It is hard to remember the early days of Linux. A time when the greatest struggle was finding applications that did what we could do in Windows, applications like Office, AutoCAD, Outlook, etc...

I remember, with fondness, looking at very powerful tools like SIAG or PINE, that could do what I wanted to. While easy enough for a novice like me, the learning curve was long. But it was long because it had such depth and power, at each step the skills I learned seemed to make my mind sharper and my processes simpler. But there were still some very easy tasks I wanted to do that were out of my reach. How do I collaborate? Do they need learn what I've learned just to work with me in these tools? How do I just do (said task) by clicking on this?

Sure, OpenOffice came around and back then it was StarOffice, an app that was so phobic of the X interface that it encapsulated itself within its own desktop. Its gotten much better since then, but at some point I abandoned it for TexMacs, which produced cleaner and more beautiful results that, once again, worked into very simple processes to be productive. TexMacs can hook into many scientific programs that I found very useful, and it published within structured templates that I expected when I wanted to write something (for the most part).

Then an amazing thing happened. I could say it was just Google, but really it was the cloud. Google was just one of the first that realized that if they could get everyone to use their servers, they could collaborate with each other much more easily. The world if ease expanded with RSS feeds, labels which allowed a multidimensional way of categorizing emails beyond the folders I was used to. Its search function was so efficient that I found I didn't need to even categorize and organize most of what I had. Amazon and Ebay seemed to catch on to the same trick, if everyone used their servers they could provide each other's products in ways which were much more convenient for sellers to find. Amazon soon packaged up the proprietary data center management as the Cloud so others could have the same results. It was, in essence collaboration in a simple and easy to use maner. It was social networking, facilitated through central computers who seemed to know everyone and everything around them.

And as far as those applications go, the Cloud is still an exciting and glorious place. In fact the Cloud can be seen as the necessary infrastructure to enable the advent as smart-phones. I see smart phones as nothing more than handy personal interfaces to the vastness of the Cloud.

Perhaps now that I have satisfied the need collaborate, with all the vast sums of knowledge it keeps me connected to with a screen I can fit into my pocket, I'm finding that for personal productivity nothing beats the command line. I'm giving up on using Google and web interfaces to do the things I need to do, and going back to the power of the command line.

Case in point, Personal Finance Software. Its a killer app that I've never found anything that I was satisfied with. I've tried Cloud, Linux and Windows list of usual suspects. I've observed that there are many contenders for simplified finance managers based on many different paradigms (like YNAB). But in the end, I've found "Ledger" and I'm quite happy with the ability to use VI or Emacs, or even sed, to keep my ledger in my own way as a simple text file, while the 'ledger' command line program understands it and simply gives me stats and reports. I've even found ofx.py, a little script to download my banking information which ledger also understands. Now I finally feel like I have a long learning curve again. And once again I have that feeling of conquest, that at every step of the way I'm getting sharper, smarter, and more able to handle and process more information in successively easier ways.

But that isn't all. Since smart phones have all the graphical and UI candy I might ever need, I found myself pairing back my laptop's desktop. I've found myself drawn to the philosophy of a site called "suckless.org", which offers very simple tools to do very simple tasks. Only I divert from their tools in two instances, I use EvilWM and UZBL instead of their very fine alternatives. But that is neither here nor there.

The real jewel that expresses the new ease of desktop management through the CLI is 'dmenu', which is a cross between beagle and a dock but is usable in so many more situations. For instance, UZBL uses it to do URL completion based on what is in your browser history. Sure, my laptop has power to spare to run Beagle, Cairo-Dock, and such. But dmenu's simplicity is really its value, and especially how many times I find myself needing to use it for things like Ledger to do automated completion of all the accounts I use -- within vi. Cairo-Dock in particular does its job well, but dmenu has a certain simplicty to it which makes it useful to do the same job in so many different instances.

And that, right there, is probably the best way I can describe why I'm trending towards the CLI in my life. Because after some time in the field, I get it. I get why it works. And it is all about personal productivity, or if you will, process productivity.

When I wrote my journal entry on "Klingons vs the Federation", I had no idea the topic of morality was so charged. The journal entry right after it was seemingly unrelated and received no comment, which surprised me since the subject matter of a very rational male being a ...

keen young mind read[ing] between the lines and perceiv[ing] the folly of all that he's told to accept. Because he lacks an adult perspective, however, what he cannot grasp is the ruthlessness of the war that the education reformers have waged"

Indeed, I'm still trying to get to the top of the whole matter myself, having lived a life where I naturally identify with the protagonist in that story more than quite a bit.

In the comment section of the Klingons vs the Federation, you can read my old friends acting like I've always known them to act. Most of them no matter where they fall in opposition to each other, oddly enough, probably identify with Brandon also. Bill Dog and Pudge, both straightforward and rational. And both are ready to skewer with the reason and ration then bind them and take captives with it. They are, essentially, the dread pirate Roberts of internet debates. Then there is CounterTrolling, who I believe I've never met before, smart enough to know he was being out-maneuvered but not smart enough to realize his evasiveness was really his own captivity of ignorance. Don't get me wring, CounterTrolling shows some great insights, but when push comes to shove he cedes the rational high ground and runs for the bushes. The hope is to get payback with teasing evasion, like the school child who runs into the hills to get the pleasure of annoying the teacher with the chase. Its a Pyrrhic victory.

And then there is Marxist Hacker, who can be rational and moral, but treading the unpaved terrain of reality outside of academia often gets high centered on the gooey plateau of the utopian disconnect. In that way he takes after Karl Marx, who was probably the most successful Utopianist, but ultimately a flawed unconstrained utopianist like the rest.

Yes, I'm being a bit incisive with my commentary today of my old and new friends here. There perspectives and reactions are altogether engaging and fascinating. They have my regard and esteem. But today instead of dealing with the Klingons fatal flaw, I want to make mention of the Federation's fatal flaw. You see, even though the Federation is more based on a real history then the Klingons, the extrapolation of how Earth finally makes it into space like a phoenix from the ashes of a nuclear war is still not plausible to me. In fact, it is probably no surprise that the Star Trek universe doesn't wholly rely on our Earth like ambition and instead evokes a Vulcan ex Machina to tutor them the rest of the way into the hostile galaxy. While Carl Sagan, and Arthur C. Clarke have far more developed plots of a carefully guided upliftment of humanity through measured contact in Contact and 2001: Space Odyssey, the Roddenberry universe also relies on a First Contact. Utopianism and restraint, critical for safeguarding progression, are not in and of themselves progress. In fact, they can in many ways cause regression.

In short, the human spirit which provides the drive for the utopian morality as seen by Roddenberry, is not enough to get us to the stars even in his own vision. My misgivings that the Klingons with their exploitative and expansionist culture slit their own throats if they laid their hands on the power required for space travel. My misgivings for the Federation are more nuanced. Richard Fernandez at The Belmont Club, is someone I read faithfully. And, to be honest, you should too. Today he provided me the best way to describe the fatal flaw of the Federation's morality...

An academic from the University of East Anglia argues that animals have privacy rights. âoeWhat does it say about our assumptions about animalsâ when people film them he asked. In Britain a Muslim who spray painted a war memorial with a slogan calling for Islamic world domination, the assassination of Gordon Brown and the exaltation of Osama bin Laden is not prosecuted, after authorities concluded that his graffiti was âoenot racially motivatedâ. A teacher is acquitted for beating a student with a 7 pound dumb bell after he snaps from repeated taunting.

Each incident exemplifies in its bizarre way the new morality. Things are now âappropriateâ(TM) or âinappropriateâ(TM) for reasons which only 20 years ago would have been regarded as completely crazy. Take Peter Harvey, the teacher at a school in Britain. He knew the rules, the only problem was, he couldnâ(TM)t take them any more.

Hounded for months by a group of students who decided to see what it would take to make him snap; tripped up, shoved him into hedges and followed home threateningly, Harvey went on a 5 month leave of absence because he feared he would lose his mind. Punishing the gang leaders was out of the question. Traditional classroom disciplinary measures were no longer available to him. No more harsh words, no more corporal punishment, however slight. Teachers had been sentenced to jail for striking students in a country where the police were called into classrooms 40 times a day because the schools had lost control. Upon his return from leave the same group decided to secretly record him going over the edge and arranged to goad him after which they planned to distribute the video to complete his humiliation. They didnâ(TM)t reckon on the 7 pound dumb bell. The result was a 14 year old with a skull fracture and a man accused of murder.

In a way Peter Harvey was a failure. He couldnâ(TM)t meet the enlightened standard. Political correctness is a tough game; it demands a relentless reinforcement of small problems until things fall apart. Double down until your broke. Poor, weak Mr Harvey wasnâ(TM)t made of stern enough stuff.

You should read the whole thing for access to the links he provides, and read more of his excellent commentary on the matter.

But when you get down to it, getting the bomb was an act of war. Even going to the Moon was (perhaps primarily) a political dog whistle to each country about the countries ICBM capacity. In the Star Trek Universe, it was a repurposed ICBM which the first warp technology was developed on for Earth. These Klingon like ambitions and the concept of ownership is probably more directly correlated to progress then the moral restraint that the Federation represents.

Restraint is critical. But, when you get down to it, restraint can too easily turn from the demure Jekyll to a Mr. Hyde monster of self-flatulation and drawing from the accreditation of our own restraint in compensation for injustice. Or rather, we pay our own morality to subsidize injustice. Any utopianist nation ready to spend good moral capital for bad, is bound to exhaust their own resources and utterly collapse under the emotional and monetary load.

The teacher, restrained from the ability to restrain injustice, finally regressed to his own animal nature. Or, perhaps, self-destructed completely. Brandon willfully accepting being bound by the same sinews he then used to thread his pathetically anemic rebellion. He'd never reach the stars with such a utopian bargain. He dramatically undervalued his own use of those threads, and underestimated their ability to bind. To give the analogy people tried to tell me not so long ago, I was drinking a quart of poison to get someone to drink a thimble full.

I noticed early on that my special-ed boys often sat at their desks with their heads down or casually staring off into space, as if tracking motes in their eyes, while I proceeded with my lesson. A special-ed caseworker would arrive, take their assignments, and disappear with the boys into the resource room. The students would return the next day with completed assignments.

âoeDid you do this yourself?â Iâ(TM)d ask, dubious.

They assured me that they did. I became suspicious, however, when I noticed that they couldnâ(TM)t perform the same work on their own, away from the resource room. A special-ed caseworkerâ(TM)s job is to keep her charges from failing. A failure invites scrutiny and reams of paperwork. The caseworkers do their jobs.

Brandon has been on the special-ed track since he was nine. He knows his legal rights as well as his caseworkers do. And he plays them ruthlessly. In every debate I have with him about his low performance, Brandon delicately threads his response with the very sinews that bind him. After a particularly easy midterm, I made him stay after class to explain his failure.

âoeAn âFâ(TM)?!â I said, holding the test under his nose.

âoeYou were supposed to modify that test,â he countered coolly. âoeI only had to answer nine of the 27 questions. The nine I did are all right.â

His argument is like a piece of fine crystal that he rolls admiringly in his hand. He demands that I appreciate the elegance of his position. I do, particularly because my own is so weak.

Yet while the process of education may be deeply absorbing to Brandon, he long ago came to dismiss the content entirely. For several decades, white Anglo-Saxon malesâ"Brandonâ(TM)s ancestorsâ"have faced withering assault from feminism- and multiculturalism-inspired education specialists. Armed with a spiteful moral rectitude, their goal is to sever his historical reach, to defame, cover over, dilute . . . and then reconstruct.

In todayâ(TM)s politically correct textbooks, Nikki Giovanni and Toni Morrison stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Mark Twain, William Faulkner, and Charles Dickens, even though both women are second-raters at best. But even in their superficial aspects, the textbooks advertise publishersâ(TM) intent to pander to the prevailing PC attitudes. The books feature page after page of healthy, exuberant young girls in winning portraits. Boys (white boys in particular) will more often than not be shunted to the background in photos or be absent entirely or appear sitting in wheelchairs.

The underlying message isnâ(TM)t lost on Brandon. His keen young mind reads between the lines and perceives the folly of all that heâ(TM)s told to accept. Because he lacks an adult perspective, however, what he cannot grasp is the ruthlessness of the war that the education reformers have waged. Often when he provokes, itâ(TM)s simple boyish tit for tat.

A week ago, I dispatched Brandon to the library with directions to choose a book for his novel assignment. He returned minutes later with his choice and a twinkling smile.

âoeI got a grrreat book, Mr. Garibaldi!â he said, holding up an old, bleary, clothbound item. âoeCan I read the first page aloud, pahlease?â

My mind buzzed like a fly, trying to discover some hint of mischief.

âoeWhoâ(TM)s the author?â

âoeAh, Joseph Conrad,â he replied, consulting the frontispiece. âoeCan I? Huh, huh, huh?â

âoeI guess so.â

Brandon eagerly stood up before the now-alert class of mostly black and Puerto Rican faces, adjusted his shoulders as if straightening a prep-school blazer, then intoned solemnly: âoeThe Nigger of the âNarcissusâ(TM) ââ"twinkle, twinkle, twinkle. âoeChapter one. . . .â

Merry mayhem ensued. Brandon had one of his best days of the year.

Boys today feel isolated and outgunned, but many, like Brandon, donâ(TM)t lack pluck and courage. They often seem to have more of it than their parents, who writhe uncomfortably before a system steeled in the armor of âoesocial conscience.â The game, parents whisper to themselves, is to play along, to maneuver, to outdistance your rival. Brandonâ(TM)s struggle is an honest one: to preserve truth and his own integrity.

Boys who get a compartment on the special-ed train take the ride to its end without looking out the window. They wait for the moment when they can step out and scorn the rattletrap that took them nowhere. At the end of the line, some, like Brandon, may have forged the resiliency of survival. But thatâ(TM)s not what school is for.

Any essay with a line as pithy as "Brandon delicately threads his response with the very sinews that bind him" deserves a mention.

I don't have anything to add, the author presents this perfectly. I only regret I can't post it here in full. I'm not completely sold on the education vs boys thing, but I relate 100% with Brandon.

Stephen Hawking has come out with a strong caution against trying to contact space aliens. In Stephen Hawking's universe the likely put us on the wrong end of the same scenario where the white man who ultimately over-ran the Native American population. The reasoning is simple, those with the technology to achieve such transit (like the Europeans across the Atlantic), would also have the capacity to soundly defeat us, the backwards people still dependent and living off of the earth's bounty. With such an opportunity, why wouldn't they just take what they want?

Dafydd ab Hugh, co-author of the Doom Novels has the most pragmatic reply. He takes a number of well (if not over-written) scenarios of war-like aliens and shows how completely infeasible it is. He then notes that he's struggled with this before in his own writings...

When my pal and worthy co-conspirator Brad Linaweaver and I wrote the Doom tetralogy, we wanted (for plot reasons) to have an interstellar war (we were writing a subluminous, Einsteinian space opera, which I think is unique in science-fiction history). My goodness, how we struggled to come up with a reason that was not preposterous on its face, that was vaguely plausible, why alien races would ever go to war!

We finally settled on a long-ago dispute between competing schools of literary theory, the Surrealists and the Post-Modernists, each trying to analyze a fistful of fragments left behind by the first race ever to achieve spaceflight, billions of years earlier. These academic disputes erupted into a war that, due to lightspeed limitations, still continued after thousands of millennia. But that took us days of teleconferences to concoct.

Simply put, logic implies there is simply no reason for beings of one stellar system to attack beings of another. And while it's true that alien logic might be very different, we don't have any to study; so we're stuck with our own logic. To be frightened of the prospect of contacting aliens is to yield to xenophobia and the mortal sin (and bleak helplessness) of despair.

But he left one flagon unfilled though he set it at the table. Perhaps this flagon was a bit strong on the philosophy in a pragmatic menu of the logistics of inter-stellar war ... kind of. See, I've always had a question after many years of watching the Klingons and others on Star Trek that deals directly with logistics, but has more to do with morality.

The Klingons were a war like race, ready to exploit anyone and everything around them. The Federation stood in ideological opposition, helping each society grow on their own. The Federation even instituted a Prime Directive that was ultimately an act of discipline, don't deal with undeveloped societies at all.

Watching the struggle between the two, the same question kept coming up. Could Klingons, with their sense of warlike domination, ever have developed the technology needed without killing each other first? Would any race that learns the skills of domination and exploitation not even more become their own demise of undermining the very source of their livelyhood when they learn to harness power capable of wiping out entire continents or planets? The Cold War was a reaction, a reaction of discipline, in light of the creation of a weapon that could wipe out the earth. Could they have cooled off their warfare?

The game theory of confrontation is also simple. Where the threat of being exploited exists, it is better to be on the side of being the exploiter. As General Patton put it, it is better to get them to die for their country then for you to die for your country. He also noted that a poor plan executed violently will prevail over a superior strategy.

But the ability to exploit with greater power comes with the danger of undermining your own ability to tap resources. Today is the anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, which was by no means was an act of war. It wasn't even an act of natural exploitation. It was simply a failure to implement the safety required for handling the worst case scenarios of nuclear power. If anything it was a failure to act, it was a failure to enact discipline. Discipline, the ability to enact safeguards even when no danger is immediately present but still potentially dangerous, is the core of morality.

The Federation, the only political power in the Star Trek universe that is projected from a real history -- our own -- developed a sense of morality from the threat of unnatural disaster after another. After years of war, dark ages, and general strife, the society matured to note the power of morality was an essential survival tactic. Without great restraint and morality, there was no safety from great power.

Ultimately, however, that doesn't predict whether or not we can guarantee any alien intelligence we contact is benign. Because there is no guarantee that technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands. IIRC, the Klingons did not develop inter-stellar travel on their own, but took it from the Romulans who though war-like were very calculating about its execution. Their own isolationism kept them restrained, as opposed to the expansionism of the Klingons. But should an atom bomb fall into the hands of an aggressive society, wouldn't they still cut their own thoughts with it rather then realize its potential to send them to the stars? I don't know. But the question keeps coming up.

So, when I got married I decided I would tell my kids the truth about Santa. He was a good person who lived a thousand years ago and is dead. Now we like him so much we all act like him.

But as they've grown they seem to have convinced me he does exist. I don't correct them when they make assumptions based on their belief, I find myself going along with it rather then tell the truth.

What a softie.

Back when my wife and I were first married, we enjoyed music made from sampled sections of other music. Two of our favorite artists at that time were Thievery Corporation and Avalanche. For old time's sake we looked up one of our favorite songs in YouTube just to listen to it again.

Now, most of the time when you really like a song as rich and complex as this, the music video is a real bummer. In fact, watching the movie "The Wall" permanently ruined me from listening to the album ever again.

But this music video turned out to be a real treat. In fact, it may far eclipse the song itself...

Frontier Psychiatrist

And after that you may enjoy, Since I left you

Anyone know of a utility that will read through Apache logs, and then simulate that activity (i.e. replay) to help debug issues?

... are 365/1. Mecco's Star Wars Christmas, with narration by C3-P0.

Just an update. As you may or may not remember, I promised to not lie to my children about Santa Clause. He is someone who lived many years ago and is dead. Now we have a bunch of people pretending to be like him. What is wrong with that?

Last year I saw defeat. My child, despite my best efforts, told me I was wrong. Santa was real.

This year, though I continued to say once or twice the truth, got caught up in the geek factor. My children and I watched in anticipation as Santa was tracked around the world by NORAD. This year it was even better because I could track Santa on Google Earth.

What a great way to teach my child that this is a whole world, with time zones and such. Around the time Santa crossed the Atlantic we gave NORAD a call. No circuits available. As we read the bedtime story we left our cell phone in re-dial, and it never went through.

As it was just my wife and I staying up putting the Santa gifts out, I watched Santa pass over my city. I told my wife even though it wasn't true, there was still something fun about the anticipation. I remember it as a child, and its not really dead now that I know the truth. Odd, huh.

But I see the cracks in the foundation. As my child watched the Santa cam via NORAD, she said, "I want to see Santa land."

"Yeah," I said, "me too. It is pretty odd how he can deliver presents to so many houses while he is flying over these cities".

By the way, if the name of the country is "Samaria" then why are its people called "Samaritains" rather than "Samarians" or "Samarites"? It seems a strange combination of the two suffixes.

In the last JE, I pointed to a rather in-depth study of a single interpretation of a single word. What interested me in it was how the motivation for interpretive speculation was a serious denial that "steel" could possibly have existed. Yet, it could.

The discussion I want to point you to today is a good example of figurative or moral interpretation (as in the moral of a story). A New Testament parable, to depart a bit from the Genesis theme. Again you might see how different starting points influence the outcome of how they read the story. You might even be able to detect where your own starting point might influence your interpretation of the story.

THE GOOD SAMARITAN AND ETERNAL LIFE

MH42 mentioned that I have discovered that interpretation is private. Yet perhaps closer to the truth is as Calvin said to Hobbes, "People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world." There is a process where someone can truly discover the intended meaning behind a story -- whatever worth that might be. And that meaning will have much more to do with our humanity than our personality. The more inspired the writer, the more valuable the meaning. It is somewhat elitist, but that is not what interests me. I find that its accessibility is the most prized jewel in this pursuit.

Now some side-news....

* I fear no spoiler. I finished "The Deathly Hallows".
* I looked at Multiply, but for my purposes I am not interested in joining Facebook or MySpace, or anything like it. I always found the journal system as a way to my submitted Slashdot stories being turned down. Just as the Diary at K5. That is all. I have vamped up my Google Reader and find myself in touch with much more information (Slashdot included) then I can possible digest. Slashdot may not be what it was, but then neither is the Internet, and neither are the people who are a part of it. I do not mourn the loss of the great place it was, because for me the loss happened about 1999.

Next up: Looking at interpretation visually through collected artworks of the Ark of the Covenant.

Deep in the thread of the last discussion, I let slip something of my own view on this general topic of interpretation...

Unfortunately, for all the learning that has been presented here on Slashdot, the process itself has been woefully neglected in everyone's commentary. Many are willing to tell us how smart they are, but smartness is only approximately the same as truth, the best it can ever be is an estimate in matters of cultivating one's own life with richness and truth. I have no problem with that, as I realize for myself that is so far my process. The way to make that further step is my pursuit.

Interpretation is a tricky thing. The Greeks had a concept of "Muses" a team of supernatural beings who whispered great ideas into peoples ears. These muses would give them inspiration, a general get up and go try something new and improved that was from beyond the narrow focus of our survival of every day problems. That was inspiration, and it made everyones lives more rich and full. But they also noted that inspiration, as it was passed from one hand to the next, seemed to dilute or corrupt. Even when copying verbatim, the inspiration of the muse was best found in the origional work, and in Alexandria (IIRC) they tried to collect as close to the original work as they could.

As I continue what has been a very enriching look at the book of Genesis, I find I need to pause a bit and ponder on this topic of interpretation. To those who follow the belief of the muses, interpretation is nothing more than an incomplete copy of the original idea or thought. It is an approximation, a best guess. It is our own words.

And this is probably no better seen than visually, in how people paint or draw their interpretations rather than say them. In the next installment I will study the ark of the covenant, so I will ask for everyone to send me their favorite pictures of what the ark looks like. If you draw your own, that would be even cooler.

But for now, I want to start with another object of antiquity. The steel bow of Nephi, the prominent first author in the Book of Mormon. What makes this fun is that it is more controversial, the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is often disputed. And the presence of the steel bow is a common conundrum in that struggle. The Book of Mormon, as noted by Joseph Smith, was an act of interpretation by inspiration. A single step of interpretation aided by divine inspiration.

So why do I bring this up? Because while the presence of a steel bow is presented as problematic for the Book of Mormon, the King James Version of the Bible mentions steel bows also. But, we are told, that is a mistaken translation on their part because Israel in that time didn't have steel, let alone steel bows. So interpretation is sought to reconcile this dilemma by both Mormon orthodoxy and more generally Christian. But as the following link shows, if the interpretation of the Bible that Joseph Smith had was flawed, then perhaps he knew the problem and aligned the mention with the false interpretation already in place?

Read on as people explore this dilemma through an attempt at understanding interpretation.

So does steel really mean serpentine? Bronze? There are very compelling cases for each. Is the KJV translation just flat wrong on the matter? And did Joseph Smith know it was wrong, but follow along for conformity sake? Though there are other comments along a similar vein, projecting many feelings of frustration on every side as they grapple with the issue, it is with the dry drawn out timing simular to Monte Python that the last comment gets to the punchline. Which I won't spoil for people who wish to read the above thread...

Next stop, the road to Jericho and a lone traveling good Samaritan. And then if no more diversions are requested then we'll head straight for the lost ark. I look forward to seeing entries for the Ark art display :) Just submit them in any of the JE's between now and then.

Many thanks,

Abraham saves the day ... for Sodom and Gomorah?

Its an interesting story, if I have it right. A large multi-national army leaves a large swath of destruction, including Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot, perhaps already abandoned the plains and now a citizen or inhabitant of Sodom, is taken captive along with the rest of the spoils. Abraham takes a raiding party made up of his own employees, and recaptures the spoils. Then gives them back (except for a tithing he gives to the priest).

This brings up one of my favorite people, Melchizedek (various spellings abound) who Abraham payed tithing too and from whom received bread and wine. Long after his brief mention in the Genesis, we see that the priesthood is named after him. It has many differentiating characteristics we learn from the Aaronic priesthood. It is not inherited. The Aaronic priesthood is very formalized and full of ritual. It is the priesthood of prophets and seers who act on a different mission and purview. Melchizedek mysteriously disappears, along with his city Salem from any note of any of the next generations to inhabit the same valley.

Moses perhaps acted under this priesthood when he instituted and officiated in the Tabernacle under this priesthood while the Aaronic was being set up). While Aaron could only visit the Holiest place once a year, and then with obscuring smoke, Moses was in divine presence (face to face) both in the Tablernacle and elsewhere. Perhaps Samuel acted under this priesthood when he was an officiator of sacrifices outside the Tabernacle. Perhaps Elisha who did miracles and sacrifices. Yet why is it still named after Melchizedek?

For something completely different, it was late night on "Coast to Coast" radio with George Nory where a particular woman was on the line accepting calls. She was helping people interpret their encounters with ghosts, etc... One person encountered what she called a "Mel-chee-see-dek" who are a group of angels particularly engaged in helping out us mere mortals. I have no idea where she pulls her "insights" from, nor does that matter much to me. I do not relay the story to paint her as a purveyor of truth. The odd pronunciation (I almost didn't recognize the word) along with the mention of them being an order of angels was interesting in that I was completely unaccustomed to hearing such a reference from such a source. The source seems independent from my own both in insight and in understanding for having some parallel.

But this brings me to ask, especially for those who wonder about my commentary here, what does "priest" mean to you?

For me a priest is someone who officiates in ordinances. My etymological research narrows its origins down to meaning the "lead ox", someone who is lead by the herdsman or Shepard who in turn inspires others to follow. I like that, it relates the word to a concept rather than protocol or official act of authentication though I admit there are those dimensions to the role. Is there something I might be missing? Perhaps in the protocol and authentication?

Are all prophets priests, or are none, or is the fact that the prophets both lead and officiate mean they are other than priests somehow?

The last JE I wrote has me thinking a lot about conversion. I do not know of many philosophies, religions, political parties, that do not attempt in some degree to handle a strange human phenomenon that people may change their minds and wish to join another's point of view.

So, how does your political party, philosophy, or religion handle conversion?

What steps precede a conversion, and what steps certify, mark, or account for the conversion?

How would you tell someone they can be sure that their conversion has set them on a valid path, what re-assurances does the converted have of knowing their change is really for their own good? How do you measure if they are truly converted or just (to borrow from the Republicans) RINO's?

The Jordan Garden:

It is remarkable to me that deserts seem to encircle the most ancient of cities. Egypt is surrounded by a climate that would be a rain forest like the Amazon. There are some sings that it was once that way. The middle east is now very much a desert -- Ur, Babylon, and the setting for this story, Jordan. Even Greece, Lebanon, Syria once had a much richer flora then they do now. A hack anthropologist that the BBC seems to like, (and I like him too in a his-idea-is-as-good-as-another's kind of way) took a submarine into the Dead Sea and believes he's found the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah there.

After a dispute, Lot sets in to this area and lives with a good view of the city lights of Sodom. In contrast to seeing the city lights, Abraham looks every other direction and sees a heavenly promise of inheritance. I think there is something to that the author might be trying to point out.

There was much talk in the last discussion about the nature of Abraham. While simply a father, in many ways his role is very similar to Moses. Their greatest contributions to society, civilization, and this world, were not their teachings, miracles, or lifestyles. Their greatest contributions, to me, are the deals they were able to broker with the God of the universe. But these were more than deals, they were covenants, legally binding contracts for both parties. Legally binding contracts that are open for others to take part in. Open for all of us, no? All who look more circumspectly around than Lot did, who had to be rescued later.

And it just seems to me that for Abraham, his sons, and for Moses and his congregation, it wasn't so unusual to understand with direct conversation, the meaning and role of these covenants. One reason I'm not interested in debating, but very interested in discussing these things is because of my understanding of how that interaction works. And I would rather not get in the way of that interaction happening for anyone by creating in my own words some characterization of it from my own understanding.

So on to the questions:

Sodom is known for the request some citizens made of Lot while some messengers were staying with him. It may be all its known for pending its destruction. Its my understanding that Gomorrah might have a meaning, but that it was named after someone. I'm not sure if any significance is left in the word Sodom other than the meaning people have given it according to the citizens request. (That interchange is coming up, you might want to save your discussion on the more colloquial meaning of Sodom or discussion of that interchange for that chapter). But if you have something on the meaning of those names, I'd appreciate it.

Abraham returned to the place between Beth-el and Hai, mentioned in the previous chapter. How many years transpired in Egypt? Was Lot with him? How is Lot's pending sojourn in Sodom like/dislike Abraham's visit to Egypt?

Abraham is unique. Is he a prophet? Is he a miracle worker? Is he a leader/priest of a nation? The word I most often hear to describe Abraham's role is one that I share -- father.

He is a father, and that is about it. He isn't like other prophets who send a message to the nation to repent, or lead a nation out of bondage, his role is entirely familial as far as I can tell.

He travels in a strange land, and is promised to have that land. But, first he takes a trip to Egypt where his wife is taken. She is freed by a plague on Pharaoh's house and Abraham leaves with lots of cattle and sheep that he got from there.

I'm honestly sure there isn't much more to take from this chapter other than how it is a simplified type of the great Exodus story. And if you ask me, and I'm sure the Exodus story is just a type of the scattering and gathering of Israel that is still in progress. Its all about getting caught up in something, and being rescued or redeemed from the more immediate powers.

A few questions for the scholars:

As usual this is about the meaning of words that are otherwise untranslated. Often a place is named for a particular event or significance to the traveler, so I'm somewhat interested in the place names.

What does Beth-el (a land) mean? That seems like roots I've heard of before, "Beth" and "El".
Hai, is that a word foreign to Hebrew?

Also, I think this was discussed briefly before, but what do your traditions tell you about how Moses compiled the book of Genesis? Was it given by revelation or compiled from sources he might have had at the time?

Meatbrain reminds me of a problemed foster child. One who admits he couldn't care less about society, and that he is abusive. He demands, demands, demands. But when it comes to giving -- he's exempt. He demands proof, but can never give it. He always accuses people of lying, but probably 90% of that is simply his quoting out of context or trying to put words in other's mouths. The other 9.9% are things that are easily clarified, and the last .1% is maybe a contradiction (rather than a lie). To my knowledge he hasn't proven anyone has lied yet.

While in and of itself only a moderately interesting blip on the over-all radar, a there is sort of convergence with Carpenter's own personal administration lockdown at Volokh that makes this interesting to me. Carpenter is the contributor there who writes mainly about his conservative neutering the definition of marriage. However, when called on a few of this claims, (much like Meatbrain) he decided that the comments were way to numerous and needed to be thinned. And that he should close comments much quicker.

One is a scholar, the other is definitely not.

For Meatbrain, it all started when Ed Brayton was deleting Opine posts on his site. You might know this site, its called "Science blogs" but since I've yet to see a real scientific treatment of any topic, I conclude that science must mean anti-religion to them.

It wasn't the first time Ed did this, and most certainly won't be the last. But I read where one commenter at his site was complaining that he didn't have access to comment on another person's site. I sent him this email, which quotes the complaint he registered at Brayton's site:

Funny you should make this comment on Ed Brayton's blog:

And, as always, Gribbit> the Dip[..] lacks the guts to actually discuss his ideas with anyone: "Gribbit's threads have comments closed".

We have a collection of what we call Brayton's greatest hits. You might like to give them a read:

  Part 1

  Part 2

I have to be honest, even Alan who came over to Opine ran scared after a few comments.

So, what is your take? In absence of Gribbit, here is my take on the subject, and the comment section is open.

What ensued were numerous accusations, demands, and other gaffs on Meatbrain's part. You can read the thread, its really quite fun. For instance, he claims to be above having to make an argument or backing up any of his claims (something Op-Ed caught him with later on). But the most interesting was his sheer avoidance of condemning Brayton's administrative lock-down when he was so quick to condemn Gribbit. He instead focused on there being a difference between deleting posts, and closing all posts. I can agree to that, for instance deleting posts can be more prone to abuse. Either way I never got him to condemn the action, so I waited.

As time went by Meatbrain continued to come in and do his little routine for all of us to watch. He would also talk on his own website about what he considered victories in catching others in their lies. But he never did so about Opine, even though he seemed very confident in his claims about us. He would demand, quote out of context, and other dishonest means to accuse others of lying. While pointing out is errors, I bidded my time. I was waiting for a less personally involved time when the conversation had nothing to do with me, and a time when he felt at the peak of his confidence and pride.

Then, I deleted his comment just as I threatened I would. I can hear his screaming keyboard as he types out messages of how I promised I wouldn't delete his comments. Well, I didn't delete those comments, now did I?

Now, he takes it over to his site (which is fine since it saves me the hassle of re-creating his post for honesty's sake). And it wasn't long before I got his admission about deleting comments specifically.

Deleting a comment to avoid the necessity of providing factual support for a claim is intellectual dishonesty.

Although I think in general people would agree though that it is dishonest to use your admin powers to remove arguments you could and should be meeting with facts and reason. Especially when those comments are counter-arguments to your own, and deleting them helps falsely bolster your own argument. But it is enough to show that by his argument, Brayton is dishonest.

And, in an interesting twist, Meatbrain has now banned my IP addresses, on almost the same day Carpenter did. He has also kept a comment (which I will copy below in the comment section) from leaving the moderation queue. I asked him why. I told him I expected him to release the comment for everyone to read (which showed once again that for the most part Meatbrain was being deceitful in his accusations). Well, he deleted that comment too. Here is the snapshot with the comment, and here is the snapshot shortly thereafter (taken with the help of a proxy because of Meatbrain's IP ban).

It seems petty to discuss being banned as if it were an indictment of their arguments. And I could agree with that. The point really is that I'd rather discuss their views with them and their readership, but I'm at a loss as to why that opportunity is being denied -- even at sites with such intellectually propriety and free exchange of ideas as Volokh (though to his credit it seems Prof Volokh had nothing to do with it according to an email conversation with him).

So the moral of this story is, live by the accusation, die by the accusation.