Martin C. Winer

This is what happens when Martin gets tired of sending mass emails.

Browsing Posts tagged bush

Sinai
Imagine a historian 500 years from now constructs the following proof. “The culture of 1960′s widely accepted homosexual activities. Evidence can be found in the theme song of a popular cartoon of the era, ‘The Flintstones’. This is a cartoon involving the implied homosexual activities between the two male lead characters Barney and Fred with no visible objections of their wives which they mutually took for procreation. The theme song ends: ‘we’ll have a yabadoo time… we’ll have a gay old time.’[1] Clearly, this open admission was made in front of millions of watching viewers and there is no archeological record of a single objection to their categorization as being gay.” Do you accept this method of proof to be valid?The answer to the quandary is obvious to most in our generation: the dictionary changed. Beware of the word ‘obvious’ because it paints with a very broad stroke. Try asking some children what the word ‘gay’ means. However, provided a dictionary from the 60′s and a later (revised) dictionary survives to reach the time of future historian, someone will be able to correct his/her faulty logic. Think though, what if the dictionary did not survive?Take for example, this ‘simple’ statement from the Torah: “And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, beside children.” (Exodus 12:37)[2] This is an account of how many Israelites left Egypt and then went on to witness the revelation of God at Sinai. The Torah appears to go out of its way to repeat this figure again in Numbers 1:46 just for emphasis: “even all those that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty.”[3] So now we see two places where the Torah states that there were 600 thousand men of military age leaving Egypt.If you can now quickly accept the fact that the Torah says that there were 600 thousand military age men that left Egypt, I accuse you of swallowing your theology without chewing first. 600 thousand military aged men generally implies a total population of three million.
* For comparison: “In the 1967 war in which Israel defeated the combined forces of its Arab invaders, Israel’s population of 2 million provided only 264,000 soldiers.” [4] So a modern day army capable of defeating 3 nations simultaneously is of size 264,000.
* “Alexander, who controlled Greece, Macedonia, Thrace (Southern Yugoslavia), and a little bit of Western Anatolia, was able to raise between 90,000 and 100,000 troops total, with about half remaining in Macedonia when he invaded the Persian Empire.” [5]
* Hannibal of Carthage took 20,000 soldiers and besieged Rome for several years causing 50,000 Roman casualties before his defeat in 203 B.C. [6]
* “It is estimated that the whole population of Egypt at the time of the exodus was between 2 and 5 million. According to the above estimates of the population of Israel, the people of Israel would be the population of Egypt.” [7]
* “Archaeologists have shown that the land of Canaan was never invaded by 3 million Israelites after the exodus from Egypt. At this time in history, the land only had a population of between 50,000 to 100,000 (at most), and there never was a massive population increase in this time period.” [8]
* “There are thought to have been 20,000 in the entire Egyptian army at the height of Egypt’s empire.” [9]
* The ability to supply an army with food and provisions was a limiting factor to the size of ancient armies. “The figure of 80,000 seems to be a sort of natural limit to the size of these ancient armies.” [10] The credulous may be able to slip out of supply problems for the ancient Israelites by invoking ‘manna from heaven’. However, it’s for certain that God did not provide for their enemies. Thus, the limiting size of an opponent would appear to be around 80,000. The Torah claims that the Israelites had 600,000 military aged men. Thus, they could easily defeat any army they came across without the fear described in the Torah. Deuteronomy 7:17,18 “If thou shalt say in thy heart: ‘These nations are more than I how can I dispossess them?’ Thou shalt not be afraid of them thou shalt well remember what the LORD thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt.” [11] There were no larger nations than 600,000 military men, and thus why would the Israelites be afraid of any of them?
* “The population of ancient Israel was probably about 300,000 at its maximum in the time of David.” [12]
* Assume for a moment that the population involved in the Exodus actually was 3 million. Then consider the verse Deuteronomy 7:1 where the Israelites “… cast out … seven nations greater and mightier than [themselves]“. [13] That would mean that there were 7 greater nations in ancient Israel before the conquest, making the population at least 21 million (7 x 3 million)! There is absolutely no archaeological proof for this. Further, archaeology bounds the population to 300,000 at the height of the Davidic rule. Moreover, the current population of modern Israel (in 2006) is 6 million.
* The ancient Israelites sojourned at Kadesh-Barnea for approximately 38 years. 3 million would have left some manner of record there. However, “Not even a shard from the Bronze Age has been found (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 63), despite thorough excavation of the site and surveys of the surrounding area.” [14] Some have argued that it wasn’t the business of the ancient Israelites to leave relics for archaeologists to discover. Archaeolgists retort that modern archaeology is “quite capable of tracing even the very meager remains of hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world” (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 63). [15]
* These points are a good starting point for problems with the 600 thousand figure. Consult the footnotes for more.
So we see that the number 600 thousand is a historically impossible number. With that many military age men, there is no need for any miracles in warfare: Israel would conquer the entire Middle East and likely the rest of the world shortly thereafter.How then do we reconcile the Torah’s twice repeated 600 thousand figure with the contradictions with history this causes? Recall our flawed Flintstone proof. The problem was with the dictionary we were consulting. In this case, the problem occurs with the translation of the Hebrew ‘eleph’. “The issue of Exodus 12:37 is an interpretive one. The Hebrew word ‘eleph’ can be translated ‘thousand,’ but it is also rendered in the Bible as ‘clans’ and ‘military units.’” [16] Consider the following Torah quotes. Where the Hebrew word ‘ELEPH’ is used, I will CAPITALIZE the translation.
* “And he said unto him: ‘Oh, my lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my FAMILY is the poorest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.’” Judges 6:15 [17]
* “and he shall be as a CHIEF in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite.” Zechariah 9:7 [18]
* “And the CHIEFS of Judah shall…” “In that day will I make the CHIEFS of Judah like a pan of fire among the wood…” Zecharaiah 12:5,6 [19]
* “Similarly, in the assault [by Joshua] on Ai (Joshua 7-8) the true proportions of the narrative become clear when we realize that the disastrous loss of 36 men is matched by the setting of an ambush, not of 30,000 [ELEPH] men of valour, but of 30.” [20] Other quotes where you get different meanings depending on which translation you use are:
* 1 Samuel 10:19, 23:23
* Micah 5:1 (It should be noted that even fluent Hebrew speakers can be victims of the translations they use: They can be using a modern interpretation of ‘eleph’ [thousand] erroneously.)Further, there is a possible confusion between the word ‘alluph’ (chief) and ‘eleph’ which look identical in Hebrew without vowels. [21] This is a little tricky to follow without an example. Take the words ‘ant’ and ‘not’. If you remove the vowels from both you get ‘nt’ and ‘nt’. In ancient Hebrew notation (as in other semitic languages) the vowels were omitted. I cn qckly prv tht th hmn mnd s cpbl f rdng ths. [22] Thus, “‘Alluph’ is used for the ‘chieftains’ of Edom (Genesis 36:15-43) probably for a commander of a military ‘thousand’ and almost certainly for the professional, fully-armed soldier.” [23] What should become apparent is that there are other interpretations and meanings for the Hebrew word ‘eleph’. See footnote [24] for a description of the etymology of ‘eleph’. So far we’ve seen ‘eleph’ mean ‘family’, ‘clan’, ‘chief’ and ‘armed man’.An academic caveat, we must beware of denying biblical numbers outright. While we are forced to question them in the case of the 600 thousand figure due to archaeological evidence, there is likewise archaeological evidence that certain numbers from the Bible do match with current records. “For bible numbers: The size of the Assyrian army approximates the number of troops stated in 2.Kings.” [25] It is important that we do not apply our logic in an all or nothing manner, denying the veracity of all bible numbers.How then do we reconcile the fact that the Torah twice repeats this 600 thousand figure? Recall that in Numbers 1:46 [26] we have a repetition of the 600 thousand figure, with a further refinement to 603,550 suggesting the Torah means thousands here, not anything else. John Wenham offers the following explanation of the census figures using the tribe of Simeon as an example:
“Simeon: 57 armed men [chiefs, eleph] 23 ‘hundreds’ (military units).
This came to be written: 57 ‘lp 2′lp 3 ‘hundreds’.
Not realising that ‘lp in one case meant ‘armed man’ and in the other ‘thousand’, this was tidied up to read 59,300. When these figures are carefully decoded, a remarkably clear picture of the whole military organization emerges. The total fighting force [of the Exodus Israelites] is some 18,000 which would probably mean a figure of about 72,000 for the whole migration”. [27]So what are the consequences of adopting a translation of ‘eleph’ that would lead the Exodus numbers to be in the 10′s of thousands? First we harmonize the Torah account with the account of archaeology. In so doing, we have a much more tenable historical account which reconciles with the world of science.

However, in so doing, we may unseat a famous theological proof known as the Kuzari proof which holds that 3 million witnesses witnessed the Sinai revelation and hence this public revelation could not have been faked. I imagine that Kuzari adherents will be equally impressed with 10′s of thousands of witnesses as they were with millions, so secular Jews needn’t be interested in this obstacle. The Kuzari proof was broken long before archaeology was invented and for many other reasons beyond the numbers. A further discussion of the flaws of the Kuzari proof can be found here: http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=98052

In summation we must reconcile the Torah history with archaeology. “Later rabbis such as Maimonides taught that when scientific evidence contradicts a current understanding of the Bible, that means that we are obligated to reinterpret that verse in accord with science. For many traditional rabbis, such a position was not heresy.” [28] In a more global sense, we are obligated to teach our children theologies which reconcile with observable phenomenon.

“Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence. We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to…. But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent.” — W. K. Clifford [29]

——————————————————————————–
[1] http://www.cfhf.net/lyrics/flintstones.htm
[2] http://mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0212.htm
[3] http://mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0401.htm
[4] http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/1/1num95.html
[5] ibid
[6] http://www.harcourtschool.com/activity/biographies/hannibal/
[7] http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/17_theexodus.html
[8] http://www.encyclopedian.com/ex/Exodus.html
[9] ibid
[10] http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=78&keyword_id=8&title=Army
[11] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0507.htm
[12] http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/judaism/ancisr.html
[13] http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0507.htm
[14] http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch2.html#sinai
[15] http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch2.html#sinai
[16] Hebrew University professor Abraham Malamat as quoted in http://www.encyclopedian.com/ex/Exodus.html
[17] http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0706.htm
[18] http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2309.htm
[19] http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2312.htm
[20] John Wenham quoted in http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hebrew_numbers.html
[21] http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hebrew_numbers.html
[22] http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/
[23] ibid
[24] http://www.specialtyinterests.net/im/hebrew_lexicon.html#aleph
[25] http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hebrew_numbers.html
[26] http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0401.htm
[27] John Wenham quoted in http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hebrew_numbers.html
[28] http://www.encyclopedian.com/ex/Exodus.html
[29] http://www.religioustolerance.org/kaiser_01.htm

Martin’s Summation of the George Bush Jr. Years:

“George Jr. got drunk, stole Daddy’s keys to the country and went for a joyride which ended in a wreck on Wall St.”

 

hoth

Star Wars Theme Song plays.
Text “Earth Wars :: Arctic Melt – A Lost Hope” grows larger and larger until out of view.

Announcer
Coming soon to an Arctic theatre near you… Earth Wars :: Arctic Melt – A Lost Hope.

Obi-Wan, Al Skywalker and Yoda observe a glacier where water is seen to be streaming on the surface and forming cracks can be seen and heard.

Obi-Wan
I sense a great disturbance in the force… as if thousands seeking the truth were suddenly silenced

Yoda
mmm yes… clouded the force is.

Al Skywalker
I can’t convince the people that they are the cause.

Yoda
Always with you it can not be done.

Frustrated Yoda waves his hands and two bottles appear float out of his smock. One is marked CO2 and the other marked AIR. There are thermometers inside. The thermometer of the CO2 bottle reads significantly higher than the AIR bottle.

Yoda
See you the difference young Skywalker?

Al Skywalker
I see it, but I can’t make them believe it.

Yoda
frowns
That is why you fail…

Cut to the white house. Count Condeleeza, Darth Cheney, and Darth Bush are present. Behind them environmentalist David Suzuki can be seen frozen in carbonite. Count Condeleeza has in her hand a hologram of a planet deluged in water with a mysterious floating sattelite marked USA orbitting it. She is kneeling before Darth Bush and recieving parting orders.

Count Condeleeza
Very well my master. I will take our secret plans and store them safely.

Darth Bush
They must not know what we are planning.

Count Condeleeza turns off the handheld hologram, rises and walks out.

Darth Cheney
I sense Luke Al Skywalker will come to me.

Darth Bush
When he comes to you, bring him before me. Only together can we turn him to the Republican side.

Cut to Air Force One where Al Skywalker is on board in front of Darth Bush and Darth Cheney.
The windows behind reveal an active battle field in Iraq. Al Skywalker is wielding a solar panel as a weapon.

Al Skywalker
I will not turn to the Republican side.

Darth Bush
Witness behind us, all is going to plan. Your puny environmental slideshow and oscar is no match for the United States Empire! Unlimited power!! Once again the Republicans will rule the world and there will be peace!

Darth Cheney
Come my fellow politician, it’s time to join us.

Al Skywalker
Never.

Al Skywalker throws down his solar panel defiantly.

Darth Bush
… then you shall certainly die.

Darth Bush grows enraged as the scene cuts to the Iraq battle and the Star Wars them plays.
T
ext “Summer 2008″.
Fade to black.

Further Reading:
http://www.rsc.org/education/teachers/learnnet/jesei/co2green/home.htm

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gA1taPWzhCJnHQ79DowKK3VwfqQwD90DNCBO1

 

Dumb and DumberDumb:

Project Lifeline is a Bush administration initiative to give distressed mortgagees an additional month before their homes are foreclosed upon. This reprieve goes not only to subprime borrowers but to all distressed borrowers. The subtext to this move is that not only are subprime borrowers in distress. One month’s grace is dumb because the amount of debt that we’re dealing with coupled with the loss of equity from falling housing prices is not something that is going to resolve itself that quickly. This is akin to giving a starving man a rice cake. We all know that rice cakes are good only as coasters, so too is Project Lifeline.

Dumber:

Interest rate cuts are an even dumber idea. Last month the Fed cut rates by a staggering 1.25%. There is strong rumour that more cuts are coming. This is a dumber idea for a few reasons. First interest rate cuts are the cause of debenture spending. The reason we’re in the mess we’re in is because people are/were spending money they didn’t have. Next, lowered interest rates cause economic bubbles such as the housing bubble which is just in the process of bursting. Finally, interest rate cuts increase government debt. The way that the Fed lowers interest is by buying treasury bills with printed money. This devalues the currency and increases government debt. Thus, interest rate cuts are the cause of the current economic quagmire, and certainly aren’t the cure.

Dumbest

The US Stimulus Package is the dumbest possible idea. Under the package, people could see $600 to $1200 in tax rebates. First off, the amount itself is a pittance. Next, where is the money coming from? The money is being borrowed from China to be repaid with interest. Where is the money going? The money, it is hoped, will be spent into the economy to buy ‘stuff’. Where does all the stuff come from? The stuff comes from… China. The real underlying problem is that the US economy has shifted from a production based economy to a consumer based economy. Until you address that problem, any attempts to throw money at the problem will simply throw money in other people’s pockets. I’ll give the government some credit though, the US Stimulus Package does manage to stimulate an economy; perhaps the government will fund moving its citizens to Beijing where the positive effects can be felt.

Marx once said that “religion is the opiate of the masses”.  If one is to believe this graph:

Wealth Vs. Religiosity

it would seem to suggest that the poorer you are, the more inclined you are to be religious.  Perhaps it’s not so odd that most religious television programs are constantly begging for money.  However, they may do better by making their pleas for money to the aetheists instead of ‘preaching to the [poor] choir’ as it were.

Most interesting are the outliers on this graph.  The US is more religious than its overall wealth would suggest, so perhaps George Bush does indeed hear the voice of God.  Also note Kuwait which is highly religious and relatively prosperous compared to countries with similar levels of religiousity.

More information can be found here:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=258

I typically shy away from watching American Idol. I find watching peoples hopes dashed by ‘judges’ akin to watching humans flayed by gladiators to the amusement of the dullard populace. Parenthetically, I wonder how the objectively questionable voices of legends: Louis Armstrong, Neil Young, Bob Dylan or Robert Plant would survive the scrutiny of the bastions of talent assessment found in judges: Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson, and Paula Abdul. Paula Abdul. My automatic grammar checker is telling me that the sentence “Paula Abdul.” on its own is a sentence fragment; I couldn’t disagree with it more in this context. In fact, I find it to be a full paragraph.While I find the show irksome, mustering the power to ‘turn the other cheek’ is about as hard as turning to another channel and as such, I haven’t, until recently, paid it much mind. However, when this show chose to wax moral, I perked up my ears because when a Fox Network program discusses morals, this is bound to be something I want to tune into. (Words fail to express the sarcasm of the previous sentence.) The Fox Network is the same network which brought you the tasteful tidbit “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?” and is the official station of George W. Bush and his war to eradicate weapons of mass destruction. (In a strange twist of fate, the largest [and only] weapon of mass destruction after the year 2000 in Iraq turned out to be George W. Bush himself.) This is the network that sought to sanction contestant Antonella Barba on American Idol after it was revealed she had some scandalous photographs found on the internet. Barba was voted off the show, but it was her voice that was cited as the final cause. Nonetheless, American Idol has previously removed a contestant “Frenchie” after pictures surfaced of her on an adult pay site.

A Google search of either girl will reveal an onslaught of the related pictures as well as 50 pop up adds suggesting you need a larger penis, methods for fixing the problem and several contests you’ve won which should provide funds for any such programs. After closing the fog of pop ups, the pictures that emerged were at best Maxim or FHM worthy. To those not versed in the realm, Maxim and FHM are to Playboy and Penthouse as light-filtered-cigarettes are to cigars. My initial reaction to the pictures was flaccid causing me to momentarily rethink closing all the previous pop ups. After that moment I realized that I was unimpressed because it was clear to me that these pictures had absolutely nothing to do with the talent of the contestants. For the record, Frenchie has moved on to a promising career on Broadway. Instead, these pictures had everything to do with our confused morals.

Some will immediately protest: “the show is called American IDOL” — emphasis on ‘idol’ — and hence part of the criteria must be if such people are worthy of being idols. As soon as we open this can of worms, it’s necessary for American Idol to somehow consider the morals of the contestants. Morals and ethics are complicated and I’m certain that the Fox Network lacks the acumen to address the issue. In fact, I find it very hard to determine if it was revealed that Barba mutilated puppies would it have received more or less press and attention? I hear the conservative drone say: “the children, the poor children, whatever will we do if they see those pictures?!” To such parents, I point out that what would happen to children if children watch the evening news? I will attend that point momentarily.

Only in such a state of moral asymmetry could we even begin to ask these sorts of questions. Let’s look at the issue. Pornography: bad, good, neither, both? Dr Phil’s ‘Occam’s Razor’ style argument on the topic goes like this: If you wouldn’t want your daughter involved in porn, then why would you watch someone elses’ daughter? Dr Phil, President Bush and the Fox Network are experts at providing short answers to complicated questions that sound reasonable and under scrutiny turn out to be faulty. At the risk of being guilty of the same thing I accuse Dr. Phil, the short answer to Dr. Phil is: I don’t want my daughter to be a sanitation maintenance engineer (the politically correct term for garbage man/woman) but that doesn’t stop me from taking my trash to the curb. However, let’s take a deeper look at the issue, and to do so, we’ll restrict the general porn issue to examining going topless at a beach. If anyone reading the rest of this article derives that I carte blanche advocate pornography, I invite them to reread the previous sentence.

(An unremembered comedian [likely Bill Maher or Robin Williams] once quipped that to, the overly simplified criminal justice mantra, “three strikes and you’re out” is the answer to gays in the military “four balls and you walk”?)

I’d like to ask Dr. Phil if he’d let his daughter go topless on a beach. I suspect strongly that he’d say no. Then I’d like to ask him if he’d let his daughter go topless on a beach in Brazil where the practice is commonplace (certainly more common place) and considered about as common as walking around in a bikini. I suspect he’d still say no, but the question would have got him thinking (and hopefully you as well). People will hem and haw over this point but that’s only because we’re dealing with the cusp of what’s currently considered ‘ok’. Then I’d ask him if he’d let his daughter wear one piece swim suit (not a bikini). I suspect he’d say yes. Then I’d finally ask him, if he lived in the 1800′s (when woman swam in the equivalent of a ‘Burka’) would he also let her wear a one piece swim suit? I’d like very much to hear his answer. Whether he says yes or no, he’d be forced to admit that his ‘morals’ have more to do with the time (society) he lives in than what is actually ‘right or wrong’. Star Wars got it right when George Bush gawks: “You’re either with us or against us” and Obe Wan Kenobi replies: “only the Sith believe in absolutes.” It’s my personal belief that the ‘Sith’ is a code for George Bush and the conservative lot (Sith = Simple Ignorant THeists).

Thus, questions of moral propriety are very hard questions to answer, and I sure as hell don’t want the Fox Network to even make the attempt. The question of where this moral confusion arose in the first place begs answering. I can only offer an answer in a form of an allegory of two presidents. First we have a story of an otherwise good president who had sex in the oval office; He was impeached. Next we have a story of a president who didn’t have sex in the oval office and sent a nation to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction which didn’t exist. This president who sent thousands to their deaths for no reason at all was, was… was… Oh, nothing happened to him.

The take home message of all this confusion is that morals are hard. You’re going to have to turn off the TV and think about them if you want to have a chance of getting them right. In turn, the only take home message one can glean about the state of American morals from all this is that Americans are fine with boobs only so long as one doesn’t post pictures of them on the internet and instead elects them to office.