Christ, though, his tongue may have gotten away from him a bit…

GOD has the say as t’who comes and goes. And, according t’a few phrases, all enter. ALL enter. Even you, altusius.Even you who stand there at the gates of heaven and can’t get in are now trying yer best t’keep others out.
Pretty good going,….

I count myself a christian [with an un-capitalized “c”]

Paul and I will have long, fine conversations on what has been called what it is called, but, then we will laugh and live in the LIGHT.
I hope you will be there with us.

Lady Wordsmith:

It is my quest for spaces of Zen between the paryers of my Rosary Beads

Percival:

…the Christian Nazis…

He [Althusius] wants to defend his preexisting views - period. [[step back in horror]]

I asked you above in this thread to take one point from your last post to discuss and gave my reasons for wanting to take this approach.[I explicitly gave him one] Instead, I find another personalized and desultory comment.[I was critiquing another personalized and desultory comment]

Bird:

…christian conviction may not be accompanied by a sword, but it is destructive and hurtful of its own accord, and is a one of the underlying causesof discord in the US…

i believe in many absolutes - i believe i will always love my children regardless of their actions. i believe there is no one, right way to worship god. i believe that religious philosophy is merely a construct to help us guide our lives.

the god i know and love, the god i pray to, the god that guides me, would not send anyone to hell for rejecting your brand of christianity. so am not in fear of going to hell. and really, if that is how god truly is (an aboslute) then to hell with god. i defy god. but i don’t think god is like that at all. [no capital “g”]

i do not know if there is a universal truth and i really don’t care.

ah, you think i reject the bible? not at all. i find it quite enlightening and useful. but i do reject the notion that it is divinely inspired…

There are many more, but I’ll leave you at that. It’s sad, really.

Here is something that I got emailed a few days ago. It really chronicles the deterioration of the next generation in this culture. A boy can’t keep a bird’s egg or a raccoon’s tail in Wisconsin because of the law. Frivolous lawsuits and socialist feminist laws are choking the good ole American boy spirit. Guys aren’t playing outside and becoming manly enough to take pain and other such things that come from being outdoors with your friends all the time. They stay inside and get glued to a screen. It has an effect on girls too, but not quite as much as the guys. It’s part of the pervading influence of feminism in our society today, and it is destroying the next generation of men. Anyway, here is the long lament (I did not write the following):

To those who were born before 1975:

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn’t get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets. When we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat. We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this. We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren’t overweight because… WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K. We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo’s, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no videotape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms………WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. WE ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever. We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend’s house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them! Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn’t had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever! The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our own good. And while you are at it, tell it to your kids so they will know how brave their parents were. Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn’t it?!