text:
John Lennox interviewed by CPX

The Centre for Public Christianity has some interviews with Professor John Lennox, a distinguished Christian thinker and author. Lennox has recently debated both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. He is a professor in Mathematics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green College, at the University of Oxford (HT: Justin Taylor).

Other videos worth watching:

The evils of Christendom.

The evidence for God and the explanatory scope of science.

Science and faith, and the credibility of the Bible.

Hitler and the Atheistic detractor of Hell

How unfortunate that such nonsense has already made its way as far as New Zealand. America is losing its edge in Christian zealotry.

Attack the man; ignore the issue. Great debating tactic!

BarryLeder (3 months ago) Show Hide

Rob, I was not debating. By your own admission, there would be nothing restraining you from taking my life were I to succeed in convincing you that the Christian ‘worldview’ is an epic failure on the logic and morality front. My post was merely an observation.

Your “observation” however is loaded with morality. “Unfortunate” according to whom? “Nonsense” according to whose viewpoint? “Zealotry”? I think you are confusing me with Richard Dawkins and his mates.

I am just stating what seems to me to be obvious: “In a world without God, all things are permissible”. If this is not true, then show me why it isn’t.

It was ABSOLUTELY loaded with morality. But lets not start with the assumption that God as a given is moral. While I don’t believe there is sin, transgression against God; I do believe there are moral wrongs.

Those moral wrongs arise out of the nature of our existence where life is fragile and resources are scarce. While there may not be a supreme emforcer, that lack of an enforcer is not what establishes or prevents a moral right or wrong.

Now my question back to you is why is your concept of God more moral than Hitler? Unless you are Jehovah Witness or Mormon, your conceptual God probably would send Anne Frank to hell for eternity. Hitler only did it once. Seems the Christian worldview is in a very weak position to criticize the actions of Hitler.

These are really good questions BarryLeder. Also really emotionally charged ones. Because I think good questions deserve good answers, let us deal with your question with clear logic.

If I were to argue minimally for theism (not the internal consistency of the Christian world-view, not the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy, not the doctrine of hell) then you would still have the problem of dealing with apologeticsNZ’s original question. How do you get morality on atheism?

So based on the premises that – (1) if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist, and (2) objective morals do exist, the logically inescapable and necessary conclusion is that God exists.

Since you take pains to ABSOLUTELY agree that moral values do exist, then it must be the first premise you disagree with. But you have given no reason why you think that objective moral values can exist apart from God. If your reason is they arise from the nature of existence then your ethics must be rather flowery. What is it about the nature of our existence that makes things right or wrong? I can’t think of any moral value fertiliser can teach me? Without a transcendent ground to pin your assertions of the existence of right and wrong, you end up with moral values being amoral. Ethics is reduced to subjectivism, which is unliveable.

Now if I were to argue for more than just theism, then your question comes into play. That makes it clear that your really not arguing against the existence of God, and not even the morality of God (since if the above moral argument is successful then it gives us good grounds to believe in a personal and morally perfect being), but only the doctrine of hell.

In effect your argument is that God’s omni-benevolence and all-compassionate love is incompatible with his sending people to hell. As I said before, this is an emotionally charged question, and I think not so very difficult an intellectual objection to dismiss. This is evident when you consider that as a purely intellectual problem it is just as problematic that a just and holy God can send people to heaven, but who rejects Christ for that difficulty?

You rightly discern that one could adopt the doctrine of annihilationism as a strategy. I could also adopt the idea that hell is not eternal but a type of temporary pergatory. This would take all the power out of your objection to your belief in a moral God. But in fact I do not accept the particular doctrines, and consider the Bible to be faithfully reporting the truth when it says there is a literal hell. I also think that most descriptions given are figuratively describing a place of eternal conscious torment from being separated from God. What a horrible belief! How is one to make sense of these two seemingly contradictory tenets of Christian belief, namely God’s love and that he sends people to hell?

Well look closely at the objection. These aren’t explicitly contradictory. Therefore there must be some implicit assumptions smuggled in to make it contradictory. What are these assumptions? I’ll be generous and supply what I think they are. (A) That God is able to create a world in which all people will be freely saved. (B) That God is willing that all people be freely saved.

But because you want to say that it is impossible that a loving God can send people to hell, you must prove assumptions (A) and (B) necessarily. I’m really glad I don’t have to bare that burden of proof!

As for (A) It is at least possible that a world in which all people are freely saved is unfeasible for God. As for (B) It is impossible for God to make people freely choose him. Just because God is omnipotent doesn’t mean he can do the logically impossible. Also it is possible that the only possible world in which all people are freely saved, is a world in which only one person exists, and I don’t see why those who reject God’s salvation should have a sort of veto power over God and his plan to create a world in which, on balance, more people are saved than lost. What if one man’s atheism was the cause of one man’s salvation? That world would be balanced. So its clear that it is far beyond the detractor of hell’s scope of knowledge to declare with any certainty that there exists a contradiction between God’s love and his sending people to hell.

But does God send people to hell? A better understanding of what the Bible teaches is that God does not send people to hell, but it is we who send ourselves to hell for not accepting the provision made for us through Jesus Christ. God’s mercy and justice are reconciled at the cross. There we see how Christ’s blood was poured out for us as an atoning sacrifice, allowing sinful man to have relationship with a holy and just God. There we see the wrath of God for our sin, poured out on Jesus, who willing gave his life showing his love, and the extreme lengths he will go to rescue you.

In a very real sense, God is not to blame for the free actions of those who choose not accept his Son. He had made every effort to show himself to man, and it is now up to man to see how he will respond.

Given the universality of sin, and the uniquness of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, it stands to reason that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. It is this exclusivity that is so repugnant to our modern sensibilities. Nevertheless, it is the clear testimony of scripture.

The first thing to remember that this view was just as controversial in first century polytheistic Rome, if not more so, than it is today. The second thing is we must distinguish between truth and taste. What is repugnant to our ears is not a measure to test what is true. The third thing to remember is that it is not only Christianity that makes exclusive claims, but every religion, from Muslim to Hindu to Taoist to Mormon – everyone – even the inclusivist excludes the exclusivist. Truth presupposes exclusivity.

This exclusive claim of the Christian uncovers another problem. For if Christ’s death is the only way for salvation of everyone who believes, then the multitudes that have not heard the gospel are not even given the opportunity to respond. They cannot believe in faith and be saved for no one told them they must. The inhabitants of heaven are people who were saved as a result of historical and geographical accident of birth. How can we make sense of this?

There are two solutions that spring to mind.

The first is that God has a way of spreading the gospel and the good news of his Son that is not dependant on people. This idea, in fact carries scriptural data to back it up.

According to Romans 2 people who never hear the gospel are not judged according to the same standard as those who did hear the gospel. Rather they are judged on the basis of their response to the revelation they are given, in nature and in conscience. It is clear that Job and Methuselah were saved even though they were without the gospel, were not a part of Israel and were without the law.

There are also plentiful stories, particularly coming from Islamic nations, of people seeing dreams and visions of Jesus preaching to them the Christian gospel though they have never heard had any contact with it before. Sometimes whole villages have the same dream simultaneously and as a community convert before any missionary arrives.

Paul, while on his way to persecute and kill more Christians, became a convert of Jesus himself. One doesn’t need a missionary to receive the gospel, but God is powerful enough to send a missionary to you if he knows you will respond to the message. If there are no missionaries that will go, he is capable of stepping off the throne himself as he did with Paul.

The second solution is that God knew before the foundation of the world, who would accept and would reject him and his marvellous message. Thus he providentially arranged the world so that the gospel would reach all who would freely accept it, if it was heard, and place those who in every possible set of circumstances would reject his salvation in a time and place where hey would not hear the gospel. If God has middle-knowledge this a very plausible explanation, especially given Paul’s message to the people of Athens in the Areopagus (see Acts 17:26). But this solution doesn’t have to be true or even probable – it just needs to be possible and it breaks the force of the objection completely.

Response to the SaviorOfLogic

SaviorOfLogic has replied to a comment on YouTube video Atheists should not criticize Hitler:

If whatever God commanded be good, then murder (assuming an Abrahamic belief system) is always evil, and should be punishde by death, but what if I went back in time and killed Hitler, is that good or evil? What if God forbid’s murder, but then commands you to kill (such as in the promised land), is killing or not killing them the moral action?

My reasoning is that almost every single action can be both good and evil, depending on the circumstances, and we don’t need a deity to tell us that.

ThinkingMatters  (that’s me) says

Hello, SaviorOfLogic. You have some good questions here which I am interested in answering them. But the format here on YouTube is not so good for questions such as these, and I do not think I can do them justice in the short time I have available now. Please check where I’ll blog on this topic, hopefully in the next week.

My promised response follows…

I think you might want to be talking about the Mosaic Law (not the “Abrahamic belief system”), which states “Thou shalt not murder.”

You start with the word “If,” and as I already mentioned in my response UppruniTegundanna (though you may have missed it due the lengthy comment section), that the “if…” is something I am not willing to grant.

Here is what I had to say concerning the Euthyphro Dilemma.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —- — — — — — — — — — — —

ThinkingMatters  (that’s me) says

The ethics developed on the theism finds a transcendent ground in God. The Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma, that is to say those are not the only options. The third option that splits the arguments horns is that God is the standard. Rather than the good being good because God said so – thus arbitrary, or the good being above God – thus God is not the ultimate, the good flows from his nature – the good is good because God is good.

UppruniTegundanna responds

If I accept the third option, can I say that it is in fact a false trilemma, and that there is an additional option that we are being deceived into our beliefs about what is good or not by an evil force?

ThinkingMatters  (that’s me) responds

As for the third option – you could say that it is a false trilemma because there are more than three options – but all I need to do is split the horns of the dilemma. I don’t even need to argue that the third option is true, it just needs to be an option. But I do think that the third option is plausibly true – we have for instance biblical grounds for declaring it true, and we have good philosophical grounds as well, as God is defined as the ultimate being and morality is a perfection.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —- — — — — — — — — — — —

What if God forbid’s murder, but then commands you to kill…

I don’t equate murder with killing. Killing is any action performed that results in the loss of a life. Murder is killing with that added moral component that makes the action wrong.

The distinction between the two is very interesting I think, but for now let us not get distracted by it.

is killing or not killing them the moral action?

Because I think that our moral duties come from God’s commands and flow directly from his nature, not killing them would be immoral. Whereas killing them in the absence of God’s command would be immoral. I know at this point my answer seems incredible to you, so before I go on, its worth pointing out that the consistent atheist has to adopt a far more radical position.

He or she must deny there is such as thing as evil, good, and objective right and wrong. Should and shouldn’t should be wiped from their dictionary. Morals become the equivalent of personal preference akin to which way I choose to part my hair in the morning – totally subjective and amoral. On atheism ethics is as philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse says is “illusory.”

In the absence of a deity, in order to discourse with meaning on ethics, you need to give a basis for how we determine what is right and wrong, good and evil.

I hold to Divine Command Theory. This is the theory that says our moral duties are given by the decrees of God.

(such as in the promised land)

The questions I think you are really asking are; (1) How can you consider the conquest of Caanan moral? (2) Is the God who commanded them to kill Himself moral?

C.S.Lewis said when critiquing a worldview you have to do your best to step inside that worldview and assess it from the inside, or run the risk of arguing against a straw man. So step inside…

First observation is that both these questions assume the Bible is factually accurate. So its not really a critique from the outside, but an internal matter of consistency. Therefore, at most what is at stake is the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy – not the existence of God, and not even the moral perfection of God.

As I’ve distinguished between the act of murder and killing, mush of the force of (2) is already gone. Question (1) remains.

The conquest of Caanan comes set against the backdrop of Sodom and Gomorra. Abraham has a discussion where God tells him that he is going to destroy these two cities. Like a middle-eastern bargain hunter, Abraham says “will you still destroy the city if a hundred righteous people live there?” God says “No, I will not.” Abraham comes back again and again, getting lower and lower, and always receives the same answer – “No, I will not.” Eventually Abraham dare not go any lower.

The LORD does indeed rescue Lot, Abraham’s nephew, from Sodom before it is destroyed. The implication is that God would not judge a whole city if there was one righteous person who lived there. So we see the great holiness of God, the great length he will go to deliver those who seek to obey him, and judgement of a wicked and perverse people.

The fire and brimstone that reigned down on those two cities represented God’s judgement on them. As the supreme, infinitely holy being who first gave them life, God has every right to take their lives, and is under no obligation to prolong their life. Also as an omniscient being he is also capable of knowing the amount of evil that would have resulted had he not judged them in this way. It is also possible that God could have known there were no circumstances in which they would have repented if given the opportunity.

It is around this time that Abraham receives a promise that the land will be his inheritance for descendants. But does God send them in immediately. The answer is no. He stalls over four hundred years to wait for “their iniquity is not yet full.”

Fast forward to Israel exiting Egypt and the desert wandering: promised the land but unable to take possession of it, waiting for God’s command to come. When it does the command says kill every person you find there. You and I in modern times thinks that’s pretty harsh, but remember we are talking about God giving the command. Our moral duties come from his command and perfectly reflect his nature, which is pure and holy, perfect in morals and in judgement. So the command represents God’s judgement upon that nation, and this time instead of fire and brimstone, the instruments of His judgement are the Israelites.

Because God is not accountable to anyone or any over arching principle called “good” he literally cannot sin, as his own commands that flow from his perfect nature are not binding on him. We however, as his creations, are recipients of those commands and we are to be held responsible for breaking them and, if he wishes it, rewarded for obeying them.

It must be remembered that the Canaanites were not innocent victims. With the background context of Sodom and Gomorra fresh in our mind, there was probably not one righteous person among them, accept Rahab and her family who were rescued much like Lot. The people who lived in Caanan were reprobates and full of all types of wickedness and debauchery. Temple prostitution was one of things that were common practice, as well as child sacrifice.

One reason God may have given this command was He knew that if these tribes and nations had been allowed to continue to live there would have greater evil as a result. An omniscient being is in the perfect position to decide that the lives of a few thousand now is better than the lives of untold millions later.

Also, on the Christian view, the children who were killed in the conquest of Canaan would go to heaven, whereas had they been allowed to live and grow up they might have been placed in circumstances where he knew they would have rejected him. So actually when God decreed that even the children should be killed, He was doing them a favour. And when it comes to the salvation of the adults, it is at least possible that God knew that there was not any possible set of circumstances that would elicit from those people true repentance and salvation.

One reason the Bible gives for God giving this command is so the Israelites would understand the importance of being set apart from the nations that surrounded them. God knew that if these people were not exterminated then Israel would latter fall into apostasy. And if you follow through in the history of Israel, that is exactly what did happen. The very people that Israel spared were the people that latter led them into idolatry and sin. Later God used those same people to discipline Israel in turn to keep them a separate and holy nation.

The conquest of Caanan helped to shape Israel’s national identity. It is entirely plausible that God understood that an immeasurable good would result from their separated and unique identity. And in the gospels we see that God was right, for from Israel there came a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who built a bridge between sinful man and a holy God, that the whole world can be reconciled Him. A good that would not have been possible had Israel been just another heathen culture.

So we have see that given God’s moral greatness and superlative attributes that Christian monotheism is internally consistent and logically on sound ground. Whereas atheism is not logically sound if one wishes to discourse on ethics with real meaning, and is internally inconsistent as it is completely unliveable. Based on all the above, God is not only in the very centre of how we determine what is moral, but He gives us the only logical ground to affirm that both good and evil exist.

I put it to you, who is the more reasonable? The one who sees the atrocities of Hitler’s Nazi regime and says “I don’t like it, but I can’t say it’s wrong because my atheism won’t allow me to,” or the one who says “This was really evil.”

Thank God that He is the true “Saviour of logic.” :-)

Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler

The following is a conversation taken from

It was in part a response to Rob’s excellent video entitled;

Atheists should not criticize Hitler

Rob says:

“My video above was a reply to another video that had about 1,000,000 hits, thus has gathered many hits on the back of that one… Stats: almost 2000 views to date and almost 250 comments :-)”

That was as of 20 November, 2008. You can expect the conversation to continue. As the conversation was conducted on YouTube it may seem a little non-linear, but I have corrected the order of a few comments so reflects more accurately the dialogue we did have.

Rob is “apologeticsNZ”

Atheist objector “UppruniTegundanna”

I enter the conversation as “ThinkingMatters”

apologeticsnz (16 hours ago)

It seems most people on this comment thread do not think at all! That aside, please tell me HOW you KNOW what right and wrong are?

UppruniTegundanna (1 week ago) Show Hide

Surely you recognise how self-serving your analysis of human morality is: i.e. you have constructed the argument specifically to bolster the moral rectitude of your faith, and undermine that of atheists. The thing is, there is no atheist morality – instead there is human morality. The problem I see in your argument is a denial of one of our more noble attributes: that is the capacity to engage in moral reasoning.

I would describe my morality as a combination of utilitarian principles (i.e. the promotion of happiness, health and prosperity of humans), a faithful adherence to a social contract (the Golden Rule) and an understanding of cause an effect. I don’t have one book, rather I have the entirety of human literature, philosophy, music and art to inspire me to be a good human being.

apologeticsnz (16 hours ago)

You are question begging. How do you KNOW what a “good” book is? Mein Kampf is a book. Is it good? How do you know? How do you KNOW the golden rule is a good thing?

UppruniTegundanna (14 hours ago) Show Hide

My criterion is as follows: if a principle is a positive force for social cohesion, then I consider it good. How presumptuous of me! Please, don’t allow yourself to fall into abject nihilism in your attempt to label non-believers as incapable of positive morality. The promotion of health, happiness and prosperity is a good thing, whatever your beliefs. This may involve following teachings from a holy book, or devising new principles to deal with new situations.

As for Mein Kampf, I haven’t read the book, and I doubt I ever will – it just isn’t on my reading list! But even if I did read it, I imagine it would tell me more about what can happen to a disordered mind than anything about positive morality. It shouldn’t upset your faith to accept that non-believers can see the good and bad in things by applying their rational minds – after all, don’t you think that the “moral law is written in the hearts of all men” (paraphrase from Romans 2:14-15)?

apologeticsnz (13 hours ago)

Hey, finally an intelligent answer!

Yes indeed, the moral law is on ALL our hearts. But in that case, why is there any evil in the world?

Biblically, the heart and mind are ‘fallen’. That is, they are perpetually driving toward sin. It is like a lust within us, thus the Apostle Paul writes of knowing what is right but desiring to do what is wrong!!! He referred to this as a war in his members e.g. a conflict between his fallen heart & mind, & the “new man”, born again “in Christ”.

Make sense?

UppruniTegundanna (13 hours ago) Show Hide

Firstly I want to say that I am enjoying this dialogue with you, despite our differences in belief system, it is important to pick one another’s brains, so to speak. While I wouldn’t use the word “fallen”, I agree with you that humans have a capacity for destructive behaviour. Why does this happen? My explanation is that humans have positive and negative impulses in almost equal measure, especially when it comes to coexisting in a society that is at odds with our “natural” existence.

By “natural” I am referring the fact that we originally existed in bands of 200 or so people, and our loyalty was primarily directed towards that kin group. As societies have grown and become more complex, we have had to adjust our interactions to become more inclusive of others in order to establish social cohesion – it is a difficult balance to maintain, but it is not impossible as long as people can differentiate between behaviour that promotes social cohesion versus behaviour that upsets it.

UppruniTegundanna (1 week ago) Show Hide

Knowing that we have gone from creatures who got by with no more than sticks, stones and fire to the current state of affairs, in which we have colonised every corner of the globe, made preliminary reconnaissance of all the major orbs in our solar system, broken matter down to its infintessimally small component parts and built machines that would, to our brave ancestors, seem like pure magic, is enough to make me wish and act in a way that is for the best for our noble species.

apologeticsnz (13 hours ago)

Noble species? According to darwinism, we are just a complex arrangement of atoms and molecules. We’re born, we die. And that is it. No ultimate meaning. Just a long heat death in an ever expanding universe.

UppruniTegundanna (12 hours ago) Show Hide

You are insisting that I cannot place a value judgement on anything because I accept evolution. This is wrong. We are an arrangement of atoms; this is true whether or not a god exists – but what an arrangement! Are you inspired by the achievements of man? Can I be too? Of course I can! I want the best for humanity but, sadly for you, I do not believe that this will be achieved merely by following the decrees of a holy text. If we want to coexist peacefully, we need to think for ourselves…

… and make judgements on the best way to behave based on the practical outcome of the behaviour. Do lying, stealing, murdering and raping help us coexist peacefully? No. By the way, doesn’t it seem odd that “Thou shalt not rape” is not part of the decalogue? I consider rape worse than coveting my neighbour’s goods! In fact, desiring what others have seems to be a great accelerant for invention and hard work!

ThinkingMatters (12 hours ago) Show Hide

I think you’re confused on one of the finer points of the argument. The point is not that atheists cannot discern or know what is right and wrong. The point is that an atheist cannot be consistent with their view if they want to affirm the existence of objective morals. The ethic you have created for yourself is like a web suspended on nothing. In the end you cannot affirm why and if your own view is good or wrong. You end up with subjectivism which is insufficient if you want to condemn Hitler.

UppruniTegundanna (11 hours ago) Show Hide

Point taken, although I would say that the difference between us is that you are looking for a moral framework that, once established, can be adhered to at all times, in all situations, whereas I think that morality should be goal-oriented, i.e. that we should behave in a way that facilitates a desired outcome – in my case, and the case of most people I would assume, greater and more peaceful coexistence between humans.

ThinkingMatters (11 hours ago) Show Hide

The problem you have just confirmed is that you cannot condemn Hitler for his atrocious actions. He too created an ethic that was goal-oriented, namely extermination of the Jews. He too presumably was acting to better the lot of humanity and future coexistence with people. His views on what constituted human was different, and how to achieve his ends were different than ours would be, but how do you affirm that he was really wrong?

Without a transcendent ground to morality ethics becomes discourse without meaning.

UppruniTegundanna (11 hours ago) Show Hide

Well, when you consider the enormous contribution to science, art and culture that the Jews have made in the 20th century, I think you can in fact say that Hitler was objectively wrong in thinking that his actions were for the greater good (which he DID think) – incidentally, I might not be here if he had succeeded, as my grandmother was a Ukrainian Jew. The fact that different people can have different goals, does not mean that all those goals are equal…

… It is up to people of good conscience, who do not allow their worldviews to be tainted by hatred and prejudice, to stand up to people who do promote vicious regimes, whether they are religious or not. It is not just the people who commit evils acts who are dangerous, but also the people who do nothing that are dangerous. I think you and I can stand together and agree on that point.

ThinkingMatters (10 hours ago) Show Hide

I certainly can agree with you there. But it seems you are content to live inconsistently with your view. How is it you can say such and such is evil? It seems you do, when it comes down to it, agree that objective morals do exist.

ThinkingMatters (10 hours ago) Show Hide

That is just knocking the question back one step. Why is the Jewish contribution to science, art and culture worthwhile on atheism?

UppruniTegundanna (10 hours ago) Show Hide

I don’t quite understand the question? Are you asking why I, as an atheist, would care about the Jewish contribution to culture? It is I, as a human, who cares about that. I am moved by literature and art, filled with admiration for people who have contributed to science, thus improving the quality of our lives, and disgusted by those who want to destroy both, not as an atheist, but as a human.

ThinkingMatters (10 hours ago) Show Hide

Thus there is a disconnect. Your human desires, moral and aesthetic intuitions do not conform with your philosophical atheism. For on atheism, these things are not anything worthwhile. Why should science that improves human life be regarded as a worthy endeavour? After all a human on atheism is only a sack of chemicals. Why should art that improves the quality of life be of any significance in an atheistic universe?…

… On atheism we live in a universe indifferent to our survival and comfort. Again its the web suspended on nothing.

UppruniTegundanna (9 hours ago) Show Hide

The mistake you are making is thinking that atheism informs my worldview to the same extent that Christianity informs the worldview of a Christian. It is simply an answer to the question of the existence of a god. All value judgements have to be derived from a different source, which I have rather glibly described as “human”. What I mean is that things have a value based on their positive impact on humanity. You seem determined to accuse me of nihilism, and that simply isn’t the case!

ThinkingMatters (9 hours ago) Show Hide

You comment here is interesting. You make “positive impact on humanity” the standard for morals. Thus you provide a transcendent ground to base your ethics but fail to show how it is not ad hoc. You fail to define “positive” without arguing in a circle and fail to answer “why” on atheism we can declare with real meaning something as right or wrong. You also admit you do not integrate your atheism with your moral intuitions – that last is a good thing indeed! …

You say: “I treat morality as something that can be discussed and evaluated, can be subject to improvement and modification …, and first and foremost, as something that is of utmost importance for human wellbeing. How is that inconsistent?”

It is inconsistent because you have not integrated your atheism with your moral intuitions. On atheism morality is not objective, yet you consistently refer above and beyond yourself, on this blog and in life with objective moral statements

ThinkingMatters (9 hours ago) Show Hide

This has been a great discussion and I am about to turn in. It’s late here in NZ. With your permission I’d like to copy and paste this to a blog at talk.thinkingmatters

I think it will be of great interest to people.

Sorry I’m turning in. :-(

UppruniTegundanna (9 hours ago) Show Hide

I have no trouble admitting that I do not integrate my atheism into my moral intuitions – I don’t see any need to. To go back to the old argument that atheists make about other metaphysical beliefs, I don’t incorporate my disagreement with astrology into my moral intuitions either! Anyway, don’t want to ramble too much while you are trying to turn in. Speak again another time perhaps!

Sorry, I didn’t see that you had asked permission to copy and paste the discussion. Of course you may! I hope it comes out sounding coherent, as we were jumping all over the place answering one another’s questions, so it may have lost it’s linear narrative a bit.

The following is a conversation with the same person conducted simultaneously with the one above on the same topics.

apologeticsnz (13 hours ago)

“The promotion of health, happiness and prosperity is a good thing, whatever your beliefs.”

UppruniTegundanna (13 hours ago) Show Hide

You could potentially ask “why” to any explanation I give ad infinitum, but rather than show that I have no grounds for my moral principles, it shows that you are willing to embrace nihilism as a tactic for undermining my assertions. I prefer food that tastes nice to food that tastes bad – similarly, I prefer a happy life for myself and others to an unhappy one. It is possible to behave in a way that promotes that. I am having trouble understanding how you can’t accept that as a valid worldview.

ThinkingMatters (11 hours ago) Show Hide

You’re actually mostly correct – we could ask “why?” ad infinitum. Morals on atheism are comparable to the preference of taste. They are subjective and ultimately arbitrary. Where the trouble lies is in understanding your worldview as valid is it does not conform to our moral intuitions – is extermination of the Jews just personal preference or is it really objectively wrong. How about surgical experimentation on live Jewish babies? Is that morally equivalent to the taste of vanilla over chocolate?

And if you think that those things are wrong and want to be consistent with your view, and if you want your answer to have real meaning, you have to find an answer to the question “why?” that isn’t arbitrary or ad hoc, and isn’t unjustified specieism.

UppruniTegundanna (11 hours ago) Show Hide

Well, I could ask “why” to the answer “because of God’s word”, since that raises the slightly different question commonly referred to as the Euthyphro Dilemma – is something good because God says so, or is God affirming something that is true anyway? I do in fact think that a certain amount of subjectivity exists in people’s conception of morality, but rather than absolve us of responsibility for our actions and those of others, as you seem to think…

… I think that this intensifies the responsibility that we all have to consider our actions and moral beliefs carefully, strip them of fallacious thinking and prejudice, to ensure the best possible outcome. This is difficult, and made all the more difficult since we, as humans, have negative impulses that we have to overcome.

ThinkingMatters (10 hours ago) Show Hide

I could ask “why” to the answer “because of God’s word”

The ethics developed on the theism finds a transcendent ground in God. The Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma, that is to say those are not the only options. The third option that splits the arguments horns is that God is the standard. Rather than the good being good because God said so – thus arbitrary, or the good being above God – thus God is not the ultimate, the good flows from his nature – the good is good because God is good.

I don’t think we are absolved from our actions because we perceive morals subjectively. I think if someone were to randomly punch me on the nose without provocation that would be wrong, not just subjectively but objectively as well. I do think we have to think carefully about our moral beliefs and strip them of fallacious thinking. Which is why I come back to you, how can you say that the dude that conks you on the nose without provocation is wrong?

After all, you are yet to answer “why” on atheism you can declare with real meaning that something is right or wrong, without giving an answer that isn’t arbitrary, ad hoc, and succumbing to unjustified specieism.

UppruniTegundanna (10 hours ago) Show Hide

I think it is going to be hard, maybe impossible, for me to provide you with an answer to the moral question that you find satisfactory if I do not incorporate God into it, just as I am dissatisfied with answers to scientific questions that do incorporate God. We may lose the notion that morality is (in some cases literally) carved in stone, but we gain the opportunity to discuss, evaluate and modify, if necessary, our moral beliefs as we encounter new situations, which I take as a good thing.

ThinkingMatters (9 hours ago) Show Hide

I think it will be impossible. You either have to be content living inconsistently with your view and know your ethics is ad hoc, or accept that morals are objective.

UppruniTegundanna (9 hours ago) Show Hide

I have always liked the quote by Aristotle: “it is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it”. In the spirit of that quote, let’s imagine that I am correct in my disbelief: am I acting inconsistently? I treat morality as something that can be discussed and evaluated, can be subject to improvement and modification to deal with new situations, and first and foremost, as something that is of utmost importance for human wellbeing. How is that inconsistent?

If I accept the third option [to the Euthyphro dilemma], can I say that it is in fact a false trilemma, and that there is an additional option that we are being deceived into our beliefs about what is good or not by an evil force? As for being conked on the nose, many people would automatically react by retaliating and a fight would ensue – we benefit from maintaining an orderly society and creating disorder does us a disservice. Hopefully you aren’t going to ask me why an orderly society is better than a disorderly one!

ThinkingMatters (10 hours ago) Show Hide

That’s exactly what I was going to ask :-) You see how you end up with subjective morality if you fail to give a transcendent ground for your moral intuitions? When an injustice, like a bloody nose, or more seriously a genocide like Hitler’s, is done to you everything within you screams this was wrong, it was Wrong, it was WRONG. Then you’re confronted with the reality that morals are objective.

As for the third option [in the Euthyphro dilemma] – you could say that it is a false trilemma because there are more than three options – but all I need to do is split the horns of the dilemma. I don’t even need to argue that the third option is true, it just needs to be an option. But I do think that the third option is plausibly true – we have for instance biblical grounds for declaring it true, and we have good philosophical grounds as well, as God is defined as the ultimate being and morality is a perfection.

UppruniTegundanna (9 hours ago) Show Hide

I have a touch of the flu at the moment, which feels quite nasty at times (bloody British weather!) Do you think I have no rational basis for wanting to feel better than I do now? Because your line of questioning suggests that I couldn’t differentiate between being struck down by a nasty disease and feeling fit as a fiddle. Same goes with societal order: order improves people’s quality of life, disorder decreases it.

ThinkingMatters (8 hours ago) Show Hide

On the contrary, I do think you can differentiate between what is a social good and what is a social evil, just like you can differentiate between a biological evil [the flu] and a biological good [being healthy]. The thing your not grasping is this: we know the flu is bad because we know what it’s like when the body is running right – we have a rational basis. When it comes to morals though, we know what’s bad because we know what’s right – but you’ve no rational basis for that.

:-) Thanks for the conversation.

The Inherent Value of Human Life

Following are portions from a personal email debate/discussion where I presented an argument for God’s existence from the inherent value of human life. It is an argument I am honing, constructive comments appreciated. :-)

I wrote on 15/5/2008:

Quote from you:

As for an Atheist’s view on “human life (being) no more significant than a cockroaches”, I would very much like to hear why the non-belief in god must tag along such a woefully-worded philosophy? Indeed, does atheism necessary have a philosophy? [sic]

Now with the correct definitions in place this a shocking pronouncement. Every view needs a philosophy! In fact, atheism is one among the chief philosophical world-views today. And on the atheistic view thats what humans are – nothing more than chemicals, atoms in motion, accidents of natural processes, no inherent value and no ultimate worth. You are right in saying the paragraph is melancholy. Thats what is the logical conclusion of atheism results in – woeful depression. We are all lowly worms, on an insignificant spec in a cold universe, destined to die and be forgotten, all evidence of our existence and accomplishments to be extinguished when the universe dies.

 But if you do think that human life has inherent value, (and it seems you do) it begs the question as to why? Why is it that human life has value or significance? Why do we act in such a way that reveals this deep seated belief? Why is genocide wrong? Why is murder morally reprehensible? Why do we protest the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Why does what people believe really matter? On the atheistic view I just can’t find any reasonable answer.

You could phrase the argument like this:

1) If God does not exist, then human life does not have any inherent value.

2) Human life does have inherent value.

3) Therefore, God exists.

This argument does not succeed in giving us the full picture of the Christian God, but it does succeed in giving you a God that had endowed human beings life with value. This is at least consistent with Christianity. Still, if you can agree with this argument then that would give you good philosophical grounds for theistic belief and sufficient reason to consider atheism totally bankrupt. If a world-view cannot consistently be lived with or make sense of all the available information, then it should be regarded false and other explanations should be preferred.

I wrote on 1/8/2008:

…What I mean by inherent is an essential, permanent, or characteristic attribute. This inherent value, as an essential attribute, presides in every human life as a right or privilege such that, if it could be taken away, that life would no longer be human. The premise is 1) If God does not exist, then there is no inherent value to human life. I give reasons below.

You say that the human brain has developed the ability to empathise. But this is to confuse the ontological question I am advancing with the epistemological question. I am not trying to get at how we come to know human life has value, but rather am asking does human life have value intrinsically. On atheistic evolution there just is nothing special about humans, we are mere molecules in motion. Ethics and morality are socio-cultural-biological conventions, akin to driving on the right or left side of the road, or to the preference of the taste of chocolate over vanilla. Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science from the University of Guelph says,

The position of the modern evolutionist… is that humans have an awareness of morality… because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth… Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves… Nevertheless,… such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction,… and any deeper meaning is illusory… 1

Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, writes,

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.

Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant.

Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.2

He concludes,

Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning. 3

And so we find a meta-ethical foundation for ethics and morals is indispensable. If atheism cannot provide this meta-ethical foundation then it follows that, if God does not exist human life has no inherent value. This is certainly more likely than its contradictory and many atheists agree. Consider the following diagram fig-1.jpg

If God exists then it is at least possible for human life to have either, no value, contingent value or inherent value. But if God does not exist then human life has either no value or contingent value. If human life has inherent value, then that requires a meta-ethical foundation which atheism cannot supply. Value ascribed to human life by other human life cannot be inherent (an essential attribute) for anything that is given by a human can be taken away by a human. So why can’t human life have contingent value?

If the value of human life is a contingent and subjective quality (non-essential and dispensable) a consequence of that is value could be lifted from human life and actions we would like to universally condemn would become permissible. For instance, it would no longer be wrong to practise self-mutilation or to snort cocaine to the one who no longer cares to live. All that needed to happen for the British Empire to justify the cruelty of slavery was to lift the value off of the black African human life. Black men were reduced in white men’s eyes to animals, but when they were called men again (in the social justice movement led by Christians) suddenly it was wrong to enforce such treatment upon them. For Nazi Germany to justify the genocide of the Jews all they needed to do was remove the value of their lives, thus making it not wrong to kill Jews but instead a virtue. Without inherent value in human life, at most these acts would be socially impolite or culturally distasteful but never objectively wrong. On non-theistic views morals and ethics are precisely socio-cultural-biological conventions and there is no qualitative standard above humankind to condemn of commend these actions. The humanist will attempt to call things like genocide and slavery objectively wrong by making the value of human life the standard. One is apt to wonder why, given atheism, we think that human beings are anything special? Surely this is speciesism – showing unmerited favour towards ones own species. As a stopping place for our moral intuitions the value of human life is simply ad hoc. Without a standard qualitatively above human-kind morality becomes subjective.

But if human life has inherent value, then it really is wrong to enslave someone or kill them indiscriminately. And if it really is wrong to to enslave someone or kill them indiscriminately then this inherent value must be prescribed, for rights and privileges are the dictates of a personal agents. And in the case of the inherent value of human life, this personal agent must be qualitatively above all humankind, and that personal agent can only be the creator.

So the question is not Premise 1 but Premise 2, namely, does human life have inherent value? And I think it does. Moreover, I think you think so as well. This is a properly basic, deeply human, metaphysical intuition. I take it you think that human life is not as a worm or an insect – insignificant, worthless and purposeless, due to be forgotten in the death of the universe. But if you are an atheist, this is exactly what you must believe to remain consistent with your view, at least on the correct definition. It is the logical conclusion of naturalism, as Richard Dawkins says, “There is no good, no evil, no purpose – just pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every objects sole reason for being.” But can Dawkins live consistently with his view? I think not. His books are full of moralizing like the humanist. It seems he agrees, like me, that there are some things that really are objectively wrong, such as genocide and slavery, and if you wish to condemn these practices with meaning, that entails that there is a qualitative standard above humankind that gives human life inherent value and not just contingent value, from which it follows that God exists.

1. Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-9.

2. Richard Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1985), pp. 2-3, 7.

3. Ibid.

Gary Habermas vs. Infidel Guy

Gary Habermas is considered by many to be the foremost expert on the historicity of Jesus and the events surrounding His resurrection. On September 11th he has a friendly discussion with radio host Reggie Finley, recorded and broadcast on the net for The Infidel Guy, the worlds largest atheist online community.

You can download just the audio here at:

PART I (5MB) :|: PART II (6MB) :|: PART III (6MB) :|: PART IV (5MB) :|: PART V (5MB)

On The Resurrection with Gary Habermas – The Infidel Guy Show

Hitchens & Wilson Debate

Apologetics in Action: Aesthetics and the Existence of God – Atheism vs. Christianity

It has happened! MP3 here. Right-click, save-as…

This debate interests me especially as I hope to see a presuppositinal approach in action. That is not because I am explicitly presuppositional in my apologetics, but because I am intrigued by this methodology.

Atheists and objective morality

Casey Luskin from ID The Future recently interviewed (podcast here) Professor Bradley Monton. For me this was an especially interesting interview for a number of reasons:

  1. Bradley (like me) has done work on understanding quantum physics.
  2. Bradley (like me) started studying physics, then discovered philosophy and got hooked on it!
  3. Bradley has written a book manuscript on Intelligent Design
  4. Bradley is going to do a debate on “Intelligent Design and the Existence of God” and is speaking for the pro-ID side (against Lawrence Krauss and another)
  5. Bradley (unlike me) is an atheist!

Unlike many atheists, Bradley sounds like he is interested in looking at the evidence, and is not interested in pursuing fundamentalist-Dawkins-style-nastiness.

Anyway, that interesting stuff aside, Bradley also believes in objective morality. In fact, he offered Casey Luskin the opportunity to hear it, but the podcast was short and it was off topic. Perhaps it will be picked up on a later podcast — well, I hope so anyway.

Here is a short article from Bradley, justifying his “objective morality” claim. What do you think? Is it convincing? Here is the relevant text:

This gets at a standard Philosophy 101 topic, the Euthyphro Dilemma. Is killing an innocent person wrong because God says that it’s wrong, or does God say that killing an innocent person is wrong because it really is objectively wrong? Some people, like Joseph A., believe that God determines what is objectively morally wrong or right. If God says that it’s morally permissible to rape children, then it’s morally permissible. In contrast, I say that, even if God exists, the objective moral standards aren’t set by God. If God were to say that raping children is morally permissible, that wouldn’t make it morally permissible; it would just mean that God is incorrect.

Most theists think that it’s impossible for God to be incorrect, so in practice God would always prescribe the correct moral view. But it doesn’t follow from the fact that God always prescribes the correct moral view that God is the source of morality.

I’m not an expert in this argument, but I suspect Bradley has misunderstood Euthyphro’s Dilemma. Here are a couple of my thoughts.

  1. This dilemma is simply solved by understanding that morality comes neither from God’s arbitrary willing of it, not from His subservience to any cosmic objective morality, but rather morality comes directly from His character. Thus, God cannot do anything less than perfect and holy, because He is perfect and holy.
  2. If “objective moral standards aren’t set by God”, then where do they come from? If the universe is only material, how did objective morals arise from a material-only universe?
  3. From (2), I would argue that without God, objective moral values cannot exist, thus the atheist is left with a worldview where he cannot even comment coherently on rights and wrongs as these categories cannot be objective — only subjective. They are non-existent categories.
  4. Finally, unless “God is the source of morality”, I cannot see how right and wrong can be anything more than preferences.

Where am I going wrong in my thinking about this? Comments appreciated.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Type: response

text:
retirement plan
Money Matters

How to Avoid Running Out of Money in Retirement

A New York Life survey found that 58% of Americans overestimate how much they can safely withdraw from retirement savings. More than three in ten believe they can spend ten percent or more of their savings each year, yet at that rate they would exhaust their savings in 11 years or less. Here’s why retirees should count on withdrawing only 2.8% of savings annually. Anything more than that significantly increases your chances of running out of money in retirement. Given that rule, with a nest egg of $250,000, you could withdraw just $7,000 per year.

Yet only 14 percent of Americans have even that much in savings. And the percentage of Boomers confident they’ll have enough money to last throughout retirement has dropped to 24 percent, according to the Insured Retirement Institute’s Boomer Expectations for Retirement 2016 Survey. To help you prepare better and ease your retirement fears, I recommend following this Six-Step Action Blueprint:

  1. Acknowledge the Problem – Putting off retirement planning only makes matters worse.
  2. Increase Savings by 1% to 2% Every Year – You won’t feel a pinch and you’ll boost your long-term results.
  3. Realistically Plan for How Long You’ll Live – One in four people turning 65 today will live past 90, making it more important for everyone to save for the long haul.
  4. Don’t Underestimate the Impact of Inflation – Do your planning based on the true future cost of living rather than wishful thinking.
  5. Don’t Count on Working Longer to Make Up for Your Savings Shortfall –Almost half of today’s retirees were forced to leave the workforce earlier than planned.
  6. Prioritize Building an Emergency Fund Equal to Two Years of Household Income – Why everyone needs more than a few months of savings socked away.

Pamela Yellen is a financial investigator and the author of two New York Times best-selling books, including her latest, “The Bank on Yourself Revolution: Fire Your Banker, Bypass Wall Street, and Take Control of Your Own Financial Future.” Pamela investigated more than 450 financial strategies seeking an alternative to the risk and volatility of stocks and other investments, which led her to a time-tested, predictable method of growing wealth now used by more than 500,000 Americans. Please visit

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-10-108.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-09
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for February 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Thursday, 13 December 2012

My week so far......

Yesterday saw me and hubby head off to meet our eldest son Tom at Manchester University where he graduated with his Masters degree in research.  He loves studying and has a bottomless soul when it comes to knowledge but he did show this from a very early age.  His love of books and reading was apparent from babyhood and often as he grew he would have a book in his pocket to fill any empty moments with a little more knowledge.  To say I am proud of my kids is an understatement which I am sure every mum feels too.
He looks so much like my own Dad its uncanny and I know my Dad is enjoying watching his grow and develop from above. Well done Son!

On Monday Mum and I played with distress markers.  I used them on a cute image where as Mums were more traditional.  Both of us were so pleased with the outcomes Mum asked to go to the local shop to buy a set today!
I love how easy they are to use and how developing depth is a breeze.  Only helps with the right paper though this is WHS 300 gsm cold pressed watercolour paper.  Often on offer in the sale so if you fancy a try look out for it after Christmas.
As you an maybe tell i turned my image into a commission card.  Been so busy with those lately I do wish i could train folks to think about them in November!!

Thanks for stopping by today especially if you have managed to leave a comment too - I really appreciate it xx Janet xx

  1. Congratulations to Tom and you're right to feel so proud! x

  2. Hi proud mum, congratulations to Tom.
    Loved your card as well.
    Yvonne x

  3. Congratulations to Tom, and all the best to him. Your colouring is exquisite, Janet. I haven't managed to do justice with my Distress markers yet - one of these days I will make it to one of your workshops!

  4. Such a proud mum and with every right too my friend,loving the cards too, you are so talented, luv and hugs georginaxxxx Many congratulations to Tom didn't he do well x

  5. What a beautiful card! And congratulations to your eldest!!

Thanks for taking the time to stop by and look at my bits and pieces. If you leave a comment I can pop over to yours and have a peep at your work too.


WARC-Truncated: length

text:
February 24, 2017

This monthly publication containing book reviews is available free.

Telefax’s can be sent at the library. Outgoing costs are $2.00 per page.

Freedom Machine
Enlarge photographs, documents and 3-D objects for easy viewing. Magnify the writing area on personal checks, forms and correspondence.

Interlibrary Loan
Interlibrary loan services are available for Thomas Township residents through the Michigan Electronic Library (MelCat).  Requests for specific materials can be made at the library or from your home computer.  To access online, click the Michigan Electronic Library link on our homepage.  A valid Thomas Township Library card is required to submit requests.

Internet Access
PC’s are available for Internet information gathering, research and email. The Internet access policy must be completed prior to use.

Meeting Room
The facility is available for civic, educational or cultural meetings during regular library hours. Room use must comply with policy regulations and is subject to availability.  A fee may be charged, based on policy requirements.

Self-serve copies are .15 each.

If a desired title is checked out a hold may be placed on the item by visiting or phoning the library.  Reserves can also be placed online by opening the Online Library Catalog link on the homepage and assessing My Account.

Special Needs
Large print books, books on tape, books on CD and music CD’s are offered at the library.

Tax Forms
Many federal, state and local tax forms can be obtained throughout the year in reproducible format.

A typewriter for onsite use is available.

Word Processing
WordPerfect and Microsoft Office programs can be accessed on designated library computers.

Further information on service fees and policies can be obtained by calling the Thomas Township Library at (989) 781-3770.


text:
Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Offensive Yes, But Not The Way You Mean

Recently the Family Place, a Dallas non-profit organization that provides shelter and counseling to women and children who are victims of domestic violence, launched a campaign that features their ads on the side of DART buses. The ads are pretty bracing; one features a little girl with the text "One Day My Husband Will Kill Me." Attention getting, no doubt, but the attention to issue of family violence is long overdue. Of course, the fact that women and children are routinely beaten and killed by their husbands, boyfriends and partners is something that those with delicate sensibilities would prefer not to forced to think about as their driving to work (or well, anytime) so there have been quite a few complaints about the ads. And of course, there are a men who want to whine about the unfairness of these ads, such as this "father's advocate":

A domestic violence shelter's ad campaign on Dallas city buses has drawn the ire of a fatherhood advocate who said Monday that the campaign is "hostile to fathers."

One ad shows a smiling young girl wearing a tiara next to the caption, "One day my husband will kill me." Another features a boy next to the caption, "When I grow up, I will beat my wife."

A Dallas Area Rapid Transit spokesman said the agency has received nearly 1,000 form letters by e-mail since Sunday night from readers of advocate Glenn Sacks criticizing the ads and calling for DART to remove them.

"They are offensive to fathers and to families," Sacks said. "Imagine your average father going to work on a DART bus, working hard and supporting his kids. He has to go there and be insulted by these ads."

Sacks said a third of all domestic violence injuries are suffered by men, and that women are just as likely to strike men as men are to strike women.

"I think they should take the ads down," Sacks said. "Domestic violence is still a problem that affects women more than men, but it affects them both. I can guarantee you if the genders were reversed, there is no way DART would have accepted those ads."

So if you can follow that logic...because some men beat and kill their wives and children, ALL fathers everywhere should be insulted by these ads. And oh yeah, women beat men too so really it's not even fair. Frankly, anyone who thinks this is a jack-ass. I'm a father, and I'm not insulted by an ad that says men beat and kill women and children; I'm insulted by the fact that men beat and kill women and children and I'm offended and irritated to no small amount by men who think that opposing the stating of such a blunt fact is somehow "protecting" the rights of fathers. I don't really understand why this bozo thinks that ads that try to bring attention to this problem will cause men everywhere to be untreated fairly, even men who don't abuse their wives, girlfriends and kids. But if you can stand to read any of Sacks' blog, you'll see that it's mostly full of the kinds of rantings that are enjoyed by exactly the sort of men who have issues with women; a selection of post titles includes "Ok, it's not always the man who's the idiot in TV commercials", "Women remember every negative thing said about them", "Remember, women don't lie about rape and abuse" (highlighting the weird Ashley Todd case that has nothing to do with either) and "We take rape seriously but refuse to take allegations of rape seriously" (that's news to me.) Sacks isn't an "advocate" for father's issues; he's a zealot. He's not interested in fairness for father's; he wants to minimize and diminish the issue of family violence because he appears to believe that it's not that big of a problem. He's wrong, utterly and incredibly so. In 2006 alone there were almost 200,000 incidents of family violence in Texas, and a hundred and twenty women were killed by their partners. Despite his ridiculous assertion that women are just as likely to beat men as the reverse, nation-wide women are the victims of in a domestic violence incident 85% of the time, and 1,200 women a year are murdered by their partners. But nobody should launch a blunt ad campaign to inform the public of the severity of this problem because that's "offensive" to fathers. What's really offensive to fathers is weak and insecure men who have issues with women like Sacks and his readers. He and his letter-writing fanatics shouldn't be allowed to bully DART into removing these ads. If you agree, write to DART using their customer feedback form and tell them that these ads are valuable, that you support this ad campaign and that they shouldn't cave to pressure from zelots like Sacks. Or if you prefer a more direct approach (recommended) send an email or call directly the DART officials helpfully listed by Sacks on his blog (scroll about halfway down.)

No comments:


text:
Tajh Boyd: Alabama Can Crumble If Adversity Hits Sark

It’s difficult to replicate the speed and athleticism of Jalen Hurts, but Tajh Boyd gave it a try. The former Clemson quarterback practiced with the Tigers in their lead up to Monday’s national championship, giving the Tigers defense a taste of what defending Hurts is like.

“Man, I actually took a couple shots,” Boyd said on CBS Sports Radio’s Tiki and Tierney, laughing. “I pulled my hamstring on Thursday. I’m getting up there, man. That’s what happens when you don’t do squats in a year.”

Boyd starred at Clemson from 2010-13 and holds program records for passing yards (11,904) and passing touchdowns (107). He was also a dynamic that with his legs.

“I’m just trying to give them an edge competitively,” the 26-year-old said. “I can still make all the throws, I can still run. So (I’m giving) them as close of a look as I can. Coach Venables is real stout about who he wants to run the scout team. He doesn’t let any of the backups do it because he said they all don’t move at a tempo fast enough. So he starts to take over and he just can’t throw the damn football the way I can, so I need to get out there.”

Clemson (13-1) is coming off a 31-0 shellacking of Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. The Tigers looked shaky for much of the season, winning six games by seven points or fewer, but they seem to have turned things around.

Why did this team struggle so much earlier in the year?

“I think it was expectations,” Boyd said. “I think coming into the year, coming off of the year they had last year and coming so close to beating Alabama, there was this sense in the air that they wanted to go out and score 80 points a game. Everybody was claiming they’re going to be the best offense in ACC history, that they’re going to be prolific, that there’s not going to be one close game this year. But the thing is, that target on the back gets a lot bigger the more you win, the more you’re successful. I really think they were just pressing a little bit too much – not going out there and doing the routine things, not doing the things that got them in a position where they were at last year. I think it was really just them trying to calm down and really get a sense of who they are.”

There’s also the camaraderie factor.

“There’s a lot of talent on that team,” Boyd said. “There’s a lot of ego on that team, but it’s not an individual team. There’s not one player on the team that’s greater than another. So to understand that and to understand the mission as a team, as a unit, that you need to go out there and do everything you can for that guy beside you, you get the best results. I think that’s something they had to figure out along the way. I think they picked it up. Obviously there is a thing as peaking too soon, and I think that they hit their stride at the right time. After (losing to Pitt), those guys picked it up, started to trust one another and really had to look each other in the eye and say, ‘I’m here for you.’ This is why they’re in the position they’re in right now.”

Clemson will have a clear advantage at quarterback Monday night. Deshaun Watson is a two-time Heisman finalist, while the aforementioned Hurts is a freshman making his first start under an offensive coordinator not named Lane Kiffin.

Steve Sarkisian will call plays against Clemson.

“You can’t change the whole dynamic of it (in a week),” Boyd said. “The one thing I’m interested to see, though, is how the players respond to Sark, how the players respect Sark in that huddle. What’s the message being relayed? What’s the tone of the team? The players believed in Lane Kiffin, they believed in the play calls that he put together, and they respected him as a leader. Sark in this new role, you’re going out there relatively new with this group of players. They haven’t been to the battlefield with him before. I don’t know if I would have made that move because if adversity does hit and he doesn’t know how to deal with it, then this team can crumble underneath him. And especially since you got Jalen Hurts out there, a freshman. Very composed, very great demeanor, unbelievable talent. But essentially as a quarterback, you’re an extension of the coach on the field, so if Sark isn’t on his game, if he’s not up to par mentally, then that reflects negatively on Jalen Hurts, too. So it’s a whirlwind. We’ll see how (he) handles (it).”

Boyd, a sixth-round pick in 2014, also weighed in on North Carolina’s Mitch Trubisky, who could be the No. 1 overall pick in this year’s draft. Boyd, however, isn’t sold on the Ohio native.

“There’s things I like about him, there’s things I don’t,” Boyd said. “Obviously this quarterback class is kind of weak, so it’s a good year for him to come out, but I don’t think he has enough starts under his belt to go out there and be a complete NFL quarterback. Yeah, he has the upside, he has the physical (attributes), but he doesn’t have the experience, and I think that’s (more important) than people give it credit for. He’s a smart kid. Don’t think he had the best outing in his last game. He had some good throws, made some bad decisions. But again, I think you’re taking a risk. He’s 6-3, 6-4, 200-something (pounds), can run. But again, I just don’t see the franchise right now.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Listen Live


text:
Super Bowl Ads

Super Bowl Preview

3 Feb , 2011

We are just days away from the biggest advertising event of the year, the Super Bowl.

The advertising circus is already well underway, as brands try to get their message out ahead of the game. Still, the big event is the game itself.

Going into the game there are several advertisers to focus on.

Chevrolet:  General Motors passed on the Super Bowl last year. The company is now back and will be one of the biggest advertisers this year, running a series of commercials for Chevrolet. This is an important moment for GM; the company is rebounding after a trip through bankruptcy and has a new marketing team in place. Will Chevrolet deliver? There are two particular challenges for Chevrolet. First, will the spots stand out in what promises to be a Super Bowl full of auto ads? Second, will Chevrolet deliver a differentiating benefit?

CareerBuilder:  This year CareerBuilder is bringing back the chimps. The company used the characters in 2005 and 2006 with great success. After trying to recreate the magic with a number of different campaigns, CareerBuilder is returning to the proven equity. Will the chimps work again?

ABInBev: The big name in Super Bowl advertising is Anheuser-Busch, now part of brewing giant ABInBev. Bud and Bud Light traditionally finish at the top of the popularity polls. Will they do it again this year? For the first time, the company is advertising Stella Artois on the Super Bowl. This brand could get a big bounce.

Homeaway: Homeaway is back for a second year. The vacation home rental site is going to run a rather epic and potentially controversial commercial. The challenge with high-production commercials like this is that the message and brand can get lost; Homeaway has to make sure the branding and benefit both come through.

GoDaddy: Once again, GoDaddy is back with the GoDaddy girls. The question: at what point does this campaign wear out? It hasn’t been particularly popular from the start, but it has clearly worked. GoDaddy is the most creatively consistent advertiser on the game this year. Is that a positive or a negative?

Doritos/Pepsi Max:  This year, the Pepsi Max is crashing the Doritos Crash the Super Bowl event. Consumers could create spots for either brand. Doritos had great success with the promotion in prior year. Will it work again, now expanded to include Pepsi Max?

Audi/BMW/Mercedes/Kia/Hyundai/etc/etc: Will any of these car brands stand out this year? Or will they all blur together. We might see a lot of beautiful pictures of cars zooming along curving roads. This won’t be enough to stand out this year.

Groupon:  Last year Google, a new Super Bowl advertiser, finished at the top of the Kellogg Super Bowl Advertising Review. Will another newcomer pull it off this year? Watch Groupon, a new and unexpected Super Bowl advertiser.

There is an interesting story behind every advertiser in the Super Bowl. As you watch each ad, remember that a team of people spent the last six months or more trying desperately to create a powerful spot.

Careers are on the line for both the players and the advertisers. It should be a fun evening.

3 Responses

  1. Benjamin Thompson says:

    Chrysler’s two-minute Eminem ad made GM look really bad. The Chrysler ad was what Super Bowl advertising is all about. GM was just more of the same.

  2. […] “The Super Bowl is an incredibly powerful venue for new and emerging companies. It’s a chance to step out on a national stage,” said Tim Calkins, a marketing professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, who blogged about some of the companies trying to make a big flash at this year’s game. […]

  3. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Shira Abel, sharipilo. sharipilo said: RT @shiraabel: And now I want to watch sports: it's all about #marketing: Super Bowl Preview: #in […]

Leave a Reply

Conversation Across the Site

  • timcalkins { Balancing creativity and a product message is a huge challenge. You can see the framework we use at the Super Bowl Ad Review Site. Click... } – Five Remarkable Super Bowl Ads
  • Jeffrey S. Ball { I always find this an interesting struggle between creativity to cut through the clutter like most advertisers do for something like the Super Bowl vs... } – Five Remarkable Super Bowl Ads
  • Alex Butterman { For next year's competition, you should tackle the issue of getting Dominican Republicans to use seatbelts. From what I am hearing in the media, that... } – Notes from the Kellogg Healthcare Case Competition
  • Ted Morris { Interesting to see if these brands play out vis-a-vis the PIMS principles through to the end of 2017 } – Six Brands to Watch in 2017
  • timcalkins { This will indeed be interesting to watch. The presidency brings with all sorts of branding cues, which makes it very powerful. Brand Trump + Brand... } – 2017’s Brand to Watch: Donald Trump
  • Jill Carr { Hi Professor Calkins, What about the "brand" of the President of the United States? I feel as if there is also a brand image associated... } – 2017’s Brand to Watch: Donald Trump
  • Read more Comments »

Collaborate with Tim

Tim helps companies around the world build great brands. To schedule a program or event click here. To learn more about Tim’s books, click here.


text:
Forgot your password?

Back to login

Festive season weight gain can persist for months
January 3, 2017, 11:30 am

The festive season is here and for many people it is the time to eat, drink, and be merry — in excess. But be careful when overindulging; up to half of any weight gained over the holidays is likely to linger well into 2017.

New research shows that weight gained over the holidays can remain for six months or more. The recent study of nearly 3,000 adults from across three countries found that in the 10 days after the week-long holidays of Christmas and New Year, there was up to a 0.6 percent increase in weight gain, compared with the 10 days before Christmas. Furthermore, the researchers found that by the following summer, participants had only lost around half of the weight gained over the holidays.

It is perhaps no surprise that the festive season can lead to weight gain. According to the researchers in the United Kingdom, festive gorging is likely to add up around 6,000 calories, which is almost three times the recommended daily calorie intake.

Furthermore, these calories can be hard to burn. Nutritionists note that it takes 44 minutes to walk off a large glass of spiced beverage, while burning off the calories from Christmas dinner would take 1 hour and 40 minutes of running.

Based on their findings, the researchers say that while healthcare professionals should advise patients to employ greater self-control over their eating during the holiday season, it may be more beneficial to warn them of the persistent weight gain due to holiday calories.

The festive season is a time for many of us to take a well-deserved break and enjoy good food and good company, so it is only natural that we tend to treat ourselves over the holidays. However, there are a number of ways to limit the damage when it comes to food intake over the holidays.

Dietitians recommend several tips that people can employ to avoid overeating during the holidays. They point out that there are an array of healthful holiday foods to choose from, such as whole cranberries, multicolored cauliflower, and other seasonal fruits and vegetables.

They also recommend:

Avoid sitting down to dinner on an empty stomach: around an hour before the festive dinner, eat an apple or a cup of vegetable soup. This will increase satiety and reduce the desire to pile up your plate

Choose wisely: think about whether what you are eating is really worth the calories. Is there a healthier alternative? Choose foods that will satisfy you the most - for example, swap a floured white roll for a sweet potato casserole

Steer clear of the appetizer table: if your festive dinner or lunch is more of a buffet affair than a sit-down meal, try not to lurk around the appetizer table – you will be picking without realizing

Get some exercise: while it can take a lot of exercise to work off a whole day's indulgence, every little bit helps. Why not go out for a post-meal walk with the family?

While the festive season is a time to relax, have fun, and spend some quality time with family and friends, it is important that health is not overlooked during the festivities. Trying not to overindulge and keeping active over the holidays might help a little when it comes to avoiding a nasty shock on the scales and a lot of hard work in the New Year.

Share your views

"It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed."

"Envy comes from wanting something that isn't yours. But grief comes from losing something you've already had."

Photo Gallery


text:
music and spirituality

Houman Pourmehdi

Sufis, Music and Connecting with the Divine

Houman Pourmehdi Houman Pourmehdi is a master percussionist, well known for his diverse abilities as a musician, composer, and multi-instrumentalist, performing and recording in numerous ensembles and at a variety of venues. He was introduced to Persian music by his father, and received his first Tonbak at the age of three from his grandfather. He was privileged to study Tonbak under guidance of the late Grand Master Amir Nasser Eftetah. At sixteen he continued his
studies at the Center for Preservation and Propagation of National Music, where he completed the techniques of playing Tonbak under supervision of Master Morteza Ayan. His interest in the spiritual path of Sufis introduced him to the Ghaderi Sufi order’s virtuoso Daf players, such as Haj Agha Sadeghi, Mirza Agha Ghosi, and Darvish Karim, with whom he studied the heart-to-heart traditional techniques of
playing Daf.

Pourmehdi moved to Chicago in 1988, where he founded the Society for the Advancement and Preservation of Traditional Persian Music. It was here that he first fathomed the exciting possibilities of introducing the unique sounds of Persian instruments to American audiences. He also preserved the ancient Persian Percussive instrument called Kurekeh. The Society also facilitated his meeting the eminent Mohammad Ali Kianey-Nejad, who taught him the Ney (Persian Reed Pipe). Pourmehdi designed the tuneable Dayereh which is part of the cooperman’s Artist Innovation Series of instruments. Houman is both a recording artist and
concert musician. He has appeared at many radio and TV interviews with live performance. He has performed widely throughout Europe, North America and North Africa. Pourmehdi composed music for a short educational film in 1999. His knowledge of traditional repertoire and intimacy with Sufi world are made to serve a very personal style of interpretation in his compositions. Along with several colleagues he founded The Lian Ensemble.

On The Web:
Home Buttonsocial_facebook_box_blue 13833252847

Play Interview

To Download MP3
Mac: Hold Down Command Key and Press “S” Key
Windows: Right Click and “Save Target As”

By Houman Pourmehdi


text:
Tuesday, December 05, 2006

States bound

Oil on canvass 30" X 60"

"The Day Before"

Since my last painting of a town fiesta called Too Many Cooks", I have been getting commissions that feature town fiestas. My idea of fun during fiestas is actually not the feast day itself but the preparations that go with it, especially the eve of the actual feast. Just finished this one which I entitled "The Day Before". This is another commissioned work and is bound for the States soon. Hopefully it dries up fast and heals well before it is transported. Hope you like it.

Labels: , ,

Anonymous christine/aujii said...

6:59 AM
Blogger ting-aling said...

I like it. Warm ang colors.. Inggit naman ako. Parang mas maganda yata ito. Mas inspired ba kayo?

1:00 PM
Blogger ting-aling said...

Daughter and I tried to count the people in it. We counted 12.

1:02 PM
Blogger Jdavies said...

ur choice of colors have always made me admire you. so fiesta! someday il commission one from you...

12:31 AM
Blogger TinTin said...

I like I like I like!

4:12 AM
Blogger rolly said...

aujii Thanks. I tried commenting on your blog but I was asked for a username and password. Wala ako nun. hehehe

ting Thanks. YOu've always been very supportive. Thanks for the info at the berks.

Yes, there are 12.

jdavies Kelan tayo uli magkikita? Sure! just tell me when you need it.

tintin Thanks. And thank you for your generous gift. You're so sweet!

6:02 AM
Blogger ipanema said...

Wow! it's so beautiful! Can I have one too? Sandali, how much do you charge? Ganda!

I don't have that talent. Painting meron. Hanggang face ko lang. hahaha. :)

1:46 PM
Blogger Svelte Rogue said...

wow tito rolly, this will surely light up the room in which it will eventually hang for all time.

3:52 PM
Blogger rolly said...

ipanema "how much do you charge?"

YOu can contact me through email. :-)

Yun ang hindi ko kaya, pain my own face, that is. LOL!!!

svelte thank you!

5:34 AM
Blogger auee said...

ganda-ganda... buhay na buhay.

kundi lang puro gastos ngayon, o-order na din ako

9:20 PM
Anonymous bayi said...

I showed your painting to my wife. She was really impressed. And so was I.

We are really glad that you are getting more commissions to paint. Does this means that you may have a chance to retire early and be engaged in a productive activity that you can treat as a hobby?

10:13 AM
Blogger VICKY said...

You are very talented, Rolly. That is a beautiful painting.

9:01 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love it! it's beautiful as always, Rolly.

2:08 AM
Blogger Luchie said...

Ganda!!! you are really a creative and a true artist.

6:47 PM
Blogger bugsybee said...

"Bound for the States" ... just as I thought! :) Ting has really sharp eyes. I tried to count the people but I counted only 10. Let me try again.

8:33 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Impressive and vivid colors. Who's the lucky patron? Is that guy holding a glass of "lambanog?" already inebriated and being supported by his friend? I'd like to know the story...:)

1:30 PM
Blogger rolly said...

auee Kayang-kaya mo yan. Mura lang. hehe

bayi I wish! But far from it. I don't have enough time to create more. But I do plan to make this full time when I retire.

Vicky, JMom and Luchie Thank you very much. I'm glad you like it.

busybee Don't worry. My wife also counted ten only.

Rey A Yes, that is a glass of lambanog. Why don't you tell me the story that you can come up with? ;-) Thanks.

5:51 AM
Anonymous Kiko said...

grabe Tito Rolly, napaka talented mo pala, ang ganda ng fiesta painting mo! --Kiko

2:18 PM
Blogger Kris said...

galing tito rolly! i counted 13!

10:36 AM

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Twenty years of teaching must sure amount to something. A new friend in cyberspace suggested I ought to have a journal by now. I agree.

Taken by my friend Arlene Lawson in her room at Century Park Sheraton in May, 2000.
Posted by Hello
Location: Bambang, Pasig City, Philippines

Jack of all trade, master of none. First a disclaimer. My students have discovered this blog and they might think that what I write is gospel truth. Worse is they might find an argument that they think they can use, for some reason or another, against their teachers. So, to set the record straight, it is NOT. As a matter of fact, I write and open it to feedback to get another view in the hope that somebody would tell me if I am wrong and reenforce my thinking if it is right. Not that I will accept anything thrown my way, though. Just so I can think about it some more and decide whether my original stance is right or definitely off tangent. So there. I hope that clarifies everything. Now, on to blogging.

Click here to join pinoyteachersnetwork
Click to join pinoyteachersnetwork

Support World AIDS Day

  • kwentong tambay
  • the sassy lawyer
  • the best of me
  • Now What, Cat?
  • Parallel Universes
  • Chet's Corner
  • Jardine Davies
  • I Dare
  • Deja Brew
  • rocker's world
  • Bong K
  • Belle
  • panaderos
  • RJ
  • Bugsy
  • Avant-garde
  • Pinay Hekmi
  • Writings on the wall
  • Matapoor
  • Idiot Board
  • Sabitski Point
  • The Philippines according to blogs
  • Apol the great
  • Kat
  • Ate Sienna
  • Nick Ballesteros
  • Watson line
  • Jmom
  • Unlawyerly tales
  • Celia Kusinera
  • Expectorants
  • Mec
  • Toni
  • Transience
  • A Moores
  • Romesez
  • Bing
  • Dean Alfar
  • Marisol
  • Basang Panaginip
  • Manuel L. Quezon III
  • cbsmagic
  • Ipanema
  • Nostalgia Manila
  • Gilber Tan
  • eunice
  • siu
  • auee
  • DepEd Teacher
  • Ever
  • blogusvox
  • jun blas
  • mona
  • Glennis' poetry
  • my son, Mickey

  • Netha
  • Broden
  • Nina Erika

  • visit my other blog

  • My students' blogs
  • Yaps
  • Pepsi
  • Stani
  • Sun King
  • Dream On
  • Just wondering
  • Not that kind of Girl
  • miki
  • View my art works

  • The Wall
  • Hala Hila
  • college works
  • taking the bait
  • Paintings in Canada
  • tabula rasa
  • The day before
  • His favorite mounds
  • Yin and Yang
  • The Highlanders
  • Two Saints
  • Watercolor 1
  • Watercolor series
  • More works in Canada
  • The Struggle
  • Chinese Paintings et.al
  • The Visit
  • New works
  • The Picnic
  • Composition 1

  • Travel time
  • Blueroze Farms, Lipa City
  • Subic - pictures
  • Bicol
  • Canada
  • Vancouver
  • Whistler
  • Balay sa Indang
  • Hundred Islands
  • Thailand
  • Thailand in pictures
  • Malaysia Day 1
  • Malaysia Day 2
  • Korea
  • Korea I
  • Beijing, China
  • South Korea 2
  • Manilena Logo

    Powered by Blogger

    My Personal Favorite Posts

  • Nitz, the discipline officer
  • Derma Clinic anyone?
  • Spare a buck?
  • parenting:life and choices
  • english is not easy
  • Desiderata translated
  • Why there are rules
  • Parenthood - Values
  • Ben Stein
  • Gift giving
  • Not everyone was born to be a rocket scientist
  • Ayn Rand could be wrong:Or is she?
  • Sa aking mambabasang si Olga
  • Who is number one?
  • Who is number one - Part 2
  • Who is number one - Part 3
  • Proud Papa don't preach

  • Married life
  • Classroom shortage, Ms. President?
  • Academic freedom
  • Arlene
  • Nanay
  • Education in the future
  • Elections
  • Free will and Spinoza
  • Is there a God- Soren Kierkegaard
  • Bertrand Russell and Daniel Quinn
  • Erap's pardon
  • wearing different masks
  • Reading
  • There is always a silver lining
  • A Walk back to 1973 and I am 16 years old again
  • All's Well that Ends Well
  • Copyright
    Everything found here comes solely from the mind of the author and are therefore original. Plagiarists beware!
    Content Â© Turo ni Tito, protected under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines and the WIPO Copyright Treaty

    turo ni tito
    affiliated with cathcathnetwork.
    FREE Webmaster Tools
    Subscribe to pinoyteachersnetwork
    Powered by groups.yahoo.com


text:
Thursday, 26 January 2017

Jax is Back!

And at last! Jax Marlin - To Catch A Marlin is out.

In the tail end of the 24th Century, Special Inspector Michael Pedroni pursues Jax Marlin,
a beautiful and elusive vigilante. It’s a wild cat and mouse chase that will take him from Earth
to the Bacchus Dome and beyond.

Jax Marlin is not your average criminal. She seeks out evil-doers and law-breakers,
doling out justice in whatever way she sees fit. But lately, she finds she’s been gift-wrapping
criminals specially for her favorite copper.

Four of the world’s leading criminals are lining up to form an alliance. Jax is determined to stop them.
Hot on her heels, Inspector Pedroni finds himself questioning the difference, if any,
between her justice and his. More than that, he wonders why, when he’d had her in his grasp,
he was unable to slap on the restraints and bring her in.

Available only on Amazon Kindle.

There you have it. Stay tuned for more exciting stuff as I get set to re-release the short story collection, plus additional stories that were never published.

Cheers, and I do hope you enjoy!

Tuesday, 24 January 2017

I Missed A Whole Year!

Wow. I did. Where the hell did 2016 go? Seriously.

I spent most of last year in a sort of weird fug. Aimless, adrift, muttering WTF many times to myself (and not in the abbreviated way). My writing, for the first half sort of fizzled and disintegrated and I sat in a daze wondering what to do next. All my contracts with the publishers had come to an end. My books were back at me and just sitting there staring at me.

It had been an goal of mine to re-edit the Lancaster Trilogy for some time, so I started tackling them in order. It consumed most of 2016. When I wasn't doing that, I went back, headfirst and with blinders on, back to my painting. I painted and painted and it kind of revived me. Focused me on what to do next.

Self-publishing, the ultimate goal.

The latter half of 2016 was me just diving in and ploughing on. Mapping out a plan, a course of action, checking off my to-do list and (amazingly) getting through. It gave me hope that 2017 was going to be the year I take flight and publish on my ownsome.

And now here we are. 2017. January is almost done and I've checked off more stuff on that list. One of them, to re-release the Jax Marlin - To Catch A Marlin novel with a shiny rebrand and teeny title change. As of this morning, I'd checked of yet another item on the list: Upload Marlin to Kindle. Check!

So there you have, folks. In a few days, my book will go live again! Stay tuned. 2017 will be a rollercoaster ride!

Thursday, 31 December 2015

That Time Of Year Again...

Wow. The end of the year is upon us once again. Each time, I make mention that time has flown by far too quickly, like just now. Might as well be consistent, right?

I've been extremely tardy with the whole blogging thing of late. Life just gets in the way of a bunch of things, and each time I think about something to blog about, something else interrupts. To say that 2015 has been a year of distractions and high-speed flying wrenches, is an understatement. Aside from an increase in my workload (good thing), family commitments (somewhat good) and personal issues (not so good), the year was also a great big umpfff... It had a strange way of sucking the cheer out of you. If you're one to follow the Chinese horoscope, 2015, the Goat Year, just head-butted, ass-kicked, and bahhh'd the crap out of this bewildered Rooster girl. Man, I cannot wait to see the back end of this year. But then, Monkey Year comes along and I hope it doesn't completely kerfuffle me. It tends to do that...dang these celestial animals.

Well, my 2016 plate hasn't changed much since 2015, or 2014. That's how uninspiring the year has been. I still have rollover writing projects and commitments to complete, and I'm still trying to finish that beast of a story, Bengaria's War. At least it has gone through one round of professional edits. Still far from complete, and far from over. But, let's hope I feel an inspiring burst of energy and some kind of uplifting wind fills my sails. The further I get from 2015, the better.

But enough about my crappy year! Here's hoping everyone out there has a healthy, calm, productive and inspiring 2016.

Wednesday, 2 September 2015

Introducing Max Fragg - New Book Release by S.A. Check

Maxx Fragg, V.P.I.

S.A. Check
Genre: Young Adult / Sci-fi / Paranormal
Release Date:09/03/15

Publisher Ink Smith Publishing

Cover Designer: Macy Stom

When Maxx lost his brother in a car accident, his world fell apart.  It didn't help he was driving the car when it happened.  Finding an escape inside the virtual world of Other Syde, Maxx runs the Maxx Fragg Virtual Paranormal Investigative Agency with his best friend, Tane. But in a world where dreams become reality, can nightmares be far behind?
      When a real ghost attacks Maxx inside the program, he's saved by the last person he ever expected to see again, his brother. Risking everything for a chance to say he's sorry, Maxx, Tane, and Maxx's almost-girlfriend Emi, need to figure out why real ghosts are haunting a virtual world while on the run from a murderous cyber-geist, high-tech security guards, a corrupt corporation with their own plans for the technology, the recluse genius who created the program, and Maxx's own demons.

About the Author

Tucked between the shadows and the night, standing in a darkened corner of the room, Maxx Fragg watched the young couple huddled on the couch. They had no idea what he had in store for them. He almost felt sorry. Almost. He watched as Travis stroked Debbie's hand and whispered something in her ear. Maxx locked eyes with her as he moved across the apartment. He saw the desperation mixed with fear in her eyes and he grinned. He liked it that way. Pulling a pair of gloves from his belt, Maxx cinched them tight around his wrists. The rush of adrenaline rose up from his chest. This was far from his first job but he still got a thrill each time. He clicked off the lamp and the room went black.
         Debbie gasped. "Can't we leave a few lights on?"
         "I prefer to work in the dark. It helps me concentrate," Maxx said. It really didn't matter but he felt it intensified the experience.
         "I think I'd rather see what's coming." Travis pulled a cushion on his lap, clutching the fabric.
         "Why? You expecting a pillow fight?" Maxx dropped the equipment bag slung over his shoulder.
         Debbie jumped. "What are you going to do with that?"
         "What I'm being paid to do. My job." Maxx nodded across the room to his partner, who shook his head in disapproval. Bending next to the couch, Maxx slowly unzipped the bag. He was close enough to see the goose bumps on Debbie's arm rise with each click.
         "I don't care what it takes. Just get that thing out of my house," Travis said.
         "Don't worry. You'll be ghost free in no time." Maxx knew his clients needed to believe he could make it better, take away their fears. If only it was that simple. Everyone wanted to name the night, put a label on their personal horrors. He wished someone could shut the door to the monsters in his own closet.