Annyong Haceyo, North Korea!

With one member of the Axis of Evil (Iraq) recently taken out of the axis, with another member (Iran) hurtling toward a resolution of some kind, what’s up with the third member (North Korea)?

It seems that Kim Jong-il’s worker’s paradise is dissolving around him.

While tour guides continue to give tours explaining the virtues of North Korean Communism, the secret police have started stockpiling cash in advance of coming disasters, there are (literal!) shootouts among members of the ruling family, and the Christian underground is smuggling increased numbers of North Koreans to safety.

Change is in the (bitterly cold North Korean) wind.

GET THE STORY.

Aristotle On Youth

Speaking of Aristotle’s (blindingly obvious) observation that young people are reckless and like to have fun, here’s his description of young men and their character. Sound like anybody you know (or may have been)?

Young men have strong
passions, and tend to gratify them indiscriminately. Of the bodily
desires, it is the sexual by which they are most swayed and in which
they show absence of self-control.

They are changeable and fickle in
their desires, which are violent while they last, but quickly over:
their impulses are keen but not deep-rooted, and are like sick people’s
attacks of hunger and thirst.

They are hot-tempered, and quick-tempered,
and apt to give way to their anger; bad temper often gets the better of
them, for owing to their love of honour they cannot bear being slighted,
and are indignant if they imagine themselves unfairly treated.

While
they love honour, they love victory still more; for youth is eager for
superiority over others, and victory is one form of this.

They love both
more than they love money, which indeed they love very little, not
having yet learnt what it means to be without it — this is the point of
Pittacus’ remark about Amphiaraus.

They look at the good side rather
than the bad, not having yet witnessed many instances of wickedness.
They trust others readily, because they have not yet often been cheated.

They are sanguine; nature warms their blood as though with excess of
wine; and besides that, they have as yet met with few disappointments.

Their lives are mainly spent not in memory but in expectation; for
expectation refers to the future, memory to the past, and youth has a
long future before it and a short past behind it: on the first day of
one’s life one has nothing at all to remember, and can only look
forward.

They are easily cheated, owing to the sanguine disposition just
mentioned.

Their hot tempers and hopeful dispositions make them more
courageous than older men are; the hot temper prevents fear, and the
hopeful disposition creates confidence; we cannot feel fear so long as
we are feeling angry, and any expectation of good makes us confident.

They are shy, accepting the rules of society in which they have been
trained, and not yet believing in any other standard of honour.

They
have exalted notions, because they have not yet been humbled by life or
learnt its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition
makes them think themselves equal to great things — and that means
having exalted notions.

They would always rather do noble deeds than
useful ones: their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by
reasoning; and whereas reasoning leads us to choose what is useful,
moral goodness leads us to choose what is noble.

They are fonder of
their friends, intimates, and companions than older men are,  because they like spending their days in
the company of others, and have not yet come to value either their
friends or anything else by their usefulness to themselves.

All their
mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and
vehemently. They disobey Chilon’s precept by overdoing everything, they
love too much and hate too much, and the same thing with everything
else.

They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about
it; this, in fact, is why they overdo everything.

If they do wrong to
others, it is because they mean to insult them, not to do them actual
harm.

They are ready to pity others, because they think every one an
honest man, or anyhow better than he is: they judge their neighbour by
their own harmless natures, and so cannot think he deserves to be
treated in that way.

They are fond of fun and therefore witty, wit being
well-bred insolence [Rhetoric II:12:1389a-b].

Young People + Not-Fully-Formed-Brain = Recklessness!

Y’know how your auto insurance cost a lot more before you were 25 (even if your parents paid it at the time)?

And how you can’t rent a car until you’re 25?

Well, this is because folks under that age have way more car crashes than afterwards.

Teenagers are four times as likely as older
drivers to be involved in a crash and three times as likely to die in
one, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

This likely has a biological basis–in the brain.

Contrary to the initial expectations of some (obviously clueless) NIH researchers, brain development does not peak by age 18.

"We’d thought the highest levels of physical and brain maturity were
reached by age 18, maybe earlier — so this threw us," said Jay Giedd,
a pediatric psychiatrist leading the study, which released its first
results in April. That makes adolescence "a dangerous time, when it
should be the best."

I don’t know what kind of pediatric psychiatry idealization-of-youth rhetoric this guy has been smoking, but he’s clearly out of touch.

People as far back as Aristotle (and before!) have pointed out that young people are reckless and like to have fun, and that’s a dangerous combination.

In any event, Dr. Giedd has to be given credit for being willing to recognize what their new neurological data showed them: A part of the brain that inhibits risk-taking behavior ain’t fully formed until age 25; hence, your auto insurance rates don’t got down until that age and you don’t get to rent a car until that age.

In a related study, young people of different ages were asked to play a simulated driving video game in which the goal was to get through a particular course as quickly as possible while not hitting anything. They also brought friends to the event and were tested both with and without their friends present.

The study showed that, with the presence of youthful companions, the young people were more responsible as they had others’ lives riding (virtually) of what they did as drivers, and so they took more precautions, right?

Ha!

Of course not! They were worse drivers with friends present.

An interesting aspect of all this is the gap between the onset of puberty and the maturing of the brain’s risk-inhibiting functions:

Temple’s Steinberg said the NIH/UCLA research supports his theory that
teen recklessness is partly the result of a critical gap in time —
starting with the thrill-seeking that comes in puberty and ending when
the brain learns to temper such behavior. Since children today reach
puberty earlier than previously, about age 13, and the brain’s
reasoning center doesn’t reach maturity until the mid-twenties,
Steinberg said, "This period of recklessness has never been as long as
it is now."

GET THE STORY.

 

A Not-So-Wild-Man Of Borneo?

A reader writes:

I got your email address from your website, jimmyakin.org. I
started listening to the Catholic Answers Life by downloading files
from the show archive recently (sorry, this may have nothing to do with
your website) . As a Catholic, I m very keen to learn more about the
faith. 

Since I m in Malaysia (State of Sabah, North Borneo),
Ah! Apa kabar? Saya bisa bicara bahasa Melayu–sedikit-sedikit saja–though I’m guessing you may be Chinese (in which case, Ni hao!).

I would like
to know if it is possible for me to ask questions through the internet.

Sure! You’re welcome to ask them here, though I can’t promise to answer them all. For additional help, I’d recommend going to the Catholic web boards at forums.catholic.com and forums.catholic-convert.com and (if you prefer bahasa Indonesia) ekaristi.org.
By the way, if you’re going to reply this email, I would like to
ask you just one question which is always on my mind. The question is
‘Why does God allow division among Christians (Catholic, Protestant,
Orthodox, etc.), or did He?’ Could you suggest any books/references on
this? (sorry, that’s more than 1 question)

I’m not sure that I can recommend any books on why God allows people to have disagreements in the Christian community, but I hope that the following thoughts may be helpful:

  1. The problem has been with us since the first century. Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one (John 17), knowing that divisions would arise among them. If you read 1 Corinthians, especially chapters 1-3, it’s very clear that there were divisions in the early Christian community, and St. Paul writes against these divisions.
  2. Since the existence of divisions in the Christian community is evil, this makes the existence of such divisions a part of the overall "problem of evil" (i.e., why God allows evil in general).
  3. We do not have a complete answer to why God allows evil, but since he always has adequate reasons for what he does, we can reason that there must be an adequate reason for God to allow this.
  4. Knowing that, we can speculate about what the reson or reasons he allows evil are.
  5. One of the most popular suggestions for why he allows evil in order to allow a certain kind of free will to exist in this life, the kind of free will whereby he allows people to make a free choice for good or evil. Letting them do this means letting them sometimes choose evil, which means allowing the existence of evil.
  6. While it is not certain that this is the reason God allows evil, it does fit with the facts that in this life people do sometimes choose evil and God does allow it.
  7. It also fits with the fact that the divisions in the Christian community have arisen because different people (the founders of different sects, in particular) have exercised their free will in such a way that they have left the unity of the Catholic Church and founded their own communities.

Hope this helps, and hope you’ll visit and participate in the blog regularly!

January 19, 2004 Show

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • At the conclusion of an exorcism, is the
    expulsion of the demon apparent?  Are there exorcists present in every diocese?
  • Did Bishop Raymond Burke recently assert that all pro-abortion politicians should refrain of Communion?  Why single out abortion as a Communion disqualification?
  • Countering the Protestant notion of salvation by "faith
    alone."
  • Where in scripture would one find the distinction between mortal and venial sins?
  • Can one prove the truth of transubstantiation over consubstantiation?
  • Can priests in the Society of St. Pius X validly celebrate the sacrament of penance?  How about those in the Charismatic Episcopal Church?
  • How many precepts of the Church are there?  Can they change?
    Who determines them?
  • Is confession required before Communion if one misses Mass?  What are valid reasons for missing Mass?
  • Must there be "full" knowledge or consent for a sin to be
    mortal? What if an individual knows that an act constitutes grave matter in the eyes of the Church yet chooses to ignore that fact?
  • What Christian sects are custodians of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?  Would the marriage of a Catholic in a Greek Orthodox church be valid?
  • What is the minimum age for an extraordinary minister of Holy
    Communion?
  • Is Catholic Family News a trustworthy publication?
  • What are the "Lost Gospels"?
  • To which scripture passages do proponents of the Rapture appeal? How should those same passages be properly interpreted?

 

Chupacabras! Don't Mess With Texas!

Suppose you’re a Texan.

(Natural modesty prevents you from bragging about this too much, a’corse.)

Now suppose that there’s a chupacabra eating your mulberries and killing your chickens, or suppose it’s eating your pears and trying to hide under your house.

What do you do?

SHOOT IT, OF COURSE!

(The thing is destroying livestock and might be rabid, for all you know.)

Well, that’s what two Texas ranchers may have done last year, one in July, in Elmendorf, Texas, and one in Pollok, which is right near my family ranch in Deep East Texas. (NOTE: Pollok is just to the left of Lufkin.)

HERE’S A STORY ABOUT THE FIRST RANCHER.

HERE’S A STORY ABOUT THE SECOND. (WARNING: More graphic images in this article.)

When you get a look at the Elmendorf creature, it’s clearly the same as the other creature. They look canine, but not like any usual kind of canine. Here’s a photo:

The thing in some ways looks kind of like a kangaroo (but isn’t). It’s ears are also long enough that some thought it was a calf when they saw them silhouetted in the dark. The things have next to no fur, BIG HONKING TEETH (not so visible in this photo), and aren’t like coyotes or regular dogs.

Perhaps these critters are the basis of the chupacabra legends. . . . (Or perhaps not.)

Chupacabras! Don’t Mess With Texas!

Suppose you’re a Texan.

(Natural modesty prevents you from bragging about this too much, a’corse.)

Now suppose that there’s a chupacabra eating your mulberries and killing your chickens, or suppose it’s eating your pears and trying to hide under your house.

What do you do?

SHOOT IT, OF COURSE!

(The thing is destroying livestock and might be rabid, for all you know.)

Well, that’s what two Texas ranchers may have done last year, one in July, in Elmendorf, Texas, and one in Pollok, which is right near my family ranch in Deep East Texas. (NOTE: Pollok is just to the left of Lufkin.)

Chupapollokmap

HERE’S A STORY ABOUT THE FIRST RANCHER.

HERE’S A STORY ABOUT THE SECOND. (WARNING: More graphic images in this article.)

When you get a look at the Elmendorf creature, it’s clearly the same as the other creature. They look canine, but not like any usual kind of canine. Here’s a photo:

Chupatexas704

The thing in some ways looks kind of like a kangaroo (but isn’t). It’s ears are also long enough that some thought it was a calf when they saw them silhouetted in the dark. The things have next to no fur, BIG HONKING TEETH (not so visible in this photo), and aren’t like coyotes or regular dogs.

Perhaps these critters are the basis of the chupacabra legends. . . . (Or perhaps not.)