Here are three items that came across my desk (or computer screen) over the past few days. They all seem to make a lot of sense, so I thought that I would share them with the small (very small!) handful of people who pay attention to this page.
Number One: Hilary Clinton will quit because she’s running out of money. The Democrats fell in love with Obama, and thus most of the money is going his way. And money talks. Hilary will thus fold soon, perhaps right after the North Carolina primary in early May. She is being outspent by Obama by 3 to 1 in Pennsylvania, and will thus be robbed of the big 10 point plus win that she needs there to stay viable. (Not entirely certain that she will win at all now, given the current trends in the pre-primary polls!) All that will be needed after that will be Clinton’s poor showing in NC; she may not even break 40%, if the current polls are accurate. The cash spigot totally goes dry for her at that point, and she finally reads the handwriting. Obama thus becomes the political “Black Swan” of the 2008 primary season (those of you familiar with Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book know that this is NOT a racial reference; but the irony can’t help but be noted). We shall see if he can take his swan feathers all the way to the White House; I myself think it’s going to be another 2000 election, a real squeeker.
Number Two: Contrary to what most Christians think (and perhaps Muslims too), Jesus of Nazareth did NOT preach that we have immortal souls. That was mainly a Greek notion that was folded into Christian doctrine at a later time. Jesus, like many Jews at the time, believed in the possible resurrection of the body here on earth (but not all Jews, recall the Sauducees). But this was the physical body, not the ethereal soul. Jewish doctrine was rather quiet as to what happens to that body after that resurrection; could you die again? They really didn’t say. In the decades following Jesus’ death, the notion of resurrection was eventually tweaked into “eternal / everlasting life”, as evidenced in the Gospel of John.
But again, the Johnine notion did not necessarily envision eternal life as “spirits in heaven”; it was probably eternal life in the “new kingdom” here on earth, which would be brought forth at the Second Coming. Only a century or so later, when it was pretty clear that Christ wasn’t coming back any time soon, did the Greek notions of spirits in heaven start becoming official doctrine in the Christian Churches. Most Christians don’t appreciate just how Greek their beliefs are, and how much Jesus himself would disagree with them if he could be brought back somehow by science.
Number Three: Here’s a quote from letter to the editor found in the recent Atlantic Monthly, from a woman responding to an article about making compromises in finding a husband:
We women like to imagine ourselves as goddesses who are worthy of a man’s total worship and devotion, and we are incensed when he fails to give us that. Unfortunately, we get bed hair, body odor, wrinkles, thickness in the middle, and bad attitudes. We would not easily excuse such things in men, yet we expect men to overlook them in us.
My goodness, the voice of reason calling out in the desert! To be fair, I have to admit that men have such traits, in droves. But that’s all been said a million times about them (us, given that I’m a guy). Finally, some balance! Too bad that the writer, a Mrs. Parkhurst from Franklin, Indiana, is a MRS. She sounds like my kind of gal! I.e., very lucid, very insightful, very honest, very fair. A common-sense kind of woman. No surprise that she’s married!
Jim,
As regards Hillary Clinton: All I have to say is PERHAPS. Perhaps she will lose the election. Then again, perhaps not. This Sunday morning while I was flipping thru political programs I happened to hear Howard Dean describe the delegate process in the Democratic Party. All I could think of was that the machinations of the process were truly worthy of Chicago politics. It seemed to me that only Chicago politicians could have thought of such a convoluted delegate process–and all the while staunchly maintaining that it’s the vote of the people that is important and must be respected. How Chicago! Perhaps the “Black Swan” (ala Taleb) will be Hillary; and when one thinks of it, actually, it WOULD be Hillary who would be the Black Swan coming out of nowhere in this case.
Furthermore, I tho’t that it seems to me that with this Democratic delegate process that is so filled with political machinations, the Democrats just may end up shooting themselves in the foot.
And another furthermore: It may be that if anyone would know how to work such a convoluted system, I’d put my money on Hillary in that case.
So, with such machinations going on somewhere in some Democratic “smoke-filled” room, all I can say is: It ain’t over until it’s over.
As regards what Jesus of Nazareth preached: I really don’t think the Jews of the first century thought too much in terms of ANY KIND of eternal life; that concept was a quite hazy one–sheol and all that.
As to the concept of “spirits in heaven”: You forget the many diverse groups that have come to be known in the 20th and 21st centuries as “the Gnostics.” If ever there was a diverse concept and group of “spirits in heaven,” the many diverse “Gnostics” certainly held such. In fact, one of the “Gnostic” documents is entitled, “Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth” [levels where “gods” or “heavenly spirits” resided]. In another document there is some mention of a TENTH level! The Gnostics may have CALLED those who “peopled” these levels “Aeons,” but basically they were talking about “heavenly spirits.”
As regards your third point on the letter the woman wrote: I have two diverse comments: One is that I who am a woman have not ever in my life, ever, expected a man to consider me a “goddess…worthy of a man’s total worship and devotion.” What planet is that woman living on? I have had some very good relationships over my years–and never once did I consider that a man should so treat me. My attitude has always been that I’m a person; he’s a person. I have always treated the men with whom I’ve had relationships in just that way. And actually, I’ve always tho’t that sometimes problems with men I have had in work situations, etc., have come from the fact that I did not consider the MEN to be all knowing and to be deferred to. My problem, when one has arisen, has always seemed to be that I considered a man a human being just as I was a human being. With SOME men that attitude does not go over very well.
However, I must say that crumbs in bed [would] tend to annoy me–but simply that–annoy me; not throw the person out.
As to the woman who wrote the letter talking about men with “wrinkles”! For the life of me I can’t imagine what she’s talking about. In fact, I’ve often wondered about men on TV. If one looks closely at many of the men on TV, some of them have wrinkles that seem not to quit (not that that fact precludes what he might have to say). However, I definitely HAVE noticed that “wrinkles” on men on TV are simply overlooked whereas there simply are NO women on TV with the same type of wrinkles and/or show of the wear and tear of age. It’s obvious to me that TV has absolutely no place for women who actually may look their age.
For the life of me I simply do not know what planet the woman who wrote that letter might live on.
However, I WILL concede that BOTH men and women often rely waaaaaay tooooo much on first impressions and how a person LOOKS without consideri
Comment by MCS — April 6, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Jim,
As regards Hillary Clinton: All I have to say is PERHAPS. Perhaps she will lose the election. Then again, perhaps not. This Sunday morning while I was flipping thru political programs I happened to hear Howard Dean describe the delegate process in the Democratic Party. All I could think of was that the machinations of the process were truly worthy of Chicago politics. It seemed to me that only Chicago politicians could have thought of such a convoluted delegate process–and all the while staunchly maintaining that it’s the vote of the people that is important and must be respected. How Chicago! Perhaps the “Black Swan” (ala Taleb) will be Hillary; and when one thinks of it, actually, it WOULD be Hillary who would be the Black Swan coming out of nowhere in this case.
Furthermore, I tho’t that it seems to me that with this Democratic delegate process that is so filled with political machinations, the Democrats just may end up shooting themselves in the foot.
And another furthermore: It may be that if anyone would know how to work such a convoluted system, I’d put my money on Hillary in that case.
So, with such machinations going on somewhere in some Democratic “smoke-filled” room, all I can say is: It ain’t over until it’s over.
As regards what Jesus of Nazareth preached: I really don’t think the Jews of the first century thought too much in terms of ANY KIND of eternal life; that concept was a quite hazy one–sheol and all that.
As to the concept of “spirits in heaven”: You forget the many diverse groups that have come to be known in the 20th and 21st centuries as “the Gnostics.” If ever there was a diverse concept and group of “spirits in heaven,” the many diverse “Gnostics” certainly held such. In fact, one of the “Gnostic” documents is entitled, “Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth” [levels where “gods” or “heavenly spirits” resided]. In another document there is some mention of a TENTH level! The Gnostics may have CALLED those who “peopled” these levels “Aeons,” but basically they were talking about “heavenly spirits.”
As regards your third point on the letter the woman wrote: I have two diverse comments: One is that I who am a woman have not ever in my life, ever, expected a man to consider me a “goddess…worthy of a man’s total worship and devotion.” What planet is that woman living on? I have had some very good relationships over my years–and never once did I consider that a man should so treat me. My attitude has always been that I’m a person; he’s a person. I have always treated the men with whom I’ve had relationships in just that way. And actually, I’ve always tho’t that sometimes problems with men I have had in work situations, etc., have come from the fact that I did not consider the MEN to be all knowing and to be deferred to. My problem, when one has arisen, has always seemed to be that I considered a man a human being just as I was a human being. With SOME men that attitude does not go over very well.
However, I must say that crumbs in bed [would] tend to annoy me–but simply that–annoy me; not throw the person out.
As to the woman who wrote the letter talking about men with “wrinkles”! For the life of me I can’t imagine what she’s talking about. In fact, I’ve often wondered about men on TV. If one looks closely at many of the men on TV, some of them have wrinkles that seem not to quit (not that that fact precludes what he might have to say). However, I definitely HAVE noticed that “wrinkles” on men on TV are simply overlooked whereas there simply are NO women on TV with the same type of wrinkles and/or show of the wear and tear of age. It’s obvious to me that TV has absolutely no place for women who actually may look their age.
For the life of me I simply do not know what planet the woman who wrote that letter might live on.
However, I WILL concede that BOTH men and women often rely waaaaaay tooooo much on first impressions and how a person LOOKS without considering that it may be useful to get to know a person first before dismissing an individual as not worth getting to know. And those people who are such people, I simply have no desire to even become acquainted with. (And as an aside: I learned the lesson of not judging a person by first impressions very early in life–about third grade. I remember coming home from school year after year (for, OK 3 years) saying to my mother how much I absolutely LOVED a teacher; by the end of the year I, without exception, HATED that teacher. However, I also remember that when I got a teacher who I thought was going to be very “hard” and “tough” and whom I did not like, I distinctly remember that by the end of the year I, without exception, LOVED her. So even as a child I could figure that one out and it did not take me all that many years.
MCS
Comment by MCS — April 6, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Jim,
As regards Hillary Clinton: All I have to say is PERHAPS. Perhaps she will lose the election. Then again, perhaps not. This Sunday morning while I was flipping thru political programs I happened to hear Howard Dean describe the delegate process in the Democratic Party. All I could think of was that the machinations of the process were truly worthy of Chicago politics. It seemed to me that only Chicago politicians could have thought of such a convoluted delegate process–and all the while staunchly maintaining that it’s the vote of the people that is important and must be respected. How Chicago! Perhaps the “Black Swan” (ala Taleb) will be Hillary; and when one thinks of it, actually, it WOULD be Hillary who would be the Black Swan coming out of nowhere in this case.
Furthermore, I tho’t that it seems to me that with this Democratic delegate process that is so filled with political machinations, the Democrats just may end up shooting themselves in the foot.
And another furthermore: It may be that if anyone would know how to work such a convoluted system, I’d put my money on Hillary in that case.
So, with such machinations going on somewhere in some Democratic “smoke-filled” room, all I can say is: It ain’t over until it’s over.
As regards what Jesus of Nazareth preached: I really don’t think the Jews of the first century thought too much in terms of ANY KIND of eternal life; that concept was a quite hazy one–sheol and all that.
As to the concept of “spirits in heaven”: You forget the many diverse groups that have come to be known in the 20th and 21st centuries as “the Gnostics.” If ever there was a diverse concept and group of “spirits in heaven,” the many diverse “Gnostics” certainly held such. In fact, one of the “Gnostic” documents is entitled, “Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth” [levels where “gods” or “heavenly spirits” resided]. In another document there is some mention of a TENTH level! The Gnostics may have CALLED those who “peopled” these levels “Aeons,” but basically they were talking about “heavenly spirits.”
As regards your third point on the letter the woman wrote: I have two diverse comments: One is that I who am a woman have not ever in my life, ever, expected a man to consider me a “goddess…worthy of a man’s total worship and devotion.” What planet is that woman living on? I have had some very good relationships over my years–and never once did I consider that a man should so treat me. My attitude has always been that I’m a person; he’s a person. I have always treated the men with whom I’ve had relationships in just that way. And actually, I’ve always tho’t that sometimes problems with men I have had in work situations, etc., have come from the fact that I did not consider the MEN to be all knowing and to be deferred to. My problem, when one has arisen, has always seemed to be that I considered a man a human being just as I was a human being. With SOME men that attitude does not go over very well.
However, I must say that crumbs in bed [would] tend to annoy me–but simply that–annoy me; not throw the person out.
As to the woman who wrote the letter talking about men with “wrinkles”! For the life of me I can’t imagine what she’s talking about. In fact, I’ve often wondered about men on TV. If one looks closely at many of the men on TV, some of them have wrinkles that seem not to quit (not that that fact precludes what he might have to say). However, I definitely HAVE noticed that “wrinkles” on men on TV are simply overlooked whereas there simply are NO women on TV with the same type of wrinkles and/or show of the wear and tear of age. It’s obvious to me that TV has absolutely no place for women who actually may look their age.
For the life of me I simply do not know what planet the woman who wrote that letter might live on.
However, I WILL concede that BOTH men and women often rely waaaaaay tooooo much on first impressions and how a person LOOKS without consideri
Comment by MCS — April 6, 2008 @ 4:25 pm