Skip to content

Bob’s Musings: Bushes, Gimlets, Insurrections, Fools, Madhouses, And Ass-Backwards Thinking

06 November 2010 @ 15:54

Bob's Muse

-I don’t know about you, but, after this election season, I’m Bushed [Take that, Bolshes!  Miss be able to kick him around yet, pinkos?]

-Yesterday’s entry from our bathroom-ensconed Quote Of The Day Calendar:

The Ladies Aid Society of the United Church will hold its annual potluck dinner Saturday in the church hall.  Dinner will be gin at 5:30 p.m.

1) No wonder those ladies are always cheerful.

2) Save me and Mrs. B. a couple of seats, gals — we’ll bring the Roses’s Lime Juice, Angostura Bitters, and sugar.  Hey everybody: IT’S GIMLET SATURDAY WITH THE LORD!

A reading from The Book Of Bob, 23:17-26:

God so loved the world that he gaveth it gin;
He passed over the fields of Quinine, near the plains of Plymouth
And He spoketh to Rose of the lime farm: ‘Herewith, a primer on extracting the juice from the lime;
Sweeten it as I say, no more, no less, and bottle it thusly’.
God then spoketh to the people who farmed the fields of Angostura on the plains of Tobago;
And he spoketh to them saying: ‘Herewith is the way of the Bitter;
Maketh it in small bottles and wrap thy bottles in shrouds of paper’.
And then the Lord went to Adam and showeth him how to maketh Gimlets;
And there was much rejoicing, although Eve got hammered
And she tooketh off her fig leafs and danced with a snake.

-The Legal Insurrection keeps on growing…and, no, I’m not talking about the TEA Party Movement this time: William Jacobson now has a co-blogger.  Her name is Kathleen McCaffrey, a junior at Cornell.  It looks like anothor case of the Prof exercising the fine judgement that keeps many of us coming back for more helpings of some Legal Insurrection.

-From the New York Post, Doug Montero reporting, we learn:

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Day Two of death penalty deliberations in the home invasion murder of a nurse and her two daughters is continuing into the afternoon today, but with one sign of hope for a resolution — the sound of applause from the jury room.

Panel members had looked exhausted upon leaving court yesterday, apparently mired in disagreement over whether to spare the life of monster strangler, rapist and arsonist Steven Hayes because his shrinks say he is mentally “impaired.”

Excuse me, but: WTF!  Here you have a man who committed heinous rapes and murders…

Jurors are deciding if Hayes gets lethal injection of life without parole for raping and strangling pediatric nurse Jennifer Hawke-Petit and helping to literally burn alive her daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11, who had been tied to their beds and doused with gasoline.

…and there are people who are even contemplating not punishing him with the ultimate penalty.  My anger knows no bounds at hearing this and I fear I will descend into incoherent rage if I do not restrict myself to simply asking: Could This Be One Explanation? [see: The Camp Of The Saints by Jean Raspail]

-Maybe I’m engaging in some wild speculation here, but, please, think about this for a moment [or just mark my observation and store it in the back of your brain for future reference]:

1) As I pointed out in two postings recently, the Left has a history of labelling their opponents as being mentally ill and, in some cases, using that declaration as an excuse to lock-up right wingers ‘for their own good’.

2) Scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard have claimed to have disovered a ‘liberal gene’.  Can the discovery of a ‘right wing gene’ be far behind?

3) The goal here seems [this is speculation accompanied by knowledge of how the Left thinks] to be to establish that human beings are genetically predisposed to think certain ways.

4) The next step for the Left: ‘scientifically prove’ that the ‘right wind gene’ is abnormal, on the level with Schizophrenia and Manic Depression.

5) Offer/force a cure.

Am I thinking crazy, am I now out walking to where the buses don’t run?

-The last item above reminds me of a thought I’ve been contemplating for some years and am still working on:

So many scientists and those friendly to the modern theories of science believe that when we, say, love, hate, or believe in God, we are merely doing these things because of chemical reactions going on in our brains.  In other words, the cause [mere chemical processes] have the effect of making us feel the way we do.  Thus, the existence of God is dismissed, the love we feel is stripped of it’s human element: choice.  In other words, they are saying, in effect, that there is no soul and no Free Will.

What if they have it backwards?  The love we feel towards another individual and the belief in God, to use just those two examples, cause the chemical reaction effect.  What if we are not the mere robot-like subjects of uncontrollable, biological whim that the modern, atheistic [Nihilistic?] scientists and their sympathizers make us out to be?

8 Comments
  1. 06 November 2010 @ 18:35 18:35

    “What if we are not the mere robot-like subjects of uncontrollable, biological whim that the modern, atheistic [Nihilistic?] scientists and their sympathizers make us out to be?”

    The Bible agrees with you, Bob. It says that God is the expert on matters of the soul, and that God alone can plumb its depths. I’m gonna go with that, and it strikes me as foolish to do otherwise.

  2. 06 November 2010 @ 18:49 18:49

    Hey, watch out who your calling a robot. I resemble that remark.

  3. Rob De Witt permalink
    06 November 2010 @ 19:16 19:16

    From a comment I posted at the WashReb yesterday:

    …one thing which has occurred to me is the argument recently published about a “liberal gene.”

    One of the better periods of my life was spent as a pre-school teacher. Even having a baby didn’t prepare me for the insight that some kids have already chosen to project their problems onto other people at age 2. If toilet training is seen as a problem Mommy’s having, what other strategy would suggest itself beyond spending one’s life looking for support of the notion that It’s All About Me? (And who do you suppose chooses to start running for student council in grade school?)

    By the time adolescence arrives, the discovery is generally made that there is a world-view consonant with this position, which is of course victim-driven Leftism. Despite liberals’ almost universal presentation of their “opinions” as being hard-won and well thought out, I’m increasingly certain that some people are created without the capability of introspection – and if they’re raised that way, it just means that it’s true of their parents, and probably their parents (see my position on Obama’s grandparents for a good example.)

    http://washingtonrebel.typepad.com/washington_rebel/2010/05/jump-how-high.html

    This is not to say, btw, that nurture has no influence; my own daughter was the epitome of insight and altruism before her mother taught her to be selfish and angry by example. I know of several middle-aged people who were born simply because their parents were so inspired by the example of my kid. I certainly take no responsibility for this; she came out of the womb just a shining light.

    It’s increasingly apparent, though, that Michael Savage got it in one when he described liberalism as a mental disorder. We can only hope that the “liberal gene” is a recessive one as we observe what may be the ultimate collapse of the world-wide Left.

    Is what I think.

  4. Erich Madden permalink
    07 November 2010 @ 03:39 03:39

    The idea that those thoughts, faith, love, hate, or whatever cause the chemical reactions, or that the chemical reactions cause the thoughts both seem to me to miss the mark in some way. I don’t really think that they are two different things at all, but merely aspects of the same thing, viewed a different way.

    Those who wish to characterize what we see as aspects of the soul as “merely” complex chemical reactions do so because they feel that this makes us inherently predictable, that it invalidates free will, which matches with their atheistic world view. The idea is that, given sufficient information about the beginning state of a system, in this case the brain, and sufficient computing power, one could predict flawlessly a person’s beliefs, thoughts, feelings, and ideals indefinitely into the future. Unfortunately for them, science no longer supports that view, and hasn’t for a while now. This would be a deterministic Newtonian Physics view of the universe. Quantum Mechanics has invalidated that view. There cannot be a deterministic system, no amount of computing power will allow one to predict the future in that way, because it is not even possible (at least for a finite being based in this universe) to even know the beginning state of the system with sufficient detail. (I’m oversimplifying a bit here, but the point is valid) Essentially, unpredictable randomness is inherent in any system, including the chemical reactions of the human brain. Recognizing the brain as an ultracomplex set of chemical reactions does not in any way invalidate free will, faith, or the nature of the soul. As is usual for the left, their “scientific proof” relies on a flawed understanding of science in an attempt to validate their distorted world view.

  5. Rob De Witt permalink
    07 November 2010 @ 11:09 11:09

    Erich,

    EXcellent.

  6. bobbelvedere permalink*
    07 November 2010 @ 18:04 18:04

    Thank you all for your thoughts [even you too MNR] and for giving me food for thought – I’m quit enjoying the meals.

  7. bobbelvedere permalink*
    07 November 2010 @ 18:04 18:04

    What! No comments on the Gimlet?

  8. Erich Madden permalink
    07 November 2010 @ 23:10 23:10

    My Gimlet days are long past, but, not to worry, I wouldn’t begrudge anyone else the enjoyment thereof! 🙂

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: