Scripturally speaking (from the Christian perspective), there is some significance to the birth of the messiah. The children of Israel longed for the day their savior would come, and the announcement of the birth was seen in the stars, such that kings from the east came to pay homage to the savior. Angels in heaven rejoiced and proclaimed the glory of God, bringing the news of the birth to common shephards, so that they may also rejoice. The birth of Christ was the fulfillment of prophecy, and was a demonstration of God’s faithfulness.

But after the fanfare of the birth, there’s not much mention of it again in the scriptures. There’s no moments of reflection or reverence on Jesus’ birthday; New Testament authors don’t suggest creating a holiday as a way to remember the birth. For believers, Christ’s arrival in this world is a rather small part of the work Christ has actually done in their lives. The death and resurrection are far more significant. The scriptures state that Christ died and rose for believers; there is no such statement about the birth.

And yes, it was a virgin birth. The birth of Christ was certainly a miracle (but what birth isn’t?) Incidentally, a virgin komodo dragon gave birth recently, making worldwide news. Should we cull out a holiday for the virgin komodo?

September 23rd to 30th is Banned Book Week. Click the link and read all about it. I made an icon to support Banned Book Week on my site, and also shown here if anybody wants to use it. Post it on your blog and please mention that you got it from here.

And remember…

“Intellectual freedom can exist only where two essential conditions are met: first, that all individuals have the right to hold any belief on any subject and to convey their ideas in any form they deem appropriate; and second, that society makes an equal commitment to the right of unrestricted access to information and ideas regardless of the communication medium used, the content of the work, and the viewpoints of both the author and receiver of information. Freedom to express oneself through a chosen mode of communication, including the Internet, becomes virtually meaningless if access to that information is not protected. Intellectual freedom implies a circle, and that circle is broken if either freedom of expression or access to ideas is stifled.”

I got into a recent debate on a friend’s blog regarding the nature of Hate Crimes, and why such a classification even exists. He, being a US Marine, felt a bit of injustice at the fact that harassment of military personnel isn’t viewed as a hate crime… because it’s stemmed from hate as well.

I explained that “hate crime” laws were established to protect minorities, and minority groups are marginalized by default — they have less voice in the community than the majority, just by nature of sheer numbers. Less voice means less impact, and that the majority of laws and regulations will benefit the majority, and while utilitarianism seems to be a functional tactic for government, it certainly always sucks for the minority groups.

A counter-argument was presented: On an individual level, we each can petition on our own behalf; we can each go and educate ourselves and get a job, etc., etc. Since one individual is as much of a minority as another, the playing field is level. It’s an interesting thought, and in my own case, I see it evident. I’m technically a minority (half-korean, half white), and I view myself as quite successful… but on the other hand, I don’t have a collective mindset about my ethnicity. I don’t embrace that part of my identity — I don’t think of myself as a part of a subset of the population. A woman might identify with being among “women,” and a black man might identify with the plight of black-americans. Such a concept is entirely foreign to me, and I don’t feel as though my voice has been marginalized.

What are your thoughts on this?

A european survey shows that 30% of Europeans (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain) feel that the United States is the number one threat to global stability.

More than Iran, more than North Korea. Jeez.

This isn’t an anti-smoker post. Mostly. The target of my indignation isn’t the folks who keep buying the cigarettes – it’s the corporations that are making billions of dollars exploiting people. Folks on the political left attack walmart and home depots for destroying economies and ruining diversity… but I really don’t see a lot of folks on the left decrying the business practice of the tobacco industry.

I think it *might* have something to do with the disproportionate number of folks on the left that happen to smoke… but that’s speculation based on personal observation, on account of my lack of data on the subject.

Anyhow, it turns out that the Tobacco industry has been increasing the level of nicotine in cigarattes over the last several years. Paritcularly, cigarettes known by the industry to be purchased most by teens and minorities. Isn’t that nice.

More details here: at my site.

Not sure if you guys have heard about this yet, but the FDA just approved the use of a bacteriophage (bacteria-eating virus) as a food addative. It’s virus that meat-packagers will begin to spray onto meat to destroy the type of bacteria that kills about 500 people a year.

A virus.

On our meat.

Anybody else want to join the vegan croud besides me? Because really… the war on food has just stepped up from chemical to biological, and the civilian casualties are going to be regular folks like you and me.

newprotest.org

I recently wrote a post over at my blog regarding the recent foiled alleged blow-up-some-planes plot, and about the US and UK’s response. Specifically, I’m among the school of thought that believes that imposing restrictions on average-joe-citizen doesn’t make things more difficult for would-be terrorists, but rather just makes things more difficult for average-joe-citizen.

Here’s an exerpt:

And I guess that’s the problem, really — laws and policies restricting freedoms don’t really stop terrorists who generally look for ways to get around those policies. Next year, people will be required to board planes naked and drugged, and terrorists will insert bombs into one orifice or another set to a timer… there’s not much you can do. It’s like gun control — taking away guns from law abiding citizens doesn’t do a thing to stop criminals. Tracking the purchase of Sudafed doesn’t stop the production of meth. These solutions simply don’t work, and yet it’s the only solutions governments use… and in the end, it’s average joe that suffers.

I’d like to fly without having to worry too much if somebody on the plane wants to kill everybody to make some statement about his or her beliefs. I think something should be done, but I’m at a loss for reasonable solutions to the problem.

The administration hasn’t done anything to make me feel safer. Any ideas?