Saturday, February 02, 2002

slow wave is a comic based on user-submitted dreams. neat.
katharine seelye of the new york times writes "The study found that although economic wealth does not necessarily correlate with a healthy environment, the level of corruption within a government does." the US came in 51st. surprised? maybe you haven't read what michael moore has to say about bush, cheney, and enron.

Wednesday, January 30, 2002

it seems terrorists still have a sense of irony. cnn reports: "'Therefore we will execute him within 24 hours unless America fulfills our demands,' the e-mail said. 'We apologize to his family for the worry caused and we will send them food packages.'" i can't find anyone reporting what the demands are.
bush says "I invite you to join the new U.S.A. Freedom Corps", which is composed of the existing Peace Corps, Neighborhood Watch programs, and AmeriCorps, the last of which Republican leadership previously opposed: "The Republican challenge to AmeriCorps is directed at its fundamental premise. 'I am totally, unequivocally opposed to national service,' Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was quoted as saying, 'It is coerced volunteerism. . . . It's gimmickry.'"
"President Bush's State of the Union Address to Congress and the Nation": "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger." are we not doing the same by continuing to maintain weapons of mass destruction? of is it just different because they're "evil"?

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

nicholas kristof of the new york times writes "In short, there's no practical downside to granting P.O.W. status. But there are huge advantages to recognizing the detainees as P.O.W.'s." it looks like the main issue here is not the advantages or disadvantages of following this one particular international law, but those of following the rule of international law in general - the old american "you can't tell us what to do" policy.
david rothkopf of the washington post writes "We may not know the region from which the next Marx will hail or his particular approach. But we can be sure that someone, somewhere will offer an alternative vision [to capitalism]." followed by "The radical reformer to whom I think we need to pay the most attention is none other than Margaret Thatcher." who knew thatcher was the next marx? not i.
"What's Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations?" by wayne grudem is a lengthy critique of a new translation.

despite the length of his (this person's) argument, after admitting that "the word men isn't specified by the Greek text, and all people is a faithful rendering of the Greek pronoun pas," there is no longer a question about whether or not a gender-neutral bible is a "correct" translation, as clearly such a thing does not exist, but rather which meanings of words are more important to maintain in the translation. translation is interpretation.

so the question of whether gender-neutral or standard bibles are "better" in the end comes down to how important you think gender is, or more specifically, how important you think god thinks gender is.