Posts Made By: James Brown

Here is my go at Comet Garradd C/2009P1 - as of September 30.

TEC APO 140
FLI Microline 11002M
Astro-Physics Mach 1

Jim

Actually Mr. Elk has a small harem this time of year - monogamy is not his thing. Right before this shot he was rubbing his antlers in the dirt and urinating all over himself. I suppose that impresses the ladies if you're an elk, although I can't imagine it working for me.

Taken with a Canon T1i and Canon 24-105mm L IS lens.

Jim

Down in politics Rob has spent some time denying that he engages in situational ethics.

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=776236&poll_id=&news_id=

To Rob, David and many other people, the mere thought that situational context matters when making an ethical determination is equated with moral weakness and more importantly, situational ethics are seen as the denial of a divine and immutable ethical authority. That's really the crux for many folks: how can context matter in ethics, if we accept a Divinely ordained black and white distinction between right and wrong?

Nonetheless, consider one of God's most important commandments: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

On its face, this is not an ambiguous statement. No exceptions are included. Even so, ethicists from the dawn of time have noted situational exceptions to the above commandment; self defense is a good example.

The self-defense exception is so universally accepted that those who deny that they engage in situational ethics will simply ignore the situational context of self defense and illogically claim that they are not being situational at all!

A self-defense exception is not what the Commandment says though.

Jim

I got a real kick out of watching this coyote hunt voles last evening at dusk. Voles are chunky rodents that make tunnels under the snow. I witnessed two kills, and as far as I could tell the coyote was hunting by sound alone. The kill was dramatic, swift and efficient. Voles are obviously very tasty too!

I took these photos at a long distance in poor light and through window glass, so the quality is not exactly National Geographic! The first one is a montage I was really lucky to catch, assembled in photoshop by lining up the weeds.

Jim

Hi all:

My family spent a few days snow shoeing and cross country skiing up in Yellowstone the week after Christmas. Everywhere you look is a dramatic landscape! Here are a few of the pictures that turned out well. I highly recommend a winter excursion if you get the chance - the Park is extremely beautiful in snow.

This first picture is Grotto Geyser.

Jim

Don't any of you guys have anything to say?

J

The "Wall of Separation between Church and State" came up in "Politics" this morning.

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=778083&poll_id=&news_id=&page=

This is a perennial favorite political issue and will certainly come up in some fashion during this year's election campaign. In deference to Herb's itchy trigger finger I thought I ought to put any comments here. The wall of separation does after all squarely deal with the interface between politics and religion.

Anyway,

As a fundamental starting point,I believe the "the wall of separation" is now a generally accepted metaphor for the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The metaphor has no meaning or enforceability beyond the 1st Amendment. Anyone who thinks that a separately enforcible "wall of separation" restricts government action above and beyond the limits set by the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses is wrong.

So, as a starting point, in 2012, "The wall of separation" is useful shorthand to refer to the huge body of Constitutional law regarding the relationship between church and state.

Even so, the concepts behind this phrase and the phrase itself are laced throughout the many cases developing the actual Constitutional law of the 1st Amendment. The concepts behind the phrase were known and considered when the Bill of Rights was drafted. In other words, the history of the phrase and what it has been thought to mean has in fact shaped our evolving interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Therfore, even though the phrase "a wall of separation between Church and State" is not in the Constitution, the history, historical context and thought behind that phrase are critical to understanding the 1st Amendment and case law that defines the scope of the 1st Amendment.

Amazingly, this month's Smithsonian Magazine has a detailed article about the historical originations of both the phrase and the concept. I see that the online version even has interactive timelines. I have not read this yet (it's sitting on my desk at home) but Smithsonian is usually very very good:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/God-Government-and-Roger-Williams-Big-Idea.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/videos/Church-and-State-The-Debate.html

Jim

Who do you suppose wrote the scathing indictment of Newt excerpted below? Some "Republican in Name Only" RINO no doubt... Don't look at the next post if you want to guess... Free donuts to all who participate!

[COLOR="Blue"]"Meanwhile, without the federal government, Gingrich would be penniless. He has been in Washington since the '70s, first as a congressman, then becoming a rich man on the basis of having been a congressman...

Most egregiously, he took $1.6 million to shill for Freddie Mac, one of the two institutions directly responsible for the housing crash that caused the financial collapse. (Or one of three, if you consider Barney Frank an institution.)

If the tea party stands for anything, it stands in absolute opposition to government insiders shoring up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the very time those institutions were blowing up the economy.

To act as if Obamacare is the same thing as "Romneycare" is just a word game, on the order of acting like a "gun" has the same properties as a "gunny sack," or "fire" is the same thing as a "firefly."

In a world where words have meaning, Mitt Romney is not the "moderate" in this race. He is the most conservative candidate still standing...

Romney is "moderate" only in demeanor -- which is just another word game. His positions are more conservative than Gingrich's, but he doesn't scare people like Gingrich does. Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms were moderate in demeanor, too. No one would call them political moderates.


Conservatism is an electable quality. Hotheaded arrogance is neither conservative nor attractive to voters. "[/COLOR]

Guess what famous living American recently answered the following questions in the following (IMHO) exceptionally refreshing and very open manner. No fair using Google, unless of course you are stumped and give up. But don't post a Googled-guess please.

Jim

Q. A lot of people point to the Bible for reasons why gay people should not be in the church, or accepted in any way.

A. Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things -– he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.

Q. Jesus says I am the way the truth and the life (John 14:6). How can you remain true to an exclusivist faith claim while respecting other faith traditions?

A. Jesus also taught that we should not judge other people (Matthew 7:1), and that it is God who judges people, so I am willing to let God make those judgments, in the ultimate time whenever it might come. I think 'judge not that you be not judged' is the best advice that I will follow. Maybe it is a rationalization, but it creates a lack of tension in my mind about that potential conflict.

There are many verses in the Bible that you could interpret very rigidly and that makes you ultimately into a fundamentalist. When you think you are better than anybody else -- that you are closer to God than other people, and therefore they are inferior to you and subhuman -- that leads to conflict and hatred and dissonance among people when we should be working for peace.

Q. Should we approach the Bible literally, or metaphorically?

A. When we go to the Bible we should keep in mind that the basic principles of the Bible are taught by God, but written down by human beings deprived of modern day knowledge. So there is some fallibility in the writings of the Bible. But the basic principles are applicable to my life and I don't find any conflict among them.

It's the latest fashion rage here in Golden!

Jim