Old Blind Dog

Location: Texas

Thursday, February 17, 2005

England's ban on fox hunting with dogs to begin

For two foxes in northwestern England, the ban on hunting came too late.

Caught and killed by the dog pack of the Lunesdale Hunt on a bright winter morning, they were casualties on the last day before the centuries-old sport is banned. Now it's the hounds — in kennels across England and Wales — who face an uncertain future.

The majority of hunts in England and Wales held events today before the start of the ban on hunting with dogs. Scotland, with a separate legal system, had already banned hunting.

"When the ban comes in, we're not going to break the law of course," said Peter Capasso, secretary of the Lunesdale Hunt, based in Sedbergh in northwestern Cumbria County.

Instead, he believes the 350 members of the hunt will vote to continue paying a total of $2,800 a month to keep the 60 dogs alive while hoping that the ban can be repealed. Other hunts, however, have said they may have to kill their dogs.

Warmed by a shot of whisky or coffee dispensed at the Dalesman Country Inn, the members of the Lunesdale Hunt and supporters — many following in cars — set off across the rugged landscape of Howgills as an early mist burned away and the day shone crisp and clear.

"Today, a lot of people have taken the day off work," Capasso said. "It's been like a bank holiday or Boxing Day" — Dec. 26, traditionally the big day on the Lunesdale hunt calendar.

The legislation, forced into law by the House of Commons in November, bans all hunting with hounds including the pursuit of rabbits and deer. Shooting foxes will remain legal.

So if it is still legal to kill the fox, what is the point of the ban?

Answer: So that liberal idiot whackos can cause trouble for normal people.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Islamic leaders say no radicalism preached here

Local Islamic leaders say Houston's Muslim community does not practice the radical, anti-democratic theology preached in some books and pamphlets that a human rights group said were found in two local mosques.

Right. And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.

Monday, February 07, 2005

Jesus a Leftist?

John Ray asks, "Was Jesus a Leftist?"

I think I might give the trinity a rest for a little while, though defences of it will still be received with interest. I think I might have a quick look at whether Jesus was a Leftist or a conservative. It's an old chestnut, I know, but the Leftist invasion of the senescent mainstream churches does tend to raise the question of what Christ's Gospel really was. Are the current teachings of such "liberal" churches Christian or not? The churches concerned would of course normally claim that they are but don't really push the claim. As Leftists are traditionally anti-religious the argument has usually gone by default to the conservatives. Leftists have usually not wanted anything to do with any religious figure so conservatives can claim Jesus as one of their own with little opposition.

I e-mailed him about it but I want to reproduce part of that e-mail here:

Jesus was a conservative in as much as he was trying to restore the temple (much as many American conservatives decry activist judges that are distorting the Constitution). The Herodians that occupied the Temple were intermarried with gentiles which, therefore, polluted the Temple. They also engaged in cousin marriage, hence the charge of fornication.

As for the "church" being leftist, I've mentioned before that Paul was a Herodian [he was a member of King Herod's family-ed.] and a Roman citizen (his "get out of jail free card") as well as a gentile Christian and he certainly had an agenda of accommodation with the powers that be, doing everything in his power to destroy the family of Jesus (James, Thomas) and disciples that may have known Jesus (Peter) or otherwise make them look foolish. Jewish Christianity died with James and the destruction of the Temple, leaving only Paul's version of events. We are left with Gentile Christianity. So the leftists won.

For those that don't know where this view comes from, I refer you to my post here in which I have reproduced the introduction to Robert Eisenman's book, James the Brother of Jesus. Eisenman takes a controversial view of the origins of Christianity (one which I subscribe to) based on his interpretation of certain Dead Sea Scroll texts.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005


Publicola fisks Glenn Reynolds. Since I don't read Glenn Reynolds, I've only seen links to this and this. That's okay. He does a jam up job!

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

The History Channel has too much....history!

Clayton Cramer makes a valid point about historians and gets ripped a new one for his trouble.

Liberalism and Critical Periods

Libertarian Girl blogs about Brain Immaturity. She linked to the WaPo version of the story, which I won't link here. Here is the same story at MSNBC.

A National Institutes of Health study suggests that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25, a finding with implications for a host of policies, including the nation's driving laws.


Sitting in his closet-size office in NIH's sprawling Building 10, he turns to his laptop, where the fruit of 13 years' work appears. It's an eight-second, time-lapse film of the brain, swept by a vivid blue wave symbolizing maturing gray matter. The color engulfs the frontal lobes, and ends, in "a direct hit," Giedd said, with the dorsal-lateral prefrontal cortex, just behind the brow.

About as thick and wide as a silver dollar, this region distinguishes humans from other animals. From it, scientists believe, come judgments and values, long-term goals, the weighing of risks and consequences -- what parents call wisdom or common sense and what science calls "executive functions."

While society and tradition have placed the point of intellectual maturity, the "age of reason," years earlier, the study -- an international effort led by NIH's Institute of Mental Health and UCLA's Laboratory of Neuro Imaging -- shows it comes at about age 25.


The pattern probably serves an evolutionary purpose, he said, perhaps preparing youths to leave their families and fend for themselves, without wasting energy worrying about it.

The findings imply that many life choices -- college and career, marriage and military service -- often are made before the brain's decision-making center comes fully online. But for young adults, "Dying on a highway is the biggest risk out there," Giedd said. "What if we could predict earlier in life what could happen later?"

I left a comment about critical periods of development and speculated about the possibility of this braim immaturity being responsible for the liberal mindset. Critical periods are well recognized although most work in humans revolves around acquisition of speech in young children. Critical periods were first identified by the work of John Paul Scott during the 40's and 50's.

Some commenters on her post noted that America has an indulgent society and compared expectations for maturity in rural America to expectations in L.A. I speculated that a wealthy society that doesn't expect an individual to mature until 30 may find that the whole of society has become a population of permanently narcissistic juveniles. In fact, this points a finger at the Left which is "in your face" about their indulgence of children.

I found more here where John Ray links to a piece from The American Thinker:

The teachable lesson from Iraq is that this isn’t a very nice world. It’s a world full of conflict and killing in which there is often no option but grinding it out on the ground. War is the norm, and peace is the pause that refreshes.

In our modern era, it is easy to lose sight of this. Back in the good old days of wise aboriginal tribes that were close to nature, about 40 percent of men died from violent conflict. But in the Twentieth Century, an era we like to imagine as the very abyss of violence and war, only five percent of men died from violent conflict.

Our modern American elite has lived a life peculiarly free from conflict. Its defining moment of conflict was opposing the Vietnam War. But its battle was never a real war. Anti-war activists were cosseted and encouraged by their liberal parents and the liberal media, and indulgently made into heroes for striking a few elegant poses. Then they bravely took up arms against their liberal professors who were quite happy to cave in and grant all their demands without even the pretence of a fight. In consequence, our liberal elites imagine that everything can be decided with a telegenic demonstration and a TV-friendly spokesperson, or failing that, diplomacy and a peace process.

You can tell that liberals don’t have a clue about conflict by listening to their commentary on the war on terror. They are easily discouraged, and make every setback into a frightening quagmire. But any student of war knows that every conflict is a confusing and demoralizing grind that often seems to be an exercise in futility.

All of the liberal responses to responsibility or conflict, the desire for utopian perfection in society in particular, are the responses of a narcissistic, immature brain. Or so it would seem.