2021Sat02Jan

The Daily Stoic: January 2, 2021

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (0) | TrackbackFiled in PhilosophyTags: Clarity, Daily Stoic, Epictetus, Perception

Reflections on The Daily Stoic:

The Discipline of Perception
January's Theme: Clarity
Topic: Education is Freedom
Stoic: Epictetus

Today's quote:

What is the fruit of these teachings? Only the most beautiful and proper harvest of the truly educated - tranquility, fearlessness, and freedom. We should not trust the masses who say only the free can be educated, but rather the lovers of wisdom who say that only the educated are free.

- Discources, 2.1.21 - 23a

Epictetus knows something about freedom. He was born a slave, and obtained his freedom in early adulthood. As a slave, he was not free to pursue education without the permission of his master - though his master, also a once-enslaved freedman, gave then-slave Epictetus permission to study under the tutelage of stoic philosophers. Thus, there is particular weight in Epictetus recognizing that it is not his obtained freedom that enabled him to be educated but rather it was his obtained education that enabled his tranquility, fearlessness, and freedom.

If Epictetus viewed his freedom gained through education to be more significant than his literal freedom from slavery, then perhaps we can find a lesson for ourselves in his perspective. As the prophet Hosea admonishes the Israelites, "...my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:5) The Apostle Peter describes knowledge as part of our path of sanctification and growth in our faith: "For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love." (2 Peter 1:5-7)

And perhaps our freedom through education involves not only knowledge, but also wisdom. "Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is." (Ephesians 5:15-16) If we lack wisdom, we need only ask: "If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you." (James 1:5)

If our intention is to live in tranquility, fearlessness, and freedom, we must invest our time purposefully, seeking knowledge and wisdom that align with God's will: "...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." (2 Corinthians 3:17)

2021Fri01Jan

The Daily Stoic: January 1, 2021

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (0) | TrackbackFiled in PhilosophyTags: Clarity, Daily Stoic, Epictetus, Perception

Reflections on The Daily Stoic:

The Discipline of Perception
January's Theme: Clarity
Topic: Control and Choice
Stoic: Epictetus

Today's quote:

The chief task in life is simply this: to identify and separate matters so that I can say clearly to myself which are externals not under my control, and which have to do with the choices I actually control. Where then do I look for good and evil? Not to uncontrollable externals, but within myself to the choices that are my own...

- Discourses, 2.5.4-5

What a prescient thought with which to begin 2021, given the tumultuous nature of 2020: pandemic, social unrest, political turmoil, and more. For all of us, 2020 was likely an object lesson in discerning that which is under our control and that which is not. Failing to recognize the difference undoubtedly led to considerable anxiety.

What, then, are we left with, in the face of so much that we cannot control? The Daily Stoic connects these words of Epictetus with something with which we are likely familiar: the Serenity Prayer. There is an abridged version, popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous; the full version reads as follows:

God, give me grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, Courage to change the things which should be changed, and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

Living one day at a time, Enjoying one moment at a time, Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,

Taking, as Jesus did, This sinful world as it is, Not as I would have it, Trusting that You will make all things right,

If I surrender to Your will, So that I may be reasonably happy in this life, And supremely happy with You forever in the next.

Amen.

We can see a biblical basis for the principles expressed in both the words of Epictetus and in the Serenity Prayer. As 2020 demonstrated, there is so much that we cannot control in this world and in our lives. As Christians, we understand that, ultimately, God is in control. "Be still, and know that I am God..." (Psalm 46:10) But we are still human; it is in our nature to worry even about the things that we cannot control. Thus, we ask God for grace to accept those things with serenity: the state of being calm, at peace, and untroubled. As Paul instructed the church at Philippi: "Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 4:6-7)

As Epictetus suggested, when we stop focusing on that which is not under our control, we free ourselves to focus on those things that we can influence, control, or change. Here, Epictetus emphasizes choices, and differentiates between external choices we cannot control and internal choices that we can control. In the face of so much that we cannot control, it becomes all too tempting - all too easy - to make victims of ourselves. We relinquish what initiative we have to act in our given circumstances. But even when it seems that we have control over nothing else, we can still how we respond to our circumstances:

Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.

- Victor Frankl, Holocaust survivor

As Christians, just as we understand that God is ultimately in control, we also understand that our ultimate struggle is not the earthly circumstances in which we find ourselves - no matter how dire - but rather, ours is a spiritual battle. In that battle, we are called to do no more than stand: "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand." (Ephesians 6:13) And yes, as the Serenity Prayer states, we are called to be courageous! "For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline." (2 Timothy 1:7) This aligns perfectly with Epictetus, who contemplates the battle between good and evil that we wage within ourselves, in the choices that we make.

Following this advice is, I believe, why I find myself to be less and less engaged in political debate. Perhaps too many of us have been too focused on what happens day-to-day in Washington, D.C. (or Portland, Kenosha, and elsewhere), driven by 24-7, sensationalized news coverage (from left, right, or center) - putting ourselves in a perpetual state of agitation and anxiety. Perhaps the lesson is to remember that God is in control, and to find a better balance between being informed of sociopolitical events and being so focused on them that we lose sight of that which we can control, and that which we should be trying to change: ourselves.

Perhaps we may find relevant advice - even wisdom to discern the difference between that which we can control and that which we cannot - in the words of Paul to Titus (Titus 3:1-11):

Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

This is how I choose to approach 2021.

2014Fri04Jul

An Open Letter to Target Interim CEO, John Mulligan

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (0) | TrackbackFiled in PoliticsTags: CCW, Second Amendment

I am a concealed-carry permit holder, and a long-time Target patron. Unfortunately, due to debatable advocacy tactics on the part of some Open Carry groups, and the Astroturfed response of the Michael Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action, Target was dragged into a foray in which I doubt your corporation really cared to find itself involved. In response, you issued a corporate statement "respectfully requesting" patrons to leave their guns at home.

A reading of the statement seems clear that it was intended to do little more than to shut up a busy-body activist group, without invoking any legal compulsion of Target patrons to comply. Your approach is identical to that of Starbucks last year, as well as Chipotle, Sonic, and Chili's recently. The problem with this approach is two-fold. First, it villianizes a hundred million, law-abiding, gun-owning citizens due to the lawful, if disagreeable, actions of a handful of people. Second, it claims to have decided after considering the many "nuances" of the debate, but in the end completely ignores the primary issue: open carry of long guns. In so doing, the approach impacts the far more prevalent, and entirely unobtrusive, practice of concealed carry.

Your policy implies that all firearms owners represent the type of people you don't want in your stores:

Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.

Statistics overwhelmingly demonstrate that concealed-carry gun owners are, by an order of magnitude or more, more lawful than the public at-large. Concealed-carry gun owners are exactly the people any business should want to patronize its stores - not because they'll help protect your stores (unlike anti-gun activists would have you believe, the vast majority of gun owners do not have a hero complex; we simply wish to exercise our rights and maintain the ability to defend ourselves), but because they are much less likely to commit crime or to cause problems in your stores.

And that point brings me to my primary issue with your policy: it unfairly lumps concealed-carry gun owners into a problem not of our making. Even though you preface the request with a mention of the concern regarding open carry, the policy, and the request as-stated, fails to differentiate between open and concealed carry:

As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit “open carry” should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

Agree or disagree with the tactics of open-carry advocates (I make no argument here, as it is not the point of this letter), those tactics forced your hand (in no small part thanks to well-funded and well-organized anti-gun advocates who themselves caused every bit as much disruption in your stores) into crafting a response. You could have - understandably - created a policy that addresses the specific concern that prompted you to act, and issued a "respectful request" that guests not open carry long guns (or open cary any firearmms). Such a policy would have continued to remain silent regarding concealed carry. The consideration of open versus concealed carry can scarcely be considered a nuance; nevertheless, even allowing for the benefit of the doubt, it is clear that your policy does not reflect such consideration, despite claiming to do so:

We’ve listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved.

If you had intended the policy to address only the matter of open carry, this statement:

But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

...would have read differently; for example:

But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not openly carry firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

With all due respect, your policy completely fails to respect the rights of the single-largest group impacted by the policy: concealed-carry gun owners. Concealed-carry gun owners cause no disruptions in your stores due to the concealed carry of their firearms. As we are wont to say: concealed is concealed. Neither Target employees nor its customers knows that a concealed-carry gun owner is carrying a firearm. That, after all, is the point of carrying concealed. And yet, your policy "respectfully requests" that we, too, forfeit our rights in order to continue to patronize your stores.

And perhaps most importantly, your policy is counter-productive:

In return, we are asking for help in fulfilling our goal to create an atmosphere that is safe and inviting for our guests and team members.

This policy implies that a gun-free zone "create[s] an atmosphere that is safe...for our guests and team members." In reality, every mass shooting in the past 50 years (except for the Gabby Giffords shooting, which would more correctly be identified as an assassination attempt and not a mass shooting) has taken place in gun-free zones. The only people for whom a gun-free zone is more inviting are the criminals who see them for what they are: a target-rich environment of defenseless victims.

You see, criminals don't care for your "respectful request" any more than they care for the law. Statistics demonstrate that where concealed carry is encouraged, violent criminals leave for areas with more-suitable victims. If you want to create a safer atmosphere for your employees and guests, you would publicly welcome the practice of concealed carry.

That this new policy continues, as always, to follow local laws in regard to carry within your stores - relying instead on a mere, and legally unenforceable, "request" - results in the incredible irony that the policy relies on the overwhelming law-abiding and conciliatory nature of gun owners (and especially concealed-carry gun owners) in order to be effective. But just because we are lawful, respectful gun owners does not mean that we will give up our second-amendment rights in order to kowtow to hoplophobic rhetoric funded by a power-hungry narcissist who wishes to impose on Americans not only his view on gun rights, but also his views on how much salt Americans should add to their food and the size of cups Americans should use to consume soft drinks.

When Starbucks implemented a similar policy last year, my response was that I would respect the request, but in so doing I would no longer patronize their stores. After much reflection, and discussion with other gun-rights advocates over the course of months since Starbucks implemented that policy, my views have changed. While I empathize with the efforts of open-carry advocates, I recognize the inherent risk in their tactics, and that, largely driven by well-funded, well-organized anti-gun advocacy groups, the tactics of open-carry advocates often force corporations to take an explicit stance, where a Laissez Faire approach formerly sufficed. But just because a corporation chooses to implement a legally impotent policy in order to placate hoplophobic, anti-freedom activists does not mean that I must comply.

Unless a situation presents itself in which I need it, neither your employees nor other patrons will know that I am carrying a firearm. I will not intentionally create a disturbance; I will not threaten to boycott your stores. Instead, I will do what both open-carry advocates and anti-gun advocates should have done: I will attempt to engage in dialogue - the very dialogue this letter represents. As for patronizing your stores: should any of your stores post legally enforceable signage prohibiting firearms, I will follow the law, and not carry in such a store - which means that I will not patronize such stores. But for any stores that do not post legally enforceable signage, I will continue to carry concealed wherever I am lawfully allowed to do so.

2013Sat14Sep

Home Page and Front Page and Templates, Oh My!

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (13) | TrackbackFiled in Web DevelopmentTags: Template Hierarchy, Themes, WordPress

Since the introduction of the front-page.php template file in WordPress 3.0 over three years ago, there remains a great deal of confusion about the proper implementation of custom/static site front pages in WordPress. This post will address that confusion, and explain the proper implementation of the custom/static site front page feature in WordPress.

Nomenclature

The first area of confusion involves nomenclature. In most contexts, "home page" refers to the site front page; however, in WordPress, the "home" page is not the site front page, but rather the Blog Posts Index page. WordPress refers to the site front page as the Front Page. This nomenclature applies in several areas. For example:

Query conditionals:

is_front_page() - returns true when the stie front page is being displayed, whether the site front page is set to display the blog posts index or a static page
is_home() - returns true when the blog posts index is being displayed, whether the blog posts index is displayed on the site front page or on a static page

Template file names:

front-page.php - used to display the site front page, whether the site front page is set to display the blog posts index or a static page
home.php - used to display the blog posts index, whether the blog posts index is displayed on the site front page or on a static page
index.php - used as the default fallback template file for all contexts

Unfortunately, this nomenclature isn't consistent throughout WordPress core. For example, the body_class() template tag adds the following classes:

Front Page: home
Blog Posts Index: blog

(Long term, it would possibly be wise for WordPress core to deprecate the "home" nomenclature in favor of "blog" nomenclature - i.e. an is_blog() conditional and a blog.php template file - but that's a discussion for another day.)

The key point here is: in WordPress parlance: home means blog posts index, and not site front page.

Creating a Static Front Page

WordPress core has a specific method for implementing a static front page. Themes need to account for the core implementation, rather than implement a non-core method for displaying a static front page and displaying the blog posts index on a separate static page.

The core method involves creating two static pages, and configuring the front page options under Settings -> Reading.

The "Front page displays" option correlates to get_option( 'show_on_front' ), which returns either 'page' if "Front page displays" is set to "A static page", or 'posts' if "Front page displays" is set to "Your latest posts".
The "Front page" option is available if "Front page displays" is set to "A static page", and correlates to get_option( 'page_on_front' ), which returns the ID of the page assigned to "Front page"
The "Posts page" option is available if "Front page displays" is set to "A static page", and correlates to get_option( 'page_for_posts' ), which returns the ID of the page assigned to "Posts page"

When a user sets these options, it is reasonable and expected for a Theme to respect/incorporate those option settings in the Theme's template files.

Template Hierarchy

When developing a WordPress Theme, understanding the Template Hierarchy is critical to ensuring proper use of Theme template files for the site front page and blog posts index contexts. For the site front page, there are basically three rules:

If the front-page.php template file exists, use it
If the front-page.php template file does not exist, and the front page is set to display the blog posts index, use the Home Template hierarchy
If the front-page.php template file does not exist, and the front page is set to display a static page, use the Page Template hierarchy

To understand how this works, we need to dig a bit into the Template Hierarchy, which is defined in core via wp-includes/template-loader.php. The meat of the code is here:

if ( defined('WP_USE_THEMES') && WP_USE_THEMES ) :
	$template = false;
	if     ( is_404()            && $template = get_404_template()            ) :
	elseif ( is_search()         && $template = get_search_template()         ) :
	elseif ( is_tax()            && $template = get_taxonomy_template()       ) :
	elseif ( is_front_page()     && $template = get_front_page_template()     ) :
	elseif ( is_home()           && $template = get_home_template()           ) :
	elseif ( is_attachment()     && $template = get_attachment_template()     ) :
		remove_filter('the_content', 'prepend_attachment');
	elseif ( is_single()         && $template = get_single_template()         ) :
	elseif ( is_page()           && $template = get_page_template()           ) :
	elseif ( is_category()       && $template = get_category_template()       ) :
	elseif ( is_tag()            && $template = get_tag_template()            ) :
	elseif ( is_author()         && $template = get_author_template()         ) :
	elseif ( is_date()           && $template = get_date_template()           ) :
	elseif ( is_archive()        && $template = get_archive_template()        ) :
	elseif ( is_comments_popup() && $template = get_comments_popup_template() ) :
	elseif ( is_paged()          && $template = get_paged_template()          ) :
	else :
		$template = get_index_template();
	endif;
	if ( $template = apply_filters( 'template_include', $template ) )
		include( $template );
	return;
endif;

Basically, this code steps through each of the query context conditionals in a specific order, and defines the template to use for the first one that returns true.

For our purposes, the contexts we are concerned with are Front Page, Home, and Page, which are evaluated in the following order (with conditionals in-between omitted):

elseif ( is_front_page()     && $template = get_front_page_template()     ) :
elseif ( is_home()           && $template = get_home_template()           ) :
elseif ( is_page()           && $template = get_page_template()           ) :

Translated, this says:

If a valid Front Page template file exists, use it
Otherwise, if this is the blog posts template and a valid blog posts index template file exists, use it
Otherwise, if this is a static page and a valid page template file exists, use it
Otherwise, use the default template file

To understand further what core is doing here, we need to look at get_front_page_template(), get_home_template(), and get_page_template(), which are defined in wp-includes/template.php:

get_front_page_template() looks for

front-page.php

get_home_template() looks for:

home.php

get_page_template() looks for

_wp_page_template meta-key value (user-assigned custom page template)
page-{slug}.php
page-{id}.php
page.php

Which Template File?

So understanding the hierarchy, it should be easy to determine which template file to create for each given context.

Blog Posts Index

Use home.php.

Simple, right? But what about a custom page template, such as template-blog.php? Can't a Theme also use that? Not to put too fine a point on it, but: no. That would be _doing_it_wrong(). Using a custom page template for the blog posts index, either:

Won't work, because when implemented properly, a static page as custom page template simply won't ever use a custom page template
Would require the Theme to force the user to use a method of assigning the blog posts index that does not conform to the WordPress core method
Would cause pagination issues when rendering the blog posts index using the custom page template, because WordPress recognizes the main query for the custom page template to be the static page post object, rather than the blog posts index

So, while technically you can use a custom page template to display the blog posts index, in doing so you'll be forcing your Theme users to use a non-standard way of assigning the static page used to display the blog posts index, and will cause yourself headaches in getting the custom page template to function properly - all of which is easily avoided simply by using home.php instead.

Site Front Page

Use front-page.php.

But there are some caveats - namely, because front-page.php takes precedence on the site front page regardless of what the user has configured the front page to display, the Theme needs to account for the front page displaying either a static page or the blog posts index. There are a few methods to do so.

Conditional output in front-page.php

The first method uses a conditional statement inside front-page.php, that evaluates get_option( 'show_on_front' ), and either includes get_home_template(), or custom front-page markup:

if ( 'posts' == get_option( 'show_on_front' ) ) {
    include( get_home_template() );
} else {
    // Custom content markup goes here
}

This method is useful if the Theme already includes a front-page.php template file, and you need to implement an easy way to account for the blog posts index-as-front-page use case.

Conditional output in front-page.php, with a custom page template

The second method is a variation of the first, that includes get_page_template() instead of hard-coded custom front-page markup inside of front-page.php:

if ( 'posts' == get_option( 'show_on_front' ) ) {
    include( get_home_template() );
} else {
    include( get_page_template() );
}

This method is useful if the Theme includes a featured-content (or perhaps a portfolio-style) custom page template that isn't necessarily intended to be used as the site front page. When using this method, the user will need to apply the custom page template to the page assigned to display the site front page. This is an extra step for the user, but also gives the user the flexibility to use the featured-content custom page template on any static page, rather than only as the site front page.

Note also: if using this method, you can also safely omit front-page.php entirely, as it is technically unnecessary.

Filter front_page_template

The third method uses front-page.php solely as custom static-page-as-front-page content, and filters front_page_template when the front page is set to display the blog posts index, causing the Template Hierarchy to ignore front-page.php and fall back to get_home_template(), via callback in functions.php:

function themeslug_filter_front_page_template( $template ) {
    return is_home() ? '' : $template;
}
add_filter( 'front_page_template', 'themeslug_filter_front_page_template' );

To see how this method works, we need to take another look at get_front_page_template():

function get_front_page_template() {
	$templates = array('front-page.php');

	return get_query_template( 'front_page', $templates );
}

The $templates array is passed through get_query_template():

function get_query_template( $type, $templates = array() ) {
	$type = preg_replace( '|[^a-z0-9-]+|', '', $type );

	if ( empty( $templates ) )
		$templates = array("{$type}.php");

	return apply_filters( "{$type}_template", locate_template( $templates ) );
}

And here you can see the filter being applied:

return apply_filters( "{$type}_template", locate_template( $templates ) );

For the front page context, $type = "front-page", resulting in the filter front_page_template.

By returning an empty string for front_page_template, the Template Hierarchy will evaluate this line as false:

elseif ( is_front_page()     && $template = get_front_page_template()     ) :

Causing it to move on to the blog posts index line:

elseif ( is_home()           && $template = get_home_template()           ) :

This is probably the simplest method to implement. (H/T Justin Tadlock)

EDIT:

There is a bug in WordPress, that causes the front_page_template filter name to be truncated as frontpage_template. So, use this instead:

function themeslug_filter_front_page_template( $template ) {
    return is_home() ? '' : $template;
}
add_filter( 'frontpage_template', 'themeslug_filter_front_page_template' );

Questions? Use cases unaccounted for? Let me know in the comments.

2012Wed22Aug

In Which Bryan Fischer Doubles Down on Todd Akin’s Pseudo-Science Stupidity

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (2) | TrackbackFiled in Politics, Science, Social IssuesTags: Conservatism, Elections, Pseudo-Science, Rape

I used to enjoy a good Fisking, usually of an article by a liberal columnist from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. But today, the honor goes to Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association.

In the wake of Todd Akin's profoundly stupid comments asserting pseudo-science in defense of a policy position, Mr Fischer has chosen to double-down on Akin's stupidity by attempting to defend the scientific credibility of Akin's statements. First, for background, Akin's quote:

From what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape is] really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that down.

Now, both this comment, and the response it has elicited, is fertile ground for discussion (not the least of which is the left's absurd attempt to claim that Akin somehow expressed "pro-rape" views due to the term "legitimate rape"); but the bottom line is that Akin's assertion is prima facie absurdity. Debate whether or not such comments should be grounds for pressuring Akin to withdraw from the Senate race, but don't be foolish enough to try to defend the validity of his assertion.

Alas, that is precisely what Bryan Fischer has done. And because of such manifest foolishness, I must respond. Let's roll tape on Fischer's on-air remarks in defense of Akin. Fischer accompanies those remarks with a blog post, from which I will quote liberally (all emphasis added by me):

Akin’s words, for which he apologized even though he had no need to, were right. He was entirely correct to say that pregnancies in cases of forcible rape are rare. Even if the exaggerated figures of the pro-abortion medical community are accurate, pregnancies due to rape amount to just 0.005% of all pregnancies. That’s rare in anybody’s book.

In defending the assertion that a woman's body can somehow reject or stop conception from rape, the relevant question is not whether total pregnancies resulting from rape are rare with respect all total pregnancies, but rather whether rape results in conception less frequently than conception from consensual, unprotected sex. The given statistic is silent on this comparison.

Fischer later says:

Unfortunately for the nattering nabobs of negativism who think Akin is some kind of medical Neanderthal, the London Daily Mail has a headline story TODAY which has this as the very first paragraph: “Stress can make women infertile, research has revealed. Scientists found that those with high levels of a stress hormone stop ovulating and are therefore unable to conceive.”

Who look like the dumb ones now?

Who looks like the dumb ones, indeed? Implying that the linked study proves his point requires one to ignore the cardinal rule of data analysis: correlation does not prove causation. Did Fischer consider any of the following questions:

Does the study involve acute stress, chronic stress, or both?
Does the study address the effects of acute stress on ovulation?
Assuming that acute stress can adversely impact ovulation, how often does rape occur within the extremely small window of time required for the rape-induced stress to have that impact?
What impact does rape have on the body's production and sustained levels of cortisol?
Can rape interrupt or stop altogether the victim's menstrual cycle?

In fact, the referenced study can't answer any of those questions. It was merely an epidemiological study intended to suggest a potential correlation between stress levels and ovulation/menstruation. Sound science doesn't take a small, epidemiological study that can do nothing but suggest a correlation that may warrant further study, and turn it into an assertion of causation. Unfortunately, Fischer is not similarly disciplined:

Here’s the American Society for Reproductive Medicine: “In an occasional woman, too much stress can change her hormone levels and therefore cause the time when she releases an egg to become delayed or not take place at all.” Sounds like maybe her body can shut down the process after all.

Such an assertion is an unwarranted jump to conclusion, and is as foolish as it is absurd. Suggesting a link between stress levels and ovulation in no way whatsoever proves an assertion that a rape victim has an innate physiological response that inhibits ovulation, and therefore conception.

Unperturbed by scientific and logical discipline, Fischer finds yet another epidemiological study to attempt to defend his position:

How about the New York Times, the Bible of wingers on the left? Here’s the headline of a May 11, 2011 feature article: “Lowering Stress Improves Fertility Treatment.” The article refers to findings published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, and quotes Dr. Alice D. Domar, a psychologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston who serves as director of mind-body services at Boston IVF, a large fertility center.

Said Dr. Domar, “If you’re really stressed out and depressed, the body seems to sense that’s not a good time to get pregnant.” Hmm. Sound suspiciously like the body shutting down, no?

Multiple epidemiological studies suggesting the same correlation still do not prove causation; rather, they merely provide a stronger argument for further studies. So I'll refrain from quoting the third such example Fischer uses.

Instead, I'll turn to relevant analysis of the assertion, by attempting to make a meaningful statistical comparison: the percentage of rapes that result in pregnancy, versus the percentage of consensual, unprotected sex that results in pregnancy. To that end, I'll reference three studies linked by PopSci.

Using this study as the baseline, 3.1% of unprotected, consensual sex results in pregnancy. How does that compare to pregnancy rates from rape? This study indicates that 5% of rapes result in pregnancy, and this study indicates that anywhere from 6.4% - 8% of rapes (factoring in birth control usage) result in pregnancy. Thus, according to these studies, rapes result in pregnancy at a rate around 2-3 more frequently than consensual, unprotected sex.

I don't know if those studies controlled for forcible versus statutory rape. But even such distinction likely won't change the numbers significantly enough to lend credence to the "magic uterus" pseudo-science. While hard numbers are difficult to acquire immediately, I did find this reference to a study from 1949 that indicates that statutory rape constitutes 30 percent of all sex crimes, and this site that asserts that 3/4 of all juvenile rape is forcible. Taken together, the two studies would indicate that non-forcible, statutory rape accounts for anywhere from 7.5% to 30% of all rapes. So even assuming the worst-case scenario, the statistics still indicate that rapes result in pregnancy with a frequency equal to or higher than consensual, unprotected sex.

I welcome more precise statistics, but based on what I've found, I don't see any reason to believe that differentiating between forcible rape and other forms of sexual assault (statutory rape, incest, etc.) would alter the conclusion that there is no evidence to support the assertion that rapes result in pregnancy less frequently than consensual, unprotected sex.

Thus, both Todd Akin and Bryan Fischer are foolishly and dangerously peddling pseudo-science. In so doing, the least of our worries is that Todd Akin will lose a Senate race. The bigger travesty is that, by changing the narrative to a defense of pseudo-science, those who peddle that pseudo-science forfeit the ability to hold a legitimate policy discussion regarding rape and abortion. Those who are pro-life, who believe that life begins at conception and that an innocent, unborn child should not be murdered simply because his father is a rapist, lose the opportunity to have that debate.

Thus, Todd Akin, Bryan Fischer, and anyone else who chooses to peddle such pseudo-science (or defend those who do) actively harm the objectives of the pro-life movement.

TRANSCRIPT: Barack Obama and The God Factor Interview

I'll have more to say on this later; for now, if you are a Christian and want to hear Obama describe his faith in his own words, then you will find this interview instructive*.

* H/T: Glen Davis

2011Tue09Aug

Anders Breivik: NOT a Christian

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (5) | TrackbackFiled in Politics, ReligionTags: Conservatism, Liberalism, Media Bias

Anders Breivik in his own words:

A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.

Jesus Christ in His own words (from John 14):

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. f you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

And this is instructive, too (James 1:22-25):

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

And James goes even further: (James 2:14-19):

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

I rest my case: Anders Breivik, by his own admission, is not a Christian. He claims to be only a "cultural" Christian - a term that has absolutely no meaning in Christian doctrine.

(H/T: cordpt @ RedState)

2011Mon18Jul

Review: Flight of Shadows

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (0) | TrackbackFiled in ReviewsTags: Blogging for Books, Books, Christian

I do not regret the price I paid for my love for you. But I do regret what it has cost you, all your life. And I have never stopped regretting all that I kept hidden from you.

And so concludes the mysterious letter with which Sigmund Brouwer begins Flight of Shadows, the dystopian sequel to Broken Angel, set in the post-apocalyptic, former United States of America, that combines the Handmaid's Tale-esque, cult-like theocracy of Appalachia with the Orwellian caste system of the City-States. Caitlyn Brown, having escaped from Appalachia, struggles to survive as an outcast in the City-State caste system as she searches for answers to questions of her identity and the origin of the horrific secret she holds.

Read the rest of this entry »

2011Thu28Apr

2011 NFL Draft – Colts Round 1

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (0) | TrackbackFiled in SportsTags: Colts, Draft, Indiana, Indianapolis, NFL

Anthony Costanzo, LT, Boston College

With the 22nd overall pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Indianapolis Colts take:

Anthony Costanzo, LT, Boston College

Stats:

HT: 6'7 / WT: 311 / 40: 5.23

Overview:

After a surprising number of teams selected quarterbacks in the first round, Costanzo became the "Best Player Available'", falling to the Colts at the #22 pick. Costanzo, rated by many as one of the top 2 or 3 left tackles in this year's draft, appears ready to step into a starting role as an NFL left tackle, which would fill a glaring upgrade need for the Colts. Costanzo is clearly a value pick, and may prove to be a steal.

Bio:

Draft Analysis:

NFL.com

The selection of Castonzo shows that Bill Polian was serious about upgrading the protection of Peyton Manning. The Boston College star enters the league with a ton of experience and is one of the most technically sound players at the position. He gives the Colts a potential starter as a left or right tackle and some flexibility in configuring a rebuilt offensive line.
Yahoo Sports

The Colts' offensive line faltered last season and made Peyton Manning's job as challenging as ever. Castonzo can plug in at left tackle and protect Manning's blind side from Day 1. He's a smart, versatile, technically sound pass protector who could stand to improve his core base strength.
ESPN

What he brings: A smart, instinctive and polished player, Castonzo has the technique and maturity to step in and play right away. His lateral mobility is just average but he does a good job sinking his hips and using his hands when he can get into position. He's not a road-grader as a run blocker but does a good job getting on the edge and covering defenders to create running lanes, which works well with Indy's zone blocking scheme.

How he fits: Offensive tackle may have been the No. 1 need and he is an excellent fit as an intelligent player in a very sophisticated offense. Even though the Colts get a lot of publicity for not giving up a lot of sacks, much of it is due to Peyton Manning's quick release and not their pass protection.
Fox Sports

Castonzo could be an immediate starter and he showed a lot of versatility by playing three different offensive line positions at the Senior Bowl. This is a smart kid and the Colts definitely have an need on the offensive line.

The Colts were very lucky to be able to select the talented Castonzo because he was projected to go off the board much earlier in the first round. He’ll be expected to start as a rookie at left tackle.

Scouting Reports

Draft Board Insider (Rank: #14 Overall / #3 OT)

Castonzo is a very smart player with very good awareness and instincts. He's a very sound technical blocker and while he isn't always the most athletic or powerful guy on the field, rarely is he caught out of position or beat on a play because he didn't do his job or follow his assignment. In terms of a resume' you can't discount a guy who's a four year starter at both left and right tackle.
NFL.com (Grade: 8.0)

Strengths: Castonzo possesses ideal height for the tackle position and has great feet. A highly-productive and extremely durable performer with over 50 starts in his college career. Smart, tough player and a hard worker. Huge, long frame coupled with impressive mobility allows him to shut down speed rushers. Puts himself in good position while run blocking. Comfortable and productive in space.

Weaknesses:: Must improve his bulk and playing strength (both upper and lower body). Can be beat by a strong bull rush or violent pass rushing moves. Can get caught dipping his head in pass protection. Does not push people off the line of scrimmage in the running game.
SI.com (Grade: 3.05 - First-Year Contributor)

Positives: Tall, relatively athletic tackle prospect who comes with a high upside. Keeps his feet moving throughout the action, displays better than average footwork off the edge, and is effective in pass protection. Moves well about the field, easily slides out, and fights hard to finish blocks. Adjusts to defenders, blocks with good lean, and easily holds the point. Shows good quickness, stays square, and is an effective position blocker who seals opponents from the action. Turns defenders off the line run blocking and uses his long arms to push opponents from their angle of attack. Makes good use of angles, keeps his head on a swivel, and works well with teammates.

Negatives: Just average blocking in motion. Must improve his blocking balance. Overextends into blocks, adversely affecting his ability to finish the play.

Analysis: Castonzo has been a terrific tackle on the college level and offers the size, athleticism, and blocking fundamentals to eventually start at the next level. He should be given a chance at the all-important left tackle position before any consideration is given to moving him to the right side.
Mocking The Draft (Rank: #4 OT)

Castonzo is much better as a pass blocker than run blocker at this point of his development. He can use his natural abilities – agility, quickness, length – to his advantage to wall off defenders. Does really well moving his hands in and out to knock defenders back. Possesses a wide, smooth kick slide to the outside. Castonzo is quick enough to work his power slide to stop inside rushers. Will get fooled at times by stunting defenders.
National Football Post (Grade: 6.9 - B - Dirty Starting Caliber)

The size, length and natural athleticism is there, but he needs more time to mature physically. I don't think he's a guy who you can pencil in as a starter on the left side from day one, but with some time he has the skill set to eventually develop into a serviceable starting left tackle in the NFL. However, as of now, isn't an elite offensive tackle prospect by any stretch in my book.
Draft Countdown (Rating: 4 Stars / Projection: 1st Round)

Strengths: Ideal size with a large frame, long arms and big hands, Very good athleticism, quickness, agility and balance, Shows relatively nimble feet to slide laterally and mirror, Displays the ability to recover and adjust in action, Effective run blocker who generates sufficient movement, Polished technician who understands positioning / angles, Able to stun with initial punch and uses hands well overall, Mobile with range to work in space and get to second level, Extraordinarily smart with great instincts and awareness, Competitive, aggressive and active with a terrific motor, Mature and a fiery leader with an outstanding work ethic, Durable with a ton of experience against top competition

Weaknesses: Still developing in terms of weight / strength, Is not overly stout at the point of attack, Narrow base and struggles to anchor / sustain, Isn't a powerful, road grading run blocker, Can be inconsistent with knee bend / leverage, Had some trouble with elite speed off the edge
Fox Sports

Scouts love his feel for the game and smarts, qualities that are no surprise since he was a Rhodes Scholar nominee as a biochemistry major. Castonzo is also considered very disciplined, perhaps from his time playing football at Fork Union Military Academy in Virginia. He rates high in athleticism, size and versatility since he can fit in well at either tackle slot. Castonzo is a solid bet to be drafted in the top 15 and could be the top offensive lineman taken.
FFToolbox (Rank: #19 in Top 100)

At 6-7 and 308 pounds Castonzo certainly has the size to play in the NFL. He could have left a year early, but the extra year at Boston College saw him add quite a bit of needed weight. The pundits have already been paying close attention to Castonzo since he was on the radar last year and his year bulking up at BC should move him up into the late first round or the second round.
WalterFootball (Rank: #2 OT / Projection: Top 20)

Castonzo uses finesse and technique to his advantage. His upside is in adding a few pounds and more strength. This would make him a better run blocker and more able to slow down powerful NFL rushers.
NFL Draft Geek (Rank: #5 OT / Tier: 2)

He does a good job walling his defender off, blocking into the second level, and opening up holes for the back to run through. He has great height and long arms, and uses his arms well to guide his defender where he wants them to go when run blocking. His pass protection is a real cause for concern from me though, he is not very agile, he plays way too high, which allows defenders to get underneath him, and he is not very strong as of now.