Open thread: The Resurrection

December 19, 2014 • 1:00 pm

This is the ghost of Professor Ceiling Cat, summoned forth by his minions to create a forum for discussion.  In the thread below you can talk about whatever you want.

 

necro

 

This doesn’t even have to mention such topics as: which is better, The Walking Dead or Z Nation.

298 thoughts on “Open thread: The Resurrection”

  2. So, something I’ve been wondering. Is it Dr. Coyne, Professor Ceiling Cat/PCC, or Jerry?

    My thoughts:

    1. I sometimes feel bad using “Professor Ceiling Cat” or “PCC” because it’s funny and maybe not formal enough.

    2. But Dr. Coyne feels too stiff, even though I’ve used that too.

    3. And “Jerry” feels too familiar, but as I was reading in the roolz he wants the comment section to feel like a living room, so maybe it’s OK.

    I’m sure context is important too when it comes to what appellation is used. Is there a preference? I wish there was a rool about this. Has our host ever weighed in on this? Thoughts?

      1. Note that in ‘Tom and Jerry’, those exquisite cartoons, Jerry is the Mouse, not the Cat….

        ‘Professor ceiling mouse’ does not really sound all that well (notwithstanding the blind(?) mice in the ‘Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy’).

        1. They weren’t blind, they were projections in our reality of hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings, IIRC.

          Though they were somewhat malevolent, not intentionally homicidal like the Krikkit robots, more that they treated humans (and specifically Arthur Dent) like laboratory test subjects.

          1. I don’t know of any cases of lab rats being fed a slap-up meal before being told their brains were going to be prepared (diced) for duplication.
            Arthur, on his pedestal of sartorial elegance, was treated better than any lab rat of my acquaintance.

      1. I trust that after the publication of his latest tome several months hence, he will be the Literary Coyne of The Land.

          1. [Coin of the] Realm

            Are the Rebellious Colonials coming back under the loving wing of Queen Brenda of Saxe-Coberg Gotha? And are they going to pay their back taxes?

          7. The 2 Oakville Pier 1s disappeared about 10 years ago, but, coincidentally yesterday a friend was talking about one in Burlington…

          8. I go to the one in Ancaster sometimes. It’s fun just to look at all the little things they have. Sometimes there are good deals too – I got earrings there & scarves under $10.

          9. I used to get all kinds of goodies there when they were nearby: clothes, dishes, etc. I somehow thought they had completely left Canuckland.

          10. There is one in Kitchener I used to go to as well as one in Waterloo. Maybe they are just more prevalent toward Western Ontario.

          12. Yes the cat’s tail is in the back that you use for the handle. When I make tea in it, I refer to it as “kitty tea”.

          15. Great — give it a try!

            It’s a savory mint, more like oregano and thyme than like peppermint, just to set your anticipation appropriately. But quite tasty. Supposed to have various medicinal uses…including the treatment of migraine headaches…but, mostly, it’s just a pleasant-tasting member of the mint family.

            Except for cats….

            b&

  3. There are parts of me that need ressurection, but I can’t remember whhat they are. 😉

  4. The most recent Point of Inquiry with guest Frank Schaefer is really good. He’s the most articulate person I’ve every heard talk about religion. Josh Zepps, the host, is excellent too.

  5. Since the illustration is of Thread Necromancy (“some things refuse to die; others come back afterwards”) I thought I’d hunt down and post a funny parody someone nymed ‘skepticscott’ once wrote on Greta Christina’s bl*g. For your enjoyment:

    “Atheists often find themselves doomed to repeating Monty Python’s Banana Sketch with apologists.

    “Have we done Ontological arguments?”

    “Yes”

    “St. Anselm’s? Kalam?”

    “Yes”

    “Ha! Plantinga’s!”

    “We’ve done Plantinga’s.”

    “I bet we haven’t done First Cause, though!”

    “Done it.”

    “Fine Tuning?”

    “Yes…”

    “Argument from Design?”

    “YES!”

    “Right… the Trilemma! We haven’t done the Trilemma!”

    “We did the Trilemma last week.”

    “I see. Well it’s obvious you’re all just too proud and closed minded, and can’t bear the idea of being held morally accountable.”

    “We’ve done that one too.”

    And on and on it goes. I have no need to post an exhaustive list of all the philosopher’s I’ve read to know there isn’t a decent argument out there for exactly the same reason I don’t have to scour the scientific literature for the last 100 years to know we haven’t yet developed faster-than-light space travel, and for the same reason I don’t have to read every newspaper on the planet to know alien spacecraft did not land at the U.N. today. That kind of thing would be kind of important, and could not possibly be allowed by theists to rest in obscurity…”

          3. Blasphemy! Cats are gods! I should know — I’ve got one sleeping in the other room, just waiting for that big god in the sky to shine its warmth onto the bed….

            b&

  6. I guess Necromancy was part of the practice of witchcraft and kind of a preoccupation in the bible. Also got a lot of people killed back in the good old days of the dark ages and probably none of those killed are speaking now. If they could, however, they would probably tell us it was Christianity that did them in.

    1. Necromancy was very specifically communicating with the dead, not any other type of witch craft. Most of the people executed for witch craft were done for things rather less specific than that – curdling milk, giving people spots or making goats miscarry, that sort of thing.

    1. I am signed up too. I hope my spotty Internet service won’t be a problem.

      Another event coming soon is perihelion, January 4 at least in USA.

  10. Here’s a random question appropriate for a free-range discussion: What does the ‘sub’ mean in the comments of many of the posts?

    1. It means subscribe. It’s when people don’t want to comment but want to get an email from all the other comments so they check off the box and say sub.

      1. It doesn’t actually matter what you say, it’s ticking the ‘notify’ box that does the trick. I’m trying to start a trend of saying ‘banana’, in honour of Ray Comfort. 😉

          2. Thank you.

            For those of you who missed it, here’s Ray’s original banana video.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

            What makes it doubly hilarious is that the banana has… other uses related to its distinctive shape, so the whole of Ray’s eloquent discourse has a double meaning. I can’t watch it without cracking up. A regrettable commentary on the state of my mind, I know.

  11. Very apropos timing. The Sun, after all, is all set to die, lay low in its grave for three days, and reemerge from the solstice in all its glory.

    And yet another reminder of just how perverted Christianity is, celebrating the birth of their god at this time of year. Silly Christians! The birth should be celebrated in the springtime when everything else is being born. The winter solstice is the time for celebrating the death and resurrection. Only some sick and fucked up death cult would cross those two streams!

    b&

      1. Christianity – getting it wrong for over 2000 years.

        If you take the conventional chronology (ohh, bunfight!!!) then the religion started as a preaching sandal-foot walking around in the Levant around 1990 years ago – the exact numbers are by no means clear. But Christianity as a noticeable enough religion to be used as a scapegoat for arson and lion food (you want a fair size of cult for persecution ; lions go through a lot of cultists, and they don’t re-grow very well), that’s barely 1950 years old.

    2. If I correctly recall, in (putatively Christian)cemeteries the deceased are laid to rest “facing” the East and the rising sun, emblematic of resurrection.

      Word connections:

      East, Easter, Oestrus. (Esther? Ester? Polyester?)

      Wither “west”?

      (This gin and tonic is particu,larly tasteful and – to use Hitch’s word “restorative” – at the moment.)

        1. The more I learn, the less I learn that I know. I confess my ignorance. Would you please enlighten me? 😉

          1. Bombay Sapphire is a brand of gin. though I don’t recall seeing it outside Britain’s rain-drenched shores. If you’re international, you’re more likely familiar with Gordon’s gin.
            Gin is, of course, a Dutch drink : vodka-like spirits soaked with juniper (“genever”, hence “gin”) berries to cover up the fusel oil taste from sloppy quick-n-dirty distillation.
            Hmmm, podcast pointing out that the first solid matter in the Earth, shortly after the Moon-forming impact, was actually near the core-mantle boundary, and therefore the tidal heating from the evolution of the Moon heated this base-mantle layer. HENCE the mantle would have been pretty well stirred, AND separated from contact with the core(s) by a (few hundred km thick) rock layer. Now, how does that square with the evidence form diamond inclusions for primordial or at least Hadean variations in mantle chemistry. SETI Institute podcasts are a lot better than watching the sea washing the windows 100ft above sea “level”.

          2. We do indeed have Bombay Sapphire here in winter-bound eastern Virginia and very fine martinis it does make.
            As for dutch gin the less said the better it is no way comparable to English gin. In fact Genever was so bad, and so cheap (remember “Gin Lane” – drunk for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence?) that it was used as ballast in the empty ships heading from Europe to New France in the days of the fur trade. Unloaded at Quebec it was one of the few liquors available to the habitants, who could not afford the fine wines and cognacs imported for the governing aristos, and to this day is commonly consumed in francophone parts of Canada.

          3. Winter-bound eastern VA is right! We were just there, driving through from Toronto area, and hiking a bit of the App Trail, and it was colder than home!!

          4. Having run several of my own stills – not for nothing am I “Science Officer” of the Aberdeen University Celtic Society – I know the history of spirits well enough. I didn’t know Bombay Sapphire got to the States though. I acquired a taste for gin in anglophone East Africa, which meant “Gordon’s.” But I expect Bombay would work as well.

          5. Bombay Sapphire is available at most airport duty frees! And most of the U.S. hotel bars I’ve visited (not a few).

            Bombay Sapphire East is even better, but I haven’t tried the even more expensive Bombay Amber yet… anyone?

            Hendrik’s (cucumber flavoured) isn’t at all bad, though.

            /@

            PS. Favourite whiskeys: Laphroaig, Smokehead, Caol Isla. Favourite rums: Sailor Jerry (of course!), Kraken, Ten Cane (hard to find).

    4. Only someone living in the northern hemisphere could say that.. I am sitting here steaming in high humidity. It is all crimson and white around my place, Pohutakawa (Metrosideros excelsa)and manuka (Leptospermum scoparium)trees in full bloom. So by your description, they, being them, can’t even get that right

      1. Oh, well…we generally give our hemispherically-challenged friends a pass on these sorts of things, considering that y’all do pretty much everything umop-apisdn.

        b&

    5. “Only some sick and fucked up death cult would cross those two streams!”

      An apposite reference, considering the list of curses:

      “Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes! Volcanoes!”
      “The dead rising from the grave!”
      “Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!”

      (I thought Sigourney as the possessed chick was really sexy btw).

    1. Agree on voices, but do like the orange cat with fat whiskers who keeps trying to wake up his “Dude.”

        1. Since the guy sleeping would know that neither the FSM nor the invisible pink unicorn had hit him with the baseball bat, and no other human appeared to be around, in fit of deductive Holmsian reasoning he might be tempted to turn the bat on the feline in retribution.

          1. Fortunately, Simon’s Cat is much smarter than Simon.

            And Baihu, as is right and proper, knows he can launch any sort of attack without fear of reprisal.

            b&

  14. With this being the season of Jesus’ birth and all, why is it never mentioned that Virgin Mary was essentially raped? Taken at face value, God had non-consensual sex with Mary and she bore His son. Of course, no atheist believes in the virgin birth, and a high percentage don’t believe in the historicity of Jesus, but I find it strange that fatheists don’t find a problem with this rape narrative. Actually, I don’t find it strange, rather typical of religious people’s shallow misogynist thinking. Other than Greek myths, what other religions use rape by the divine as a core causation of doctrine?

    1. Right. As a courtesy, and extending reasonable and appropriate consideration, to Mary, might not Got first make a congenial inquiry of her regarding this prospective and significant event in her life?

      “Mary, this is what I am contemplating. How do you feel about that? Do you feel that you should have any say in the matter?”

      2. “Do you feel that you should have any say in the matter?”

        I feel that you haven’t quite got the point of patriarchial dominance. Off to the “Remedial Rap Lyrics 1.0.1 course for you!

          1. True, since she acquiesced to that which had been imposed on her without her prior agreement. As with Job, so with any female humane – who she to oppose the Author of the Universe?

      2. Only after the fact, according to the Wholly Babble.

        Give a girl you’ve never met Rohypnol and “take advantage” of her and it’s still rape, even if she says she’s cool with it the next when she wakes up at your place with no clue about what happened until you tell her.

        Not that I can imagine anybody being cool with that sort of thing, even if the perp is incredibly good-looking / wealthy / powerful / whatever. But, again, after-the-fact consent doesn’t change the rape into something it wasn’t, even if it means prosecution is less likely.

        b&

          1. Yes, go read Luke 1. The opening verse makes plain it’s hearsay.

            Matthew was written before Luke, and is the first mention of the Virgin Birth. Ignoring, of course, for the moment, that the entire thing is pure fiction, this means that Matthew is more authoritative than Luke.

            And Matthew makes quite plain Luke’s lie:

            Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

            19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

            20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

            21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

            22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

            23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

            Unless, of course, you’d like to claim that it was Matthew who was lying and Luke the Latecomer was telling the truth…?

            b&

          2. The argument that Matthew is older and therefore more authoritative is absurd. Christians do not interpret their gospels this way. Their response would be something like, “Matthew simply leaves out the events found in the Lucan account, but this doesn’t mean they never happened for we can all see they did as related by Luke.” There is nothing in Matthew’s account that would contradict this reading. Matthew would be seen to have different interests in relating his account, or even presenting a condensed version of a longer account that Luke had access to.

          3. Their response would be something like, “Matthew simply leaves out the events found in the Lucan account, but this doesn’t mean they never happened for we can all see they did as related by Luke.”

            Sorry, but that type of apologetics is such transparent bullshit that I can’t believe that anybody who puts it forth even expects it to be taken seriously. It’s on a par with, “Of course Santa’s handwriting looks just like Mommy’s; he writes like that because he knows you like the way Mommy writes!”

            b&

          4. Nevertheless you can attack a straw man or address the substance of the apology. Either way your contempt is meaningless in the context of reasoned debate.

          5. What “reasoned debate”? The question is whether or not some comic book archnemesis raped an about-to-be-married teen girl in order to give birth to his clone. Where on Earth in any of that is there room for reason?

            b&

          6. Okay, since you seem to have all the answers, here’s something I always wondered about. Was Jesus born at home in Bethlehem (Matthew), far from home in Bethlehem (Luke), or anywhere but Bethlehem (John)?

          7. Ugh. I just had a flashback – I had to translate that exact passage from Greek. Funny as my bible version had the ghost show up in a vision while the Greek, like your passage says in a dream.

          8. It’s all Greek to me!

            …but I generally always quote from the King James Bible. If for no other reason than that it’s out of copyright.

            Let that sink in for a moment: the Word of God is protected by copyright, and the copyright is held by humans….

            b&

          9. “put her away privily” — Does anyone know what means of disposal of non-virgin girlfriends was implied?

          11. That is decidedly not the case. The amount of misinformation you both hold and spread is staggering and counter the very spirit of truth-seeking.

          12. Sorry, but, if you’re expecting anybody here to buy your apologetics, you’re not going to get any sales.

            Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

            Unless, of course, you were trying to indicate that the manner of death might not be stoning, but being burnt alive? I could see that interpretation, given a verse a few lines farther down:

            14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

            But YHWH the Jealous Lord sure is big on stoning as a general rule:

            27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

            Pro tip: never try to win a Bible-quoting battle with an atheist. We’re the ones who’ve actually read the bloody thing, remember?

            Cheers,

            b&

          13. “they shall stone them with stones” –Shucks, It had to be so specific. I was hoping for stoning by smoking weed.

          15. One of my favorite Stones songs! First time I’ve seen this sailor suit version. wonder how they protected the instruments from the bubbles? Keef clearly got his teef fixed after this;-). These guys collectively seem to have the world’s skinniest butts…

          16. Oh, I’m sure those instruments were throwaways and unquestionably not plugged in.uiyhu

            Not entirely sure what Baihu means by, “uiyhu,” but I think it’s some variant on, “Feed me neow!”

            b&

          17. In your patting yourself on the back you miss the very point of the passage regarding Joseph’s decision to put Mary away quietly as opposed to have her stoned and read the passage in a way that no Christian (or certainly very few Christians) have ever read it. Once again you construct a version of Christian faith and interpretation that is a chimera. I think I’ve wasted enough time here. If you should ever desire to have a conversation in which your uninformed personal constructions of Christianity are set aside in order to listen and perhaps learn (and therefore offer the possibility of making an informed critique) I’ll be around.

          18. If you should ever desire to have a conversation in which your uninformed personal constructions of Christianity are set aside in order to listen and perhaps learn (and therefore offer the possibility of making an informed critique) I’ll be around.

            How generous of you.

            If you’re serious about that, we could cut to the chase.

            Why on Earth should anybody even think to take Christianity or anything in the Bible seriously in the first place?

            b&

          20. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

            “Put her away privily” – what does that mean?
            Send her to Auntie Josephina at the seaside for an 8 month holiday and have the bastard adopted/ sold/ strangled?
            Send her to Auntie Jospehina, who organises for her to get stoned locally, where Joseph’s neighbours are unlikely to find out about the bastard?
            Or just strangle her at home and throw her down the privy. Maybe get some witnesses to her falling down the stairs a few times, or use a convenient slave to do a “Rape of Lucretia” on her?
            Lots of possible interpretations there. None of them very nice.
            Where’d I see that Roman cup with the moulding of a woman being executed in the arena for adultery recently … a bit NSFW, so it wasn’t on this machine. Whatever … the execution involved a trained donkey. Trained and male. And the arena.
            Ohh, big wave! hitting the underside of the rig, not going around the arena!

          22. We got it already. Though the wind is dropping, so the seas are building back up. If the weather forecast pans out, we either get going on Monday, or we’re stuffed for the rest of the week. To mis-quote Brad Pitt (I think) as Mickey The Pikey, “not proper stuffed” though.

        2. If God were female, then Female would have to transdescend to Earth and seek out a penile protuberance. (Or maybe not? Apparently these things can be accomplished without any material, physical contact. What was Jesus’s genotype?)

    3. Mary wasn’t raped. She had a naughty with some random guy, found she was up the duff, wondered how to explain her unfortunate condition to Joseph who presumably was firing blanks at his age (if indeed he was firing at all), came up with the angel idea, and mirabile dictu, Joseph bought it. Of course maybe Joseph found it convenient to believe it, if Mary was good-looking. At least that’s the conclusion I came to decades ago and I’ve never seen any reason to change it.

      Mary probably got the idea from Greek myths as Mark R mentioned, Zeus used to have his way with mortal women all the time.

      2. That was the suggestion from the Rabbis of a century or three later — see “Pandera,” for example.

        Of course, Mary is even more of a fiction than Jesus, if that makes sense. Jesus had already been a Jewish archangel, YHWH’s high priest and a lot more, for a significant fraction of a millennium, by the time of the Caesars. Paul is the first evidence of a Jesus cult, and Mark is the first-known euhemerized biography of Jesus. And Matthew, which is a later re-write of Mark, is where we get the first-ever mention of Mary.

        b&

      3. More than one of Abraham Lincoln’s acquaintances in New Salem during the early 1830s report that he was then atheistic enough openly to ‘call Christ a bastard.’ He probably got the story from Voltaire’s ‘An Important Study of the Holy Scriptures,’ in which the great sage interpolates a Hebrew story of Jesus’ paternity called ‘Toldos Jeschut:’ Mary committed adultery with a Roman soldier named Pander, with a bastard Jesus the result.

        A fascinating aspect of Voltaire’s retelling is that Jesus was civilly scorned for his bastardy, refused schooling because of it, and spent his short wretched life railing against the establishment and its priests, until finally denounced (by Judas)as as a heretic and put to death.

        2. That’s interesting, Monty Python evidently heard of that since Brian was the son of a Roman soldier who claimed to be a centurion and gave his name as Naughtious Maximus. Which led directly to the ‘giggling soldiery’ scene which i think was the funniest scene ever filmed.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8_jgiNqUc

      4. Ockham’s razor would indicate that Maryam and Yussef slightly anticipated the wedding and came up with the angel/doG story to cover up their “sin”. Complicity is the reason Yussef – a good jew – did not have Maryam stoned to death.
        As for Yussef shooting blanks, according to the scriptures Maryam got pregnant and delivered at least five more times…

        1. Okay, correction acknowledged. I was unaware that Mary had further kids.

          Your suggestion that Joseph was the father and they just jumped the gun does seem equally credible. I did recall some suggestion that Joseph was very much older than Mary, maybe I was wrong there.

          (Of course stoning to death for anything is barbaric, far more so for a purely civil (i.e. not criminal) ‘offence’ like adultery).

  15. Ack, “Jesus’s”…attack of the improper use of apostrophes continue. I do wish you could edit posts after they have posted.

    1. And then I don’t reply to my own post, but start a new one. I best just give up while I’m ahead.

    2. “Jesus’ birth” is, in fact, quite proper.

      From “The Elements of Style”:

      Form the possessive singular of nouns with ‘s.

      Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus’, and such forms as for conscience’ sake, for righteousness’ sake.

  16. Mary’s consent from Luke 1:

    The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.”

    “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

    1. How romantic…somehow to me, it seems she wasn’t asked, rather told this was going to happen. Can consent exist without choice?

          1. I assume you’re referring to Matthew, not Mark. And it’s clear you’re not interested in careful consideration of other people’s words.

          1. Not even a two sestertii whore …
            Mind you, even at one sestertius, she’d have been able to buy a small transport herd of asses with one good night’s work (4 per sestertius!) Or maybe that would be the price to buy her outright?
            What was the price of lion food in the early Augustinian period?

          4. Only rarely & under certain emperors. Christian persecution by the Romans is greatly exaggerated, typically by Christians. They were passivists after all so they made for a rather boring spectical.

          5. Can you imagine saying something similar about Yazidi families as they’re being attacked by ISIS? “It made for a rather boring spectacle.” This is perhaps one of the most cold-hearted comments I’ve ever read.

          8. This governor of Asia appeared to me bored and exasperated with Christians asking to be martyred:

            The earliest Christian martyrs, tortured and killed by Roman officials enforcing worship of the emperors, won so much fame among their co-religionists that others wished to imitate them to such an extent that a group presented themselves to the governor of Asia, declaring themselves to be Christians, and calling on him to do his duty and put them to death. He executed a few, but as the rest demanded it as well, he responded, exasperated, “You wretches, if you want to die, you have cliffs to leap from and ropes to hang by.”

            The Romans weren’t really known for their multi-cultural sympathies (in fairness none of the Ancients were) and their humour would be rather shocking to us today (making fun of ugly people, disabled people, foreigners). Are you saying the Romans actually felt bad on the few occasions Christians were persecuted? Are you saying that Christians were persecuted the same as those others you listed or are you just tone trolling and if you’re tone trolling who are you trolling me or the Romans?

            felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas

          9. It’s quite a stretch to use this quotation to support your contention that the Romans found the spectacle of dying Christians boring (there’s actually no reference here at all to the spectacle as such, only to a ruler’s frustration with their frequent intent to die). Not only that you’ve supplied a quotation that refutes your contention that Christian martyrs were passive. On the contrary, these Christians are portrayed as actively seeking out martyrdom.

            As far as your questions to me, I’ve made no suggestions regarding the Roman attitude to dying Christians. I suspect you’ve been caught making a statement about Roman attitudes that cannot be supported, and this to justify your own crass comments.

          11. I haven’t made a single ad hominem comment. As for my knowledge of “classical history” it’s not bad…

          13. Of course it isn’t “factual” it’s subjective. But that doesn’t make it ad hominem. If I had called Diana herself crass certainly.

          14. You asked me this:

            Perhaps you can provide a source in which the Romans referred to the boring spectacle of dying Christians.

            I did. This Roman was bored. Furthermore, he just really wasn’t broken up about it. Guess what else Romans said sick slaves should not be given much food; they saw them as farm equipment with mouths – am I crass for saying that too or is it Cato?

            But, here if you insist on spectacle in particular, here is someone remarking on the Roman attitude to martyrs in spectacle….it’s actually pretty commonly known among Classicists.

            The martyrs compliance in their own deaths and their defiance of authority infuriated spectators. After some initial novelty value, and even with costumes and spectacular forms of death, Christians provided a rather poor show….a steady sequence of spectacles with Christians would soon become boring for most Romans.

            Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome By Donald G. Kyle

            The author is referencing the ancient Roman historian Eusebius. I guess Kyle and Eusebius are crass too. Well, I guess I’m in good company. Jeez, I better not say that Stalin was a hard ass. I might be seen as rather rude.

            And I didn’t say passive, I said Christians were pacifists (or meant to if I misspelled); they didn’t fight to live – that’s what makes a rather boring game. Romans liked the bloodshed and the suffering. Just dying wasn’t really interesting to them. It’s why they watched bear baiting and they had gladiators fight each other that were matched well enough to put on a show not just easily defeat one another or engage in a stalemate or long drawn out battle. Even Aurelius found gladiatorial combat in general boring.

          15. I hope you don’t use all your sources this way. I’m familiar with the work in question and decided to look it up for myself.

            Here’s the section quoted properly:

            “They were not skillful performers like gladiators, so they received no hope or privileges. Their use [the Christian’s] is best explained by Roman hatred or religious anxiety, as punitive executions or propitiatory sacrifices, not by their entertainment value. A steady sequence of spectacles with Christians would soon become boring for most Romans.”

            You are just plain wrong that Kyle is referencing Eusebius here. The footnote makes it clear he is drawing on a reference to Eusebius made by Millar :

            “Eusebius, Mart. Pal. 7.4, 8.2–3, cited by Millar (1992) 1995, reports that, of the
            Christians condemned in Palestine around AD 307 to fight as gladiators or to be sent to
            the beasts or mines, the ones condemned to be gladiators refused to be trained or
            even maintained by the imperial treasury.”

            As you can see this makes your question regarding whether I think Eusebius is also being crass all the more absurd. Eusebius is saying absolutely nothing about the spectacle of Christian deaths, but rather gladiatorial training and subsidizing.

            As far as any legitimate expressions of boredom at the death of Christians (sources of which you haven’t actually provided, certainly not in your mistaken reading of Eusebius), yes I would find it crass, whether it was Caesar, or Kyle (who never actually says this) or Diana.

            I’ll accept your pacifism correction. I read it more as “passive” rather than pacifistic.

          16. Properly? How did I quote improperly? You just included a separate section of the larger quote. Are you saying I somehow cherry picked the quote? It’s exactly the same as you quoted except yours starts earlier in the text. Moreover, the footnote clearly speaks to Eusebius’s description of how the Christians were treated during spectacle and their reaction to it. Besides, how does the quote (even the “proper” one you provide) not reference boredom at Christian pacifism in a spectacle? Did you read the footnote? The one that says “The day of beast fighting was specifically arranged for the Christians….”?

            I’m not really understanding how I am so crass. I’m such a horrid person for pointing out that Romans were cruel and providing evidence to their cruelty and boredom if the cruelty wasn’t bloody enough? I really don’t get it. The way you were offended that I may have said “passive” when I meant “pacifist” clearly shows you were trying to fulfill your confirmation bias that atheists treat Christians badly and laugh at their torture. When you realized that wasn’t what I was doing, you tried to discredit my evidence in the weirdest way, asserting that I misread Eusebius and can’t quote things by simply providing a different portion of the same passage.

            It’s ironic that you call me “cold hearted” when everything I’ve said has been the opposite (though perhaps I’ve been less charitable to the Roman lust for bloody spectacle – if that makes me cold-hearted then I’m fine standing with the early Church who had the games stopped. Oh, but I’m sure you’ll assert that I misinterpreted those texts too.

          17. It’s more clear now that your original post didn’t reflect your own opinion about Christian martyrdom but rather your (inadequate) understanding of the Roman one. It wasn’t entirely obvious at the time and perhaps I should have asked for further clarification. In my defense the comment was full of spelling errors.

            As far as reading the footnote, “The day of beast fighting was specifically arranged for the Christians…” is not found in the footnotes but the main text of Kyle’s work. This section says nothing at all about boredom:

            “Eusebius (37) says that a day of beast-fighting was specifically arranged for the
            Christians, but he initially mentions only four Christians (Maturus, Sanctus, Blandina,
            and Attalus) ‘led into the amphitheater to be exposed to the beasts and to give a public spectacle of the pagans’ inhumanity’. Preliminary torments followed (38):‘Once again they ran the gauntlet of whips (according to the local custom), the
            mauling of animals, and anything else that the mad mob from different places shouted for and demanded. And to crown all they were put in the iron seat, from which their roasted flesh filled the audience with its savour.’ In the end (39) ‘they were sacrificed after being made all day long a spectacle to the world to replace the varied entertainment of the gladiatorial combat’.”

            You’re almost certainly wrong about the crowd becoming enraged at the Christians due to their boring performance. As Kyle himself says before quoting this passage:

            “Death and disposal here combined both instrumental and expressive violence, both pragmatism and emotionalism, both expiation and vengeance.”

            Boredom isn’t listed as one of the official emotions informing the spectacle. Just a few lines further:

            “Christians under torture refused to blaspheme, arousing more anger in the governor and the torturers.”

            Again boredom isn’t understood as one of the reasons for their anger, but here a failure to “blaspheme”. You’d have to read quite a bit into this to arrive at boredom.

            To clarify, I never called you cold-hearted, but your comments. If you can’t separate these two things we’re in trouble. A person can hold uninformed views without being a stupid person. In much the same way one can critique a person’s ideas without attacking the person herself. It seems to me this blog often engages in this very thing, a battle of ideas rather than direct attacks on people.

            Further, I never claimed you have a deficit reading Roman historians. You certainly misread this section in Kyle, but I don’t suggest you do this across the board.

            What has turned out to be an initial misreading of an ambiguous comment has turned into a comedy of errors. What on earth makes you think I’m concerned about you “besmirching Christians” for example? I do have a concern for truth however, and so I’ve merely pointed out the shortcomings of your unsubstantiated claims (although at first I merely wanted to see the evidence for these claims). If one contemporary historian says the Romans “would” (read “would probably”) get bored with a continual parade of Christian martyrs, very good. But that’s still an interpretation, and certainly not supported by any of the sources you’ve quoted (your mention of Aurelius seems at least promising, though of course this wasn’t in reference to Christian martyrs). It’s just finally not convincing.

          18. So since me and every Classics professor as well as the historian I quoted are wrong about how Romans viewed Christians in a spectacle, can you elucidate for us how they did view the spectacle. If they weren’t as we say, then you must know what their views were and of course provide evidence for this view.

          19. I’ve never found an argumentum ad numerum very convincing. One is immediately suspicious when it’s combined with an argumentum ab auctoritate to form what must seem like an impenetrable defense to the more gullible. How impressive to be faced with you and “every Classics professor” as well as Kyle (who you still claim supports your contention even though he was speaking in the subjunctive)! It’s all smoke and mirrors in the end and begs the usual questions when confronted with such a disappointing response. It’s ironic that these two fallacies are also used by the faithful to justify their position. I suppose had you lived in the 17th century you would be convinced the world was the center of the solar system if in 1633 you were told “every Theology professor” insisted it was so.

            So far you have not brought forward a single ancient source to support your claim. Your reference to Eusebius is obviously an error, and you used him to lend support to your reading of Kyle. It was a fragile house of cards that didn’t stand up to the slightest breeze. Either give us the ancient sources on which “every Classics professor” base their conclusions or perhaps rethink your contention. I’ll be happy either way, having added further nuance to my understanding of early Roman attitudes to Christian martyrdom in the former, and been satisfied that I’ve played some part in encouraging others to reflect on their unsupported beliefs in the latter.

          20. So far you have not brought forward a single ancient source to support your claim.

            Except, of course, she has. And you’ve yet to provide countering evidence.

            Yes, yes. You disagree with her interpretation. But the plain language of the texts she’s quoted is quite clear; your contention is that Christians weren’t themselves bored, so, therefore, the Romans somehow weren’t bored — something that could only possibly make sense to an apologist.

            And, ’round these here parts, apologists are generally viewed as a most sorry lot, indeed.

            b&

          21. Blah blah blah more accusations more bluster but you still haven’t answered my question.

          22. Oh, and while we’re at it, since you assert I have a deficit reading Roman historians, what do you think the Romans felt about Christian spectacle and of course, provide your sources and quotes (properly).

          23. Ironically I just read this quote from Eusebius in Kyle a little further down the page:

            “Eusebius says that the Christian victims (7) ‘heroically endured all that the people
            en masse heaped on them: abuse, blows, dragging, despoiling, stoning, imprisonment,
            and all that an enraged mob is likely to inflict on their most hated enemies’.”

            According to Eusebius, this “enraged mob” sounded anything but bored..

          24. You really don’t get it do you? That’s what they hated – that the Christians endured things heroically. BORING! They wanted suffering and struggle. Try for one moment to stop thinking I’m trying to besmirch Christians and you’ll see you’re arguing the same thing I am!

          25. @JP
            “Can you imagine saying something similar about Yazidi families as they’re being attacked by ISIS? “It made for a rather boring spectacle.” This is perhaps one of the most cold-hearted comments I’ve ever read.”

            Oh, way to manufacture false outrage. ISIS are evil bastards and the Yazidi deserve our sympathy; and they certainly deserve better than to be used as a cheap debating point in a straw-man argument by the likes of you, JP. Diana never mentioned ISIS or Yazidis, I’d like to see your justification for bringing it up?

            As for the ancient Christians, nobody really gives a flying fuck about who did what to who and how, 2000 years ago, except in some sort of academic sense. The successors to those ancient Xtians got their revenge over the centuries on much of the rest of the world, some of them were just as evil bastards as the Romans. Some of them *were* Romans. But really, if a casual comment about some event 2K years ago strikes you as cold-hearted you must move in sheltered circles.

    2. It’s a story, that’s all. But this ‘all’ is sufficient, what humankind needs as a foundation for morale: stories about new life and lives. ‘Magnificat anima mea dominum.’ Some of the most beautiful music we have is composed over this text. Here’s one atheist who is moved at the celebration of birth and motherhood. No ‘holy spirit,’ no transcendence, no afterlife: just Mary’s deep feelings of ‘wonder and joy’ at knowing she’s with child, ahead of the birth pangs and the hard life to come.

      2. Yep, I was about to say it shoulda been “in”, not “on”, for best results

        But I decided not to go there… shoulda known that sooner or later somebody would 😉

  18. Can any of the biologists here tell me if a partial hydatidiform mole and a parasitic twin count as organisms?

    I know that an organism is supposed to be capable of spontaneous life, but zygotes and embryos are considered to be organisms, so why can’t a partial mole and a parasitic twin also be included?

    1. I think an organism should be considered to be a distinct whole that interacts with its environment. Parasitic twins do not do this, moles even less so.

      I saw video on That’s Incredible once of a man with a second partially formed face on the side of his head. It had lips that smiled when he smiled, but did not smile on its own. It was thus not a separate organism even though it was a large and fairly distinct parasitic twin.

      I’m pretty sure this case was the basis for Nurse Gollum from South Park.

        1. It rules out parasitic twins as organisms, but allows embryos to be considered as organisms.

          Of course, many kinds of embryos can survive only in highly specialized and regulated environments. The amniotic eggs of birds and reptiles, and the uteruses of mammals are the most familiar examples. There are quite a few others.

          1. But, like parasitic twins, can’t many embryos simply not survive without the use of the organs of another body? Seeing as how their organs are not yet formed?

            Human embryo vs human parasitic twin

            Both survive by attaching onto another human and leeching resources, as their own bodies are incapable of sustaining autonomous life

          2. Many times embryos cannot survive without specialized help, such as the eggs of birds and reptiles as I mentioned, along with the mammalian uterus. There are also gas and waste exchange systems in livebearing sharks, and also in many freshwater fish.

            Parasitic twins are never functionally independent. I would not not even agree that they “leech” resources. There’s not anyone really there.

            Embryos are at least partially independent and have the potential to become clearly distinct organisms. Parasitic twins can never become distinct organisms.

          3. There’s no one home in an embryo either, at least not until all of the organs, including the brain are formed, no?

            And I don’t like basing an argument on potential – ‘well it might become an independent organism if the DNA is read, interpreted and expressed after 9 months of gestation during which anything can go wrong’.

            What matters is, is it an organism, right now, regardless of potential.

          4. But, like parasitic twins, can’t many embryos simply not survive without the use of the organs of another body?

            Huge numbers – probably the large majority of embryos – are formed by the fusion of egg and sperm free-floating in the sea, when the embryo forms completely separated from either parent. You seem to be restricting yourself to thinking of the embryos of organisms that practice internal fertilisation, which is a rarity amongst those organisms that practice sexual reproduction, which is itself not the commonest form of alternation of generations. and then there are the majority of organisms which simply don’t practice anything more complex than fission. (Unless you consider conjugation to be a form of sexual reproduction.)

          1. Thanks for your answer. This stuff is so confusing, as I have had people tell me that sperm and ova are *not* organisms, and that they are in fact *dead*, or that they are simply mindless mechanical entities, or something like a virus.

            Could a partial hydatidiform mole or parasitic twin be considered an organism though?

            Both are made of fetal tissue, even if deformed
            Both are incapable of spontaneous life, like an embryo, they need the organs of another to survive, and upon separation from those organs, they die
            And to a degree, they are capable of responding to outside stimuli.

          2. I would go with the view that sperm and oocytes are still cells belonging to a larger organism, even when ejaculated / ovulated. A new organism is made upon fertilization.

      2. ” . . . a man with a second partially formed face on the side of his head. It had lips that smiled when he smiled, but did not smile on its own.”

        I gather that God “allowed” this, all for some Higher Purpose.

  19. If anybody is interested in Special Relativity (online, math-based, intro level, with tests, grading and certification), taught by Professor Brian Greene, registration at:
    World Science University

    There are other courses by Alan Guth, Andre Linde, Max Tegmark as well.

  21. Re Wednesday post:

    Is it OK for a professor to reveal their beliefs on the final day of class if they have withheld them up until that time and it is relevant to the subject matter of the course (probably history, philosophy or religion)? Some say yes, some say no.

    I took a class on the history of philosophy in the 17th and 18th century in the 1970s. On the very last day of class, the prof (Alan Kors, co-founder of FIRE- there’s a Wikipedia article on him) stated in no uncertain terms he was an atheist having been up to that time very withholding.

    OK or not OK??

    1. IMHO, just stating it on the last day is, at most, a minor offense. It is not proselytizing.

        1. Sure it can:

          Proselytize:convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

          It doesn’t have to be a religion.

          One can proselytize for fracking or smoking.

          1. Of course I could say there is a lot more evidence for atheism than for religion. Would you say that scientists prosoletize for science? I guess it depends on your definition. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your definition, I just wonder if it would be wrong to say there is no evidence of a god when talking to one’s students.

          2. I would not say that most scientists proselytize for science. Proselytizing is when one continually advocates a position, bringing it up at inappropriate times, arguing that it solves most problems, that it is the one-and-only answer. Proselytizing and mentioning a topic are very different degrees of behavior.

    2. In the classroom, it’s probably only called for if there’s a need for a “full disclosure.” And I’ll be damned if I can think of an example in an American state-run institution where such a disclosure would be called for.

      If a student asks, the first instinct should probably be to turn it into an opportunity to emphasize that the subject is more important than whatever the professor thinks of it. If the students insists, suggest that’s a subject best discussed over a cup of coffee at the student union, and then move on.

      b&

      1. Interesting qualifier about the state-run institution.

        In case you looked up Alan Kors’ bio on Wikipedia, it should be clarified that “University of Pennsylvania” is the ONLY school named U of one of the 50 states that is NOT a state-run institution.

        It was however, America’s very first wholly secular, non-church-affiliated school as founded by Ben Franklin followed shortly thereafter by Jefferson creating the University of Virginia along the same lines- however, the latter eventually aligned itself with the state of Virginia, while U of P remains a wholly private institution.

        You can get T-shirts in the campus book store that say “Not Penn State” (at least you could in the 1970s when I was an undergrad there.)

      2. I have never had a student press me on the issue, but I would never disclose my views about religion in the classroom or even in my office.
        After grades were in, I might. But I would be very careful.

    3. What has atheism (or not) got to do with a course in straight philosophy?
      If it were “philosophy of religion” then I could understand it. But straight philosophy, I don’t see the relevance.
      In answering this question I should reveal that I “dress to the left” (or right) on alternating days. If you think that is relevant.

      1. Sorry, “history of philosophy” not straight philosophy. But then, even less relevant.

    4. “OK or not OK?”

      I don’t see why not. College kids are (supposedly) adults. It’s an opportunity for opening minds.

  22. I love this guy, instructing his teenaged kids on how to change a toilet paper roll.
    /www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN0Y2EZuvTU#t=27

    (Bring on the TP wars now.. ;P

    1. I saw that one before. Can’t remember how I came upon it. I was disappointed in the orientation.

        1. I would have if I could get to them but they were those giant rolls locked behind some strange contraption.

          2. Those giant rolls in the giant contraptions that make it hard to get past them to get to the toilet. Why don’t they install them on inside wall of the stall – the one you don’t have to walk past???

          3. Because that wall is frequently tiled. Ever tried drilling through a glazed tile without cracking it? Twice.
            I wouldn’t be surprised to find that some fibreboard (whatever machined wood-a-like) partitions come ready drilled for mounting rolls “back to back”. Bang – you’ve just saved 20 minutes on erecting each partition. That adds up when you’re fitting out a shop/ hotel/ oil rig/ whatever.

          4. But that would assume that about half of them would be on the side that makes it easier to get into the stall, and in my experience, almost none of them are on that side…

          5. A point. but who’s to say that they were rationally designed.
            Then again, the width standards have definitely changed over the years, and that’s assuming that they’re actually followed (plans do get checked for these things; but whether you tell the plumber to fit 6 stalls or the 5 in the plans is up to the site manager). The Victorian toilets in the centre of town are inconveniently narrow at about 0.8m, modern ones are about a metre (3.3ft) and many modern ones are approaching 1.5m.

          9. I guess cause you’d whack people when you came out, or those with their ears to the doors:-)

            Typo ergo sum Merilee

            >

          10. No, no, you’re in a hurry to get in, not out. 😀

            Srsly, I think opening out would be much faster for everyone, and gawd knows women’s restrooms need faster turnovers…(or more stalls, but that’ll be the day…)

          12. Women need to improve their pee time. I don’t know why it takes so long. I have my time down so I’m as quickly as the men so other women can pull it off too.

          13. Speak for yourself, gal.

            Often it’s dealing with whatever layers of clothes one is wearing. Then there’s shy bladder, trying to get the dang TP out of the dispenser, juggling purse and/or packages if applicable, etc.

          14. I have always had an urgent bladder. Perhaps, out of necessity, I’ve perfected my quickness. I know from the micturation post Jerry did when I tested my own rate, it was dead on with the findings so the actual peeing is no faster.

          18. Anyone old enough to remember jumpsuits in the 70s, especially the ones that zipped down the back???

            I remember my daughter wearing cute Oshkosh overalls when she was in late elementary school and bursting through the door after school yelling I’ve gotta peeeeee. I kept reminding her that it was OK to go at school…

          19. I had a one-piece sort-of sundress thing that had a mini skirt with mini shorts underneath it. Had to peel the whole damn dress down to use the facilities…

          20. There were also one piece shorts outfits in the 90s. I refuse to wear anything that delays me peeing, including button fly jeans.

          24. Ah, then you can feel our pain.

            But you probably still don’t have to wait in line.

            Jerry’s going to be so proud of our level of discourse while he’s gone. 😀

          25. To add to the endless thread… confession, I too take a long time. When ya get old, the plumbing gets a bit furred up. To add to the problem, range (or endurance) gets more limited too. My car can often be seen screeching to a panic-induced halt beside a convenient bush…

          26. Yep, too often the paper is not of sufficient ply, and it is placed below the handcapped handrail, so that one has to reach down to carefully pull the fragile paper. If I didn’t know better, I’d think there was a conspiracy against the toilet paper user – makes us have to “toil” more than is necessary.

        1. You’d think the toilet seat would be the MAIN issue (pace Diana) Btw, there was a hilarious sketch about Monty Python (with Roman Atkinson as a bishop)next to the bathroom videos, but now can’t find it…

          1. The Not The Nine O’Clock News satire on the famous ‘Life of Brian’ interview, with Rowan Atkinson as the bishop/film-maker, Mel Smith as the critic / Python follower, and the divine Pamela Stephenson as the interviewer?

            Here:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U

            Favourite lines:
            “They died for us – frequently”
            “Whenever three or more are gathered together in His name, they shall do the Dead Parrot Sketch”

  24. Just finished a book: The Cave Painters, by Gregory Curtis. About the Meso/Neolithic paintings mostly in France and Spain. A culture that lasted ca. 20,000 years. Twenty Thousand!
    Try to get your head around that!

        1. Yeah ; well known argument.

          “Humans need comfort in the face of pain and suffering

          May be true (“may” !), but that comfort doesn’t need to be based on untrue descriptions of the world.

  26. Professor Ceiling Cat (along with Sam Harris) is referenced in an article in the latest Scientific American about free will, titled Why We Have Free Will. While my opinion about free will differs from PCC’s, I found the article to be unsatisfactory and shallow, relying on opinion rather than fact.

    I’ve also found recently that Alan Turing was preoccupied with the question of free will, inspired by the results of quantum theory.

  27. Streisand Effect – 1
    Censorship – 0
    Joseph Al-Qaeda ‏@JihadistJoe 10m10 minutes ago
    Tweeted :
    Jingle Bombs, Jingle Bombs
    Jingle all the way
    Oh what fun it is to kill
    Infidels everyday
    Someone (I don’t know who) tried to get the “@JihadistJoe” twitter account closed down. “Politically correct” is not a phrase you’d associate with JJ. “Casting light into the darker corners of hypocrisy and cant in some people’s minds” might be more accurate. Naturally some people hate this.
    Have “The Author” and “@JihadistJoe” ever been seen in a room together?
    No? Colour me suspicious!

  30. Happy Winter Solstice to you all. Although Thanksgiving is past, I want to say thank you for this blog and all who comment with intelligence, erudition and humor. May the coming year be good for everyone.

  31. Watching “The Unbelievers,” the documentary with Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. What is UP with Krauss’s wardrobe. He appears at Sydney Opera House with Dawkins to have a serious scientific discussion, and emphasize its superiority over religion….wearing a suit and lavender Converse?????

  32. Has anyone noted the easing of relations between the US and Cuba, which is being attributed partly to the Pope in brokering it? If so, I think the guy is definitely due some major credit. (And much credit to Raoul Castro and Obama too, of course).

    I’ve always thought it disgraceful that the US continued its vendetta against Cuba long after the Cold War was over, and for no good reason whatsoever except petty vindictiveness. No other Cold War opponent, not Vietnam, not East Germany, not Yugoslavia, got treated that way.

    So this thaw is welcome, I just hope the reThuglicans don’t manage to torpedo it somehow with their usual hate-everything-Obama-does paranoia.

    1. The embargo clearly hasn’t worked for 50+ years. In fact, the Cuban government uses the embargo to blame the US for its problems. We have had and continue to have normal relations with authoritarian, repressive regimes. Why is Cuba different? The embargo is a relic of the Cold War. It will be much better for the Cuban people to have more contact with US people, technology, and business. Every other country has normal relations with Cuba. Aside from that, I very much resent my government telling me where I can’t travel. This is long overdue, and the only reason it hasn’t happened sooner is because politicians have pandered to a swing group in a swing state — Cuban Americans in Florida. Florida is a large state that is nearly always in play. Politicians cannot afford to risk infuriating the the Cuban community. The older ones are dying off and the younger generation has more enlightened and rational attitudes toward Cuba. The opening to China happened as the old revolutionary generation died off. Now the Castro brothers, Raúl and Fidel, are 83 and 87 respectively and won’t be around much longer. That, combined with the declining oil price, which makes Venezuela’s oil subsidy to Cuba untenable, makes this good timing. It also doesn’t hurt that Obama doen’t have to worry about reelection.

      2. In 1985 or there about, New Zealand went anti nuclear. The US administration of the day decided as far as a defence partner of the free world, in particular Australia, NZ, USA goes, we were no longer a friend and only now is coming around. Twenty nine years for not even threatening the US. HMNZS Cantubury was allowed to berth at Pearl Harbour, the first NZ naval ship to do so.. for 29 years.
        http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-ship-finally-welcomed-pearl-harbor-6013043
        We (NZ) decided nuclear power was not helpful to furthering humanity including NP as a energy source, wrongly or rightly and given what happened in Fukushima, Japan (NZ is also earthquake prone) I think this is a fair course of action. Cuba can think itself lucky in my opinion.

        1. NZ was treated unfairly when it came to nuclear testing as well. Western countries tested nuclear bombs in the South Pacific and strontium-90 entered the milk supply in NZ. My mom lost all of her teeth that way.

          At least NZ did get to participate in 5 eyes and enjoy intelligence from the US, Canada, England and Australia. I make a joke that the US took the fall for the spying on Western countries that we all probably got to use.

          1. “enjoy intelligence”?
            You mean, swallow whatever stories the NSA/CIA choose to feed our spooks?

            I’d sooner trust a Putin press release, frankly.

          2. They broke into the cellphones of Western leaders, including Merkel and probably heard some juicy stuff. We all wag our fingers at it but you know we all probably used the same information.

          3. IF they chose to tell us, which means, if they decided it was to their advantage for us to know.

            Do you really think the NSA tells our SIS everything they trawl off the world’s communication systems? ‘cos I don’t.

            Do you think our SIS tells our politicians everything they hear? ‘cos I don’t.

            They’re probably bugging our politicians though.

            I wouldn’t trust any of them an inch.

        2. I’m going to NZ on January 10th. First time! Can’t wait!

          It’s mostly a fishing trip. NZ has the world’s best trout fishing I’m told, and I believe it from the photos. Neither of the trout species, rainbow or brown, are native, but like so many non-native (often harmful) species in NZ they’ve adapted spectacularly. They’re huge, especially the browns. I think there’s a biology thesis here, if it hasn’t already been written.

          I’ll have two or three non-fishing days on South Island and on North Island to tour around with my camera, out of Wanaka on South Island and Taupo on North Island. Any recommendations by NZ readers or experienced NZ-ophiles would be welcome. I’m interested in wildlife and landscape photography.

          Maybe I can visit Jerry Coyne (the cat). 🙂

          2. I’ve not been to the Lake Taupo area, I’ve been around Rarotonga, Auckland, Waihi & North Country. I recommend you go walking in any nearby forest reserve. Also, if you’re flying out of Auckland, take some time to visit the beach on Piha – lovely volcanic sand and also where they filmed Xena. 🙂

          3. I have only short layovers in Auckland and another in Christchurch, where Jerry Coyne resides, I believe.

          4. Hate to contradict you Diana, but Xena wasn’t filmed at Piha. Not one scene, which I find a little surprising too. Much of it was filmed at Bethells Beach, the next beach to the north – probably 90% of ‘beach’ scenes and 90% of ‘stream’ scenes were there.

            (I say ‘surprising’ because Piha is the most prominent and accessible West Coast beach, and they were always looking for new locations, but having got used to Bethells they just kept going back there).

            (If you wish to know in excruciating detail where almost every scene in ‘Hercules’ and ‘Xena’ was shot, go here:
            http://crnz.info/nx/locations.html
            Disclosure: I have a geekish association with that website)
            (That’s ‘Hercules the Legendary Journeys’ the TV series, starring wonder boy Kevin Sorbo himself and he’s gone downhill ever since, not any other ‘Hercules’)

          5. But to answer Diana’s comment directly, yes Piha Beach is well worth a visit for scenic reasons, the trip over the Waitakeres with their very lush rainforest is always amazing to people from more temperate climes.

          6. Bummer. Oh well Piha is still lovely. Too bad Stephen isn’t going toward Xmas as he’d see the pretty pohutukawa trees blooming. I got to see them in Russell.

          7. Sorry I’m not a fly fisherman. Your guess is as good as mine for the South Is.
            I live by the Manukau Harbour in the Nth Is. and when I can, fish by a shipping channel just off the beach in a row boat. We are known to catch a few fresh snapper for lunch in the summer.
            Lake Taupo in the North Island has supposedly very big trout it is also close to Tongariro National Park. This area central Nth Is is probably the place in the north Is as it has many rivers coming off the mountains.
            But I can tell you this, most of the endemic species in NZ rivers come out at night.
            Hope you have a great trip.

          8. Hi

            North Island has some great scenery but South island leaves it for dead (and I say that as an Aucklander).

            In South Island, if you have time, the road trip to Milford Sound is the most impressive bit of scenery I know of. It’s a full day return trip from Queenstown. And a boat trip on the Sound (lasts a couple of hours) is well worth the fare.

            Probably too long a day to do from Wanaka, but you could go from Wanaka over the Crown range to Queenstown, a little bit of sightseeing there, then down to, say, Te Anau for the night. Then next day, to Milford, and back via Queenstown and the Crown Range (or the Kawerau Gorge) to Wanaka.

            The other great trip is from Wanaka north over the Haast Pass up to Fox Glacier or Franz Josef, the coast north of Haast just feels so remote.

            On North Island – from Taupo, down via the ‘desert road’ to Waiouru and across to Ohakune and back via National Park to Turangi – ’round the mountain’. While passing through Ohakune, the side trip up the Ohakune Mountain Road to Turoa ski field (about 10 miles) is fascinating, since it starts in semi-tropical forest and passes through all climatic zones to bare rock at the top.

            Also from Taupo, north to Rotorua if you like thermal areas. And close to Taupo, Huka Falls, impressive for its volume if not its very modest height.

            Just the most obvious suggestions.

          9. Thanks for the suggestions. That’s exactly what I was looking for. (I have the fishing covered.)

          10. I visited Huka falls and thought it was really named “Hooker Falls” because I assumed it was the NZ way of saying “hooker”. 😀

            I also liked “Craters on the Moon” but it freaked me out a bit because it’s very active and people sometimes get hurt there. The boardwalk is right on the ground that can really just be sulfer so it’s not advisable to stick your foot in it. 🙂 Funny, I thought I wasn’t near Taupo but I was but in my defence it was in 1998.

            I really liked Waimangu too – it looks like a lovely little lake but it is full of deadly gas that kills you. The whole area is active and you can go on tours. The gas stays at hip level so as long as you don’t lay down, you’re fine. 🙂

    2. And Canada hosted the talks secretly. We always maintained relations with Cuba and didn’t partake in the boycott. I think this only led to more worry from our neighbours to the south that our PM at the time was a communist who was going to make Canada completely communist & therefore a threat to the US. Castro became friends with our PM and attended his funeral in Ottawa even though he risked assassination.

      1. It would take a special type of idiocy to attempt to kill one foreign head of state at the funeral for another foreign head of state. The type of idiocy that would try to use exploding cigars as an assassination weapon, in fact….

        b&

        1. The sort of thing that makes me think immediately of a movie plot. By Sony Pictures, probably…

  33. On the subject of resurrections …. I had this drop into my mailbox this morning (a Pluto picture of the day, depicting C(K?)erberos). It made me think – is the genetics of dog hair colour able to encompass a Kerberos with this colouration. Or is this clearly a Chimaera, just lacking the snake and lion and a few other classes of animals?

    1. I’d have to check Graves’s _The Greek Myths_ to be sure, but Kerberos was likely a calendar beast of the pre-Hellenic matriarchal society, with the three colours representing the three seasons (spring, summer and winter).

      /@

      1. The vase maker was probably just a big show off – look at me using black figure pottery and some other stuff all at the same time! 🙂

          2. Oh, I’m sure they’d like you. But the form their liking takes is not necessarily going to fit into most people’s definitions of “fun”.

  34. Jesus Christ on a four-man bobsled!!

    Just heard that wonderfully creative way to take someone’s name in vain;-)

          3. Maybe it’s Mary & Joseph then. My grandfather used to swear, “Jesus Christmas Mary & Joseph.”

Comments are closed.