Defiance of Tyranny

Posted 7:50 PM by Steve
F.F.F. (Frequently Forgotten Facts) about gas prices

Folks, it's quite simple. Gas prices will continue to rise as long as the government relies on fuel taxes for revenue. The government doesn't really want low fuel prices. Here is how it breaks down: 47% of the cost of a gallon of gas is for the crude oil that it requires to make that gallon. 12% of the cost of a gallon of gas is for the distribution and marketing costs required to make that gallon of gas available to the public. 18% of the cost of the gallon of gas is for the refining of that gallon from a crude state to refined gasoline and for profits that keep the companies discovering, obtaining, shipping, storing and selling the gasoline in business. What about the rest of that equation? The remaining 23% of the cost of that gallon of gas is state and federal taxes!!! It's an artificially added cost to load the pockets of the ever-expanding, ever-bloated coffers of politicians who seek to use the issue to blame their rival party while doing nothing to actually solve the problem because they would prefer even HIGHER prices!

Posted 12:17 AM by Steve
"The Da Vinci Code": a review.

The book has sold more tha 40 million copies and made it's author millions. I finally broke down and read the book to see what all the hype was about.

My conclusion was that it was a solid, if shallow thriller with a few entertaining twists and turns. Although written at about an eighth-grade reading level, Brown keeps his audience off balance by deluging us with facts (and factoids) that are interesting and fascinating.

The jacket of the book describes "The Da Vinci Code" as "lightning-paced, intelligent and intricately layered with remarkable research and detail". I will go so far as to agree with "lighting-paced". It will make a good movie. But, like a movie, it is ultimately shallow and unsatisfying compared to a major literary work. Perhaps I am biased because I just finished reading Tolstoy's "War and Peace" and a non-fiction book by a reknown author and medical doctor, but I found the research to be questionable, the scientific process shaky and the conclusions highly questionable. In this genre I much preferred Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum".

As a Catholic, many of the myriad conspiract theories in "The Da Vinci Code" touched upon subjects I know a lot about. I had to laugh out loud when one of the "experts" in the book makes the statement "Until (the council of Nicea) Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet." I suppose Peter thought Jesus was a mortal prophet when he stepped out of the boat and began to walk on water towards the Messiah. Or the apostles who witnessed the risen Lord thought he was "mortal" prophet. Jesus selected Peter to be the head of his Church on earth. The first Pope. No one in the book, of course, questions the statement because then the story would fizzle out quickly with a boring and drawn out theological and historical debate.

Some of the other statements made about Jesus marrying and conceiving a child with Mary Magdalene are simply groundless. By using religious writings of christian and quasi-christian groups as proof, Brown opens up a whole world of theories and schismatic belief systems that are well documented. Some of these fringe groups wrote that John the Baptist was the Messiah, or that Jesus was meant to be a literal king leading a military army against Rome. These groups had odd customs and practices that would make even the more fervent members of Brown's version of Opus Dei uncomfortable.

The idea of an organized and coordinated "church" "creating" itself by conspiring to change fundamental tenets of the belief doesn't pass the smell test. Conspiracy cannot exist in a vacuum. The early Catholics followed the teachings of Jesus Christ. They didn't worship pagan or naturalistic feminine gods. If anything had happened between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene it would have been accepted as God's will in all the gospels and part of Church teaching. Of course persons or groups strayed from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Humans tend to do that. At councils like Nicea and Trent, the wisest and holiest church leaders convened to discuss, debate and resolve theological issues.

Early Catholics pointed to unequivocal statements by Jesus for the origin of their church and belief system: Matthew 16:18 (Whole Chapter) "And I tell you that you are Peter, [ Peter means rock.] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [ Or hell] will not overcome it. [ Or not prove stronger than it]" Regardless of the pagan habits or traditions of many early converts the Catholic Church would have relied on the divine guidance of Christ rather than allow the dissolution of the foundation of the faith.

Dan Brown also makes the mistake of using the "divine feminine" and the "sacred feminine" interchangebly. Divine is an adjective meaning: "Having the nature of or being a deity."
Sacred is an adjective meaning: "Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity." Jesus Christ was divine. St. Peter's basilica is sacred. It's quite a difference.

P.S. I have recently read that the Vatican has been suggesting a boycott of the film version of this book. I couldn't disagree more. To boycott a piece of fiction (piece of fluff really) such as this is to give it far to much credit. It's not even quasi-academic and is written at a level of complexity slightly lower than that of a "Harry Potter" novel. I think any book that gets people thinking about religion and history is a good thing and those intelligent enough to understand Catholicism won't be fooled by the sensationalist premise of the book.