Every penny is a good thing. But the media of the world and the way that people and countries are being "measured" in the relief funds for the Sumatra Tsunami is getting a bit ridiculous. Earlier today one man being interviewed on Fox News assured the anchor that the U.S. would end up being the most generous and the most involved in the relief effort. So what if the U.S. were not? Maybe we shouldn't even participate if we can't be #1 !!!!!
Our world just cannot respond to anything without attaching numbers to it and overanalyzing it. Just as this brief write-up describes, the relief effort has become a "beauty contest" as if a ribbon boasting "Top Donor" will be awarded. It seems that every country is competing for this top prize not to mention the people who are giving hefty amounts and seeing their names in the news the next day. Would they still give if no one knew?
Another question that keeps coming up on television news is that of the "perception" of America in its involvement in this area of the world. Some evidently view this catastrophe as an opportunity for America to renew its image, evidently seeing the need for "war-hungry" America to be seen doing something worthwhile, especially in an area of the world where Islam is one of the predominant religions.
If the U.S., or any other country for that matter, is only getting involved for the sake of the appearance, then the world may be better off without their help. While I don't think any country or person is purely motivated by such shallow intentions, how difficult it is to do anything altruistic in a world where actions are so scrutinized!
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Friday, December 24, 2004
Entitlement Mentality
World: "At the very least we deserve that God should find a way to redeem us, if he is going to say that we are sinful."
God: "Every person has strayed like a lost sheep. Every person has turned to his own way. Even so, I will cause their sin to fall on Christ." [Isaiah 53:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21]
God: "Every person has strayed like a lost sheep. Every person has turned to his own way. Even so, I will cause their sin to fall on Christ." [Isaiah 53:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21]
Friday, December 17, 2004
Designer Steriods
Have you noticed the strong reaction in the sports world to the breaking news concerning banned substances and substances that are too "designer" to be banned yet. In case you haven't been keeping up with these stories, one of the problems out there is the use of "designer steriods" which are basically substances that are altered in a laboratory so that they are not detected in a drug test but which essentially still have the same impact/effect on the body as traditional anabolic steriods.
Here's the kicker: while the average American opinion on the matters seems to be that it is wrong, there are lots of people out there saying, "But if you could make millions by doing steriods..." What has amazed me is the number of radio hosts who have endorsed this position, as if to condone the action because of the results that can be attained. While their entire show is basically a joke, The Sonny and Wimp Show broadcast locally on WJOX in Birmingham, AL and surrounding areas can seemingly make no "ethical" judgment about the use of steriods. Sonny Smith, a former Auburn basketball coach, and Wimp Sanderson, a former Alabama basketball coach, seem comfortable with steriod use on a personally level as long as the money is right.
Another that has joked about steriods and the potential to increase one's income from the mediocre to the millions in professional sports is Paul Finebaum who seems similarly to have little doubt that he would take the substances himself afforded the opportunity to increase his own ability and income. Unfortunately, for talk radio hosts, the use of steroids does little to enhance their careers.
Deeper in this problem is the sense in which we live in a society where relativity is king. The average Joe will argue that using steroids is not a good thing to do. But then the average Joe also admits that he would use steroids if faced with the opportunity to increase his contract with the Yankees from a mere $800K to $4-5million a year. Talk about selling your soul...
Would the average sports fan rather have their favorite team clean from using such substances and being a sub-par team, or would the average fan rather see their team being dominant at the expense of using whatever substances were necessary to increase their performance? Given, fans have a tendency to look the other way when their own team is involved. Red Sox fans would accuse all the Yankee players of juicing up but be unable to fathom that any Red Sox players were doing any wrong, and vice versa.
The reason that the U.S. gov't is looking to get involved is because baseball (and one would think football, basketball, and hockey) does not take the problem serious enough to enforce a system that takes care of it. When the players' union is opposed to such testing (and it has been,) we have a problem.
Solutions? Not so easy when a monster has been created that must be fed. In a society that worships its best and most glamorous athletes, taking away their candy will be akin to disarming the Soviet Union.
Here's the kicker: while the average American opinion on the matters seems to be that it is wrong, there are lots of people out there saying, "But if you could make millions by doing steriods..." What has amazed me is the number of radio hosts who have endorsed this position, as if to condone the action because of the results that can be attained. While their entire show is basically a joke, The Sonny and Wimp Show broadcast locally on WJOX in Birmingham, AL and surrounding areas can seemingly make no "ethical" judgment about the use of steriods. Sonny Smith, a former Auburn basketball coach, and Wimp Sanderson, a former Alabama basketball coach, seem comfortable with steriod use on a personally level as long as the money is right.
Another that has joked about steriods and the potential to increase one's income from the mediocre to the millions in professional sports is Paul Finebaum who seems similarly to have little doubt that he would take the substances himself afforded the opportunity to increase his own ability and income. Unfortunately, for talk radio hosts, the use of steroids does little to enhance their careers.
Deeper in this problem is the sense in which we live in a society where relativity is king. The average Joe will argue that using steroids is not a good thing to do. But then the average Joe also admits that he would use steroids if faced with the opportunity to increase his contract with the Yankees from a mere $800K to $4-5million a year. Talk about selling your soul...
Would the average sports fan rather have their favorite team clean from using such substances and being a sub-par team, or would the average fan rather see their team being dominant at the expense of using whatever substances were necessary to increase their performance? Given, fans have a tendency to look the other way when their own team is involved. Red Sox fans would accuse all the Yankee players of juicing up but be unable to fathom that any Red Sox players were doing any wrong, and vice versa.
The reason that the U.S. gov't is looking to get involved is because baseball (and one would think football, basketball, and hockey) does not take the problem serious enough to enforce a system that takes care of it. When the players' union is opposed to such testing (and it has been,) we have a problem.
Solutions? Not so easy when a monster has been created that must be fed. In a society that worships its best and most glamorous athletes, taking away their candy will be akin to disarming the Soviet Union.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Death Penalty
With Scott Peterson's trial and sentencing the issue of the death penalty has been thrust to the forefront of our society once again. Never mind the fact that Peterson will likely never be executed due to the system and the number of death row inmates in California that are in waiting.
Is the death penalty an outdated form of punishment that should be abandoned today?
No. In fact, if we pride ourselves on becoming a more civil society, the death penalty has a place today as much as it ever has. Why?
The death penalty is at its core a punishment that reflects the value of human life. Sound contradictory? Only if you do not highly value human life. People are created in the image of God, and God has established that killing one of these who are in his image is a crime punishable by death. One who kills another person is thus subjected to the highest punishment men can face.
What about the life of the one who committed the crime? In this case, Scott Peterson is guilty of killing his wife and unborn son. One of the arguments against his execution is that killing a third person does nothing to make the situation right. Part of the fallacy of such an argument is to what degree it is to be taken. Should Peterson then be allowed to remain free, since incarcerating a man is so detrimental to his life anyway?
What about people who are mistakenly sent to death row? Part of today's argument points to the people who have been dismissed from death row because of new trials involving new evidence. Certainly the system has to work for anyone to be justly sentenced to any amount of time in prison or to the death penalty. Whether or not the death penalty is just has nothing to do, though, with people who are unjustly sentenced.
Personally, the struggle over the death penalty is not an easy one. Chuck Colson has had a strong influence on my personal view of death row inmates and their spiritual condition. However, even Colson has changed his official position on the death penalty.
Disturbing is the fact that there were crowds outside the courthouse who cheered at the sentencing of Peterson. There is certainly nothing to rejoice about when a man is sentenced to death. Even in supporting the death penalty, there should be a weighty sobriety involved in the matter.
As one who has been on a jury for a murder trial, the sentencing of the people involved is a tough matter to deal with. In my personal experience, my jury convicted a 19-yr old of 2nd degree murder and 4 convictions of assault. He was sentenced by the judge to 49 years in prison. While our decision was the correct one, I am still sobered by the thought that this young man is to spend what will probably amount to over half his life in prison.
To an even greater degree, the Scott Peterson jury (and any jury that must make the death penalty decision) did not bring the sentence with any celebration. Rather, in their interviews they appeared very burdened by the crime and the punishment that they had to deal with.
There are problems on both sides of the arguments. Many who are arguing for Peteron's death point to the drastic nature of his crimes. But no matter how brutal his crime, Peterson killed another person. Now matter how significant or insignificant the person was in our society and/or in Peterson's life, his action would merit death. Even if he had killed an unknown homeless person, the sentence should be the same (given that the criteria for 1st degree murder were met.)
On the other side, the problems with many arguments against Peteron's execution are merely emotional pleas. They fall short of being consistent in arguing that he should not be executed (though all agree that he should at least have life in prison.)
In the end, I support the death penalty although I cannot imagine being a juror or a judge in the sentencing. Additionally, no matter how strongly I support the death penalty, I do not think I could be the person to actually administer the execution.
Is the death penalty an outdated form of punishment that should be abandoned today?
No. In fact, if we pride ourselves on becoming a more civil society, the death penalty has a place today as much as it ever has. Why?
The death penalty is at its core a punishment that reflects the value of human life. Sound contradictory? Only if you do not highly value human life. People are created in the image of God, and God has established that killing one of these who are in his image is a crime punishable by death. One who kills another person is thus subjected to the highest punishment men can face.
What about the life of the one who committed the crime? In this case, Scott Peterson is guilty of killing his wife and unborn son. One of the arguments against his execution is that killing a third person does nothing to make the situation right. Part of the fallacy of such an argument is to what degree it is to be taken. Should Peterson then be allowed to remain free, since incarcerating a man is so detrimental to his life anyway?
What about people who are mistakenly sent to death row? Part of today's argument points to the people who have been dismissed from death row because of new trials involving new evidence. Certainly the system has to work for anyone to be justly sentenced to any amount of time in prison or to the death penalty. Whether or not the death penalty is just has nothing to do, though, with people who are unjustly sentenced.
Personally, the struggle over the death penalty is not an easy one. Chuck Colson has had a strong influence on my personal view of death row inmates and their spiritual condition. However, even Colson has changed his official position on the death penalty.
Disturbing is the fact that there were crowds outside the courthouse who cheered at the sentencing of Peterson. There is certainly nothing to rejoice about when a man is sentenced to death. Even in supporting the death penalty, there should be a weighty sobriety involved in the matter.
As one who has been on a jury for a murder trial, the sentencing of the people involved is a tough matter to deal with. In my personal experience, my jury convicted a 19-yr old of 2nd degree murder and 4 convictions of assault. He was sentenced by the judge to 49 years in prison. While our decision was the correct one, I am still sobered by the thought that this young man is to spend what will probably amount to over half his life in prison.
To an even greater degree, the Scott Peterson jury (and any jury that must make the death penalty decision) did not bring the sentence with any celebration. Rather, in their interviews they appeared very burdened by the crime and the punishment that they had to deal with.
There are problems on both sides of the arguments. Many who are arguing for Peteron's death point to the drastic nature of his crimes. But no matter how brutal his crime, Peterson killed another person. Now matter how significant or insignificant the person was in our society and/or in Peterson's life, his action would merit death. Even if he had killed an unknown homeless person, the sentence should be the same (given that the criteria for 1st degree murder were met.)
On the other side, the problems with many arguments against Peteron's execution are merely emotional pleas. They fall short of being consistent in arguing that he should not be executed (though all agree that he should at least have life in prison.)
In the end, I support the death penalty although I cannot imagine being a juror or a judge in the sentencing. Additionally, no matter how strongly I support the death penalty, I do not think I could be the person to actually administer the execution.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Church: Open or Closed?
The United Church of Christ is marketing itself as accepting of all in a new ad campaign which clearly portrays the worship services of more conservative churches as closed gatherings. Interestingly, NBC, CBS, and ABC have rejected the ads for television citing that they are too controversial and one-sided. Dr. Albert Mohler comments on the current place of the United Church of Christ and the extremely liberal theology that now pervades the church.
According to this article the ad contains two bouncers at the entrance to a church who decide which people can enter and which ones cannot.
While the piece is certainly intended to make a point about churches that take a stance on homosexuality, the overall picture is completely inaccurate. In addition, the inclusion of racial and physical attributes as reasons why people may or may not be admitted is ludicrous. While there have been failings historically in the church concerning the treatment of other races, to relate today's stance on homosexuality is unbiblical and unfounded.
Let's move toward setting the record straight:
1. Conservative churches should be categorized as those who hold to an objective standard of truth, adhering to the Bible as the word of God. Some churches believe nothing and hold to nothing. If you have no truth, why bother?
2. Churches should not turn people away from their worship services. Maybe there are some extreme examples hidden deep in the middle of nowhere that stand guard at the door turning away minorities and handicapped people, but these would be the extreme and would not be biblically-based churches.
3. Biblically, churches must be exclusive...exclusively Christian, that is.
4. Formerly sinners. The church is made up of people who are saved from their sins by grace. See Ephesians 2:1-22. No person deserves in himself/herself to be a part of the church which is the body of Christ. Every single person who becomes a part of the church does so by the life-changing grace of God through Jesus Christ.
5. The Bible identifies homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle (Romans 1:26-27.) A Christian cannot continue in a sinful lifestyle (1st John 1:5-2:6.)
Are Christians to accept homosexuals? Yes, just as much as we accept (or should accept) every person in our world today.
Is the church to admit homosexuals as members? No. Continuing in the lifestyle of homosexuality is wholly inconsistent with living the Christian life. However, there is absolutely no reason that a church should not admit a person who has come out of a homosexual lifestyle and is now professing Christ and abandoning their former ways. Churches such as the United Church of Christ are not helping anyone by claiming that their doors are open to all if there is no truth being proclaimed inside.
Should churches allow homosexuals to attend their worship services? Certainly. Hearing the gospel is an open experience for all people. Part of our worship is the proclamation of the gospel, and we want all people to hear the message of grace and life in Jesus Christ.
According to this article the ad contains two bouncers at the entrance to a church who decide which people can enter and which ones cannot.
"No, step aside, please," he tells two men holding hands. "I don’t think so," he
says to a young black girl while blocking her entrance. A Hispanic man and a
person in a wheelchair also are denied entry.
The scene fades to black and a
message: "Jesus didn’t turn people away. Neither do we."
While the piece is certainly intended to make a point about churches that take a stance on homosexuality, the overall picture is completely inaccurate. In addition, the inclusion of racial and physical attributes as reasons why people may or may not be admitted is ludicrous. While there have been failings historically in the church concerning the treatment of other races, to relate today's stance on homosexuality is unbiblical and unfounded.
Let's move toward setting the record straight:
1. Conservative churches should be categorized as those who hold to an objective standard of truth, adhering to the Bible as the word of God. Some churches believe nothing and hold to nothing. If you have no truth, why bother?
2. Churches should not turn people away from their worship services. Maybe there are some extreme examples hidden deep in the middle of nowhere that stand guard at the door turning away minorities and handicapped people, but these would be the extreme and would not be biblically-based churches.
3. Biblically, churches must be exclusive...exclusively Christian, that is.
4. Formerly sinners. The church is made up of people who are saved from their sins by grace. See Ephesians 2:1-22. No person deserves in himself/herself to be a part of the church which is the body of Christ. Every single person who becomes a part of the church does so by the life-changing grace of God through Jesus Christ.
5. The Bible identifies homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle (Romans 1:26-27.) A Christian cannot continue in a sinful lifestyle (1st John 1:5-2:6.)
Are Christians to accept homosexuals? Yes, just as much as we accept (or should accept) every person in our world today.
Is the church to admit homosexuals as members? No. Continuing in the lifestyle of homosexuality is wholly inconsistent with living the Christian life. However, there is absolutely no reason that a church should not admit a person who has come out of a homosexual lifestyle and is now professing Christ and abandoning their former ways. Churches such as the United Church of Christ are not helping anyone by claiming that their doors are open to all if there is no truth being proclaimed inside.
Should churches allow homosexuals to attend their worship services? Certainly. Hearing the gospel is an open experience for all people. Part of our worship is the proclamation of the gospel, and we want all people to hear the message of grace and life in Jesus Christ.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Gaynier and Her Security Cake
Why do you feel safe to get on an airplane in the U.S.?
Rhonda Gaynier and the ALCU may make it a little easier for their terrorist enemies to board planes if this problem grows larger roots.
Gaynier would like to have her cake and eat it too. She does not want her privacy to be violated. She does want to board the airplane. She claims she was searched like she was a convict. Guilty until proven innocent...isn't that the way the investigation must be conducted?
Okay, people should absolutely NOT be groped in any way that is inconsistent with what is necessary to prove that they are not hiding weapons on their body. Personally, as a male, I do not appreciate the wand or anyone's hands checking me out at the airport, and for women it must be even more humiliating. But let's keep our focus here. Gaynier's planned class action lawsuit is not going to make matters better. In fact, I'm immediately reminded of the line from A Few Good Men from Colonel Jessep: "You just weakened a country today."
Solution? There are no easy ones. As long as screenings are going to be required, there are going to be problems and frustrations. Were Gaynier and everyone else who are now claiming that they were touched inappropriately right to make accusations? I am certain that a percentage of them are legitimate.
Maybe we should allow physicians to perform the checks. Maybe they could do a mini check-up as we went through screening and we could get a health report along with a clearance to board. Wouldn't this also fit with the x-ray machines that are being tested for body screenings? Couldn't a good radiologist get a quick glance at our bodies along with a view of possible hidden weapons? We don't argue that our family doctor goes too far when he/she investigates into highly personal areas because we know it is necessary. 'Necessary' may also be the word we have to accept when it comes to being screened at the airport as well.
Gaynier's accusations should be taken seriously, as should others. But the issue of so-called "freedoms" is not at stake here. The ACLU has no business in this argument (but then, wha'ts new.) America will only be free as long as we are a safe nation. If our terrorist enemies were smart, they would not only be training fighters to carry bombs and guns, but also lawyers to fight in the U.S. courts for the freedom to harm Americans.
Maybe in the future we can have two systems: flights for people who wish to be screened and flights for those who do not.
Rhonda Gaynier and the ALCU may make it a little easier for their terrorist enemies to board planes if this problem grows larger roots.
Gaynier would like to have her cake and eat it too. She does not want her privacy to be violated. She does want to board the airplane. She claims she was searched like she was a convict. Guilty until proven innocent...isn't that the way the investigation must be conducted?
Okay, people should absolutely NOT be groped in any way that is inconsistent with what is necessary to prove that they are not hiding weapons on their body. Personally, as a male, I do not appreciate the wand or anyone's hands checking me out at the airport, and for women it must be even more humiliating. But let's keep our focus here. Gaynier's planned class action lawsuit is not going to make matters better. In fact, I'm immediately reminded of the line from A Few Good Men from Colonel Jessep: "You just weakened a country today."
Solution? There are no easy ones. As long as screenings are going to be required, there are going to be problems and frustrations. Were Gaynier and everyone else who are now claiming that they were touched inappropriately right to make accusations? I am certain that a percentage of them are legitimate.
Maybe we should allow physicians to perform the checks. Maybe they could do a mini check-up as we went through screening and we could get a health report along with a clearance to board. Wouldn't this also fit with the x-ray machines that are being tested for body screenings? Couldn't a good radiologist get a quick glance at our bodies along with a view of possible hidden weapons? We don't argue that our family doctor goes too far when he/she investigates into highly personal areas because we know it is necessary. 'Necessary' may also be the word we have to accept when it comes to being screened at the airport as well.
Gaynier's accusations should be taken seriously, as should others. But the issue of so-called "freedoms" is not at stake here. The ACLU has no business in this argument (but then, wha'ts new.) America will only be free as long as we are a safe nation. If our terrorist enemies were smart, they would not only be training fighters to carry bombs and guns, but also lawyers to fight in the U.S. courts for the freedom to harm Americans.
Maybe in the future we can have two systems: flights for people who wish to be screened and flights for those who do not.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Bread Ties
In Seinfeldesque terms I must ask, "So what's up with bread?"
While all of the other products that are packaged and sold at the grocery have come to be enveloped with unpenetrable layers of safety features, bread is sold in a bag with an inviting twist tie on the end/top. I only became aware of this problem this week when the bread I purchased had a somewhat defective twist tie on the end, alerting me to the possibility that someone, anyone, could have opened this package of bread and harmed the bread in countless and unimaginable ways. Are we really this naive? When is the bread industry going to catch up with the rest of the world of safety seals? Are we going to hold them accountable or are we going to continue to buy bread in these ancient packages?
Join with me as I march in front of the department of bread to make sure that our voices are heard and the future is going to be a better place. (Or, write you congressman.)
While all of the other products that are packaged and sold at the grocery have come to be enveloped with unpenetrable layers of safety features, bread is sold in a bag with an inviting twist tie on the end/top. I only became aware of this problem this week when the bread I purchased had a somewhat defective twist tie on the end, alerting me to the possibility that someone, anyone, could have opened this package of bread and harmed the bread in countless and unimaginable ways. Are we really this naive? When is the bread industry going to catch up with the rest of the world of safety seals? Are we going to hold them accountable or are we going to continue to buy bread in these ancient packages?
Join with me as I march in front of the department of bread to make sure that our voices are heard and the future is going to be a better place. (Or, write you congressman.)
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Casual Casualties
Quick, how many British casualties have there been in Iraq? Italian? Poles?
If you're like me and somewhat of a current affairs addict, you at least know the ballpark figure for how many U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. The most recent official count is 1,140 for American men and women, and 1,286 for the coalition (not including the new Iraqi army, I presume.) Britian has lost 74, Italy, 19, Poland, 13.
Certainly one of the horrible things about continued fighting is the numbness that we develop as a society to the casualties that are reported. This morning on the radio news they reported how many U.S. soldiers had been killed and wounded in the last two days in Fallujah. The report was so dry and matter-of-fact that it reminded me of Stalin's statement: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." First, it is interesting that such words came from a man who was responsible for so many deaths. Second, it is even more interesting how right he was.
During peaceful times, any member of the U.S. military who is killed makes the headlines in the news, usually with a detailed story. Not so in war times. To their credit, though, there does seem to be an effort by the media to give significance to each U.S. soldier who is killed in action, and obviously to our regret it would be impossible to explain the complete story in each and every case.
Another observation is the significance for Americans solely concerning American lives. Yes, our national media is going to cater to that in which we are most interested, but you rarely hear the statistics for how many troops were killed for any of the other countries involved. We are very ethnocentric people to the degree that other lives don't seem to carry the same weight as Americans.
It is interesting that the term "casualty" derives from the same root as "casual" due to the meaning of "accident" or "chance." Today we certainly don't relate the words nor do we think there is anything casual about being killed. Sadly, though, casualties become increasingly casual in our news as the numbers continue to increase.
If you're like me and somewhat of a current affairs addict, you at least know the ballpark figure for how many U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. The most recent official count is 1,140 for American men and women, and 1,286 for the coalition (not including the new Iraqi army, I presume.) Britian has lost 74, Italy, 19, Poland, 13.
Certainly one of the horrible things about continued fighting is the numbness that we develop as a society to the casualties that are reported. This morning on the radio news they reported how many U.S. soldiers had been killed and wounded in the last two days in Fallujah. The report was so dry and matter-of-fact that it reminded me of Stalin's statement: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." First, it is interesting that such words came from a man who was responsible for so many deaths. Second, it is even more interesting how right he was.
During peaceful times, any member of the U.S. military who is killed makes the headlines in the news, usually with a detailed story. Not so in war times. To their credit, though, there does seem to be an effort by the media to give significance to each U.S. soldier who is killed in action, and obviously to our regret it would be impossible to explain the complete story in each and every case.
Another observation is the significance for Americans solely concerning American lives. Yes, our national media is going to cater to that in which we are most interested, but you rarely hear the statistics for how many troops were killed for any of the other countries involved. We are very ethnocentric people to the degree that other lives don't seem to carry the same weight as Americans.
It is interesting that the term "casualty" derives from the same root as "casual" due to the meaning of "accident" or "chance." Today we certainly don't relate the words nor do we think there is anything casual about being killed. Sadly, though, casualties become increasingly casual in our news as the numbers continue to increase.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Blogging the Vote
Standing in line to vote today I began to pick out the Kerry voters and the Bush voters. It was easy, actually.
The nervous ones are voting for Bush; they have everything to lose and they care. The carefree ones are voting for Kerry; their cares are fewer because they have little to lose, and so they think, much to gain. The Kerry voters are wearing wind-surfing gear, Red Sox hats, and playing air guitar. The Bush voters are wearing business suits and are anxious to get to their banking jobs.
The SUV drivers are voting Bush, too. I know they're SUV drivers because they keep anxiously looking to the parking lot to see if their SUV's are performing malicious acts while unattended in the parking lot. The Kerry voters are taking off their leather driving gloves as we stand together in line.
I make a joke about voter intimidation to test the waters. The Bush voters laugh. The Kerry voters try to ignore me as they look through their Democrat handbooks for anything that might actually be voter intimidation. The rain was certainly intimidating, but accusing God of voter intimidation is going to be difficult even for liberals.
The couple ahead in line who are speaking French must be voting Kerry. The guy in the cowboy hat is voting Bush, and he speaks Texan. The soccer moms are driven to madness - "Do I vote for national security or for government healthcare?" they ask themselves. The woman behind us with the unshaven legs is obviously voting Kerry. Oh, wait, Nader. The priest in the other line must be voting for Bush.
The elderly seem to be happy just to be voting. There are plenty of comments about the big turnout. Of course, this is Alabama. Senior citizens are voting for Bush whether or not they've been Democrats or Republicans for the past 90 years. The South is still a century away from voting for a liberal.
I see Kurt Cobain, Mary Poppins, and John Wayne ahead of me in line. They must have responded to Sean Combs' efforts to get people to "vote or die." I wonder if they have valid ID's.
The entire process took only 75 minutes. That's 15 minutes faster than a failed attempt to renew my tags the previous day. Success!
The nervous ones are voting for Bush; they have everything to lose and they care. The carefree ones are voting for Kerry; their cares are fewer because they have little to lose, and so they think, much to gain. The Kerry voters are wearing wind-surfing gear, Red Sox hats, and playing air guitar. The Bush voters are wearing business suits and are anxious to get to their banking jobs.
The SUV drivers are voting Bush, too. I know they're SUV drivers because they keep anxiously looking to the parking lot to see if their SUV's are performing malicious acts while unattended in the parking lot. The Kerry voters are taking off their leather driving gloves as we stand together in line.
I make a joke about voter intimidation to test the waters. The Bush voters laugh. The Kerry voters try to ignore me as they look through their Democrat handbooks for anything that might actually be voter intimidation. The rain was certainly intimidating, but accusing God of voter intimidation is going to be difficult even for liberals.
The couple ahead in line who are speaking French must be voting Kerry. The guy in the cowboy hat is voting Bush, and he speaks Texan. The soccer moms are driven to madness - "Do I vote for national security or for government healthcare?" they ask themselves. The woman behind us with the unshaven legs is obviously voting Kerry. Oh, wait, Nader. The priest in the other line must be voting for Bush.
The elderly seem to be happy just to be voting. There are plenty of comments about the big turnout. Of course, this is Alabama. Senior citizens are voting for Bush whether or not they've been Democrats or Republicans for the past 90 years. The South is still a century away from voting for a liberal.
I see Kurt Cobain, Mary Poppins, and John Wayne ahead of me in line. They must have responded to Sean Combs' efforts to get people to "vote or die." I wonder if they have valid ID's.
The entire process took only 75 minutes. That's 15 minutes faster than a failed attempt to renew my tags the previous day. Success!
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Election in a Divided Country
While political historians could inevitably trace our current problems as a nation back to roughly the day that the Republican Cavemen walked out of that meeting with the Democratic Hunter-Gatherers, recent history seems to give several insights into which the neither the media nor the talk shows seem to explore very deeplly.
1. The drastic swing in the popularity of Bush-41 after the first Gulf War. The U.S. was very united in the first war to free Kuwait and restore order to the world. As the election neared, popular talk shifted from the war to domestic issues. Many conservatives blamed the media, especially CNN at the time, for getting Clinton elected. Certainly the media had shown bias before, but a new era had begun.
2. Terrorism in the 90's. Terrorism and the way that the U.S. dealt with the Somalian problems, the bombing of the WTC, and the bombing of the USS Cole gave reasons for the nation to be viewed as soft on terrorism. No one on either side of the fence really viewed the possibilities with the kind of seriousness that we now realize was needed. America's lack of clear resolution in the 90's eventually led to lots of finger-pointing after 9/11.
3. The impeachment of Clinton. The entire affair stands as a black mark on America's history. The embarassment to the office of president and the division that the entire mess created were both harmful. Whether or not you believe Clinton should have been impeached, you have to agree that the matter and the distraction that the hearings and investigations created are something that weakened our country and divided us further down the aisle.
4. The Bush-Gore election fiasco. The arguments that continued and the attitudes that followed by those who thought that Bush was not legitimately elected have further divided the country into two parts.
5. The spin on terrorism and Iraq. Following one of the worst and yet most unifying events to ever occur in 9/11, the factions have created two Americas (if I may borrow that terminology): One America that is resolute in taking the necessary measures to fight terrorism and protect ourselves, and one America that wants to downplay the war on terror to something secondary.
6. The gap between Bush and Kerry. The extreme differences between these two candidates also produces extreme feelings by people who realize the implications of the election.
1. The drastic swing in the popularity of Bush-41 after the first Gulf War. The U.S. was very united in the first war to free Kuwait and restore order to the world. As the election neared, popular talk shifted from the war to domestic issues. Many conservatives blamed the media, especially CNN at the time, for getting Clinton elected. Certainly the media had shown bias before, but a new era had begun.
2. Terrorism in the 90's. Terrorism and the way that the U.S. dealt with the Somalian problems, the bombing of the WTC, and the bombing of the USS Cole gave reasons for the nation to be viewed as soft on terrorism. No one on either side of the fence really viewed the possibilities with the kind of seriousness that we now realize was needed. America's lack of clear resolution in the 90's eventually led to lots of finger-pointing after 9/11.
3. The impeachment of Clinton. The entire affair stands as a black mark on America's history. The embarassment to the office of president and the division that the entire mess created were both harmful. Whether or not you believe Clinton should have been impeached, you have to agree that the matter and the distraction that the hearings and investigations created are something that weakened our country and divided us further down the aisle.
4. The Bush-Gore election fiasco. The arguments that continued and the attitudes that followed by those who thought that Bush was not legitimately elected have further divided the country into two parts.
5. The spin on terrorism and Iraq. Following one of the worst and yet most unifying events to ever occur in 9/11, the factions have created two Americas (if I may borrow that terminology): One America that is resolute in taking the necessary measures to fight terrorism and protect ourselves, and one America that wants to downplay the war on terror to something secondary.
6. The gap between Bush and Kerry. The extreme differences between these two candidates also produces extreme feelings by people who realize the implications of the election.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
An Open Letter to Churches about Politicians
To the Churches:
The presence of people at church for worship should be the most sanctified gathering we experience this side of heaven. At the very heart of worship is the acknowledgment and attributing of God's worthiness to him as God. There should be no secondary or other focus of our worship. Anything that falls outside of pure reverence for God should be questioned sternly.
Now there are many things that become questionable in worship if we are to take worship as seriously as the Christian faith warrants. Accordingly, the presence of any politician for political gain at a worship service is first and foremost a neglect for the God that we should be gathering to worship. No matter how 'religious' the politician may be or claim to be, there is no place in worship for stumping, as Jared Bridges soundly defends.
Politicians should absolutely be welcomed when attending our churches, just as every other person. There would even seemingly be no problem with a politician holding an office in the church so long as the person met the biblical qualifications for the position. However, allowing a mortal man or woman the platform to advance their political views and allow such a presentation to become mixed with the church's gathering to worship an Almighty God is completely and utterly deplorable. How can any church stand for such a shameful distraction?
As the news has covered politicians speaking lately in churches trying to gather last-minute votes I feel like the church is being prostituted to the world. When a church becomes no more than a social organization that invites politicians to come and address its members (even in a non-partisan "both sides" event) the church has ceased to be the church. For whatever purpose these people are gathering, it is not to be the church nor to worship God.
Believers in Christ should be informed voters. Believers in Christ should be active in our country's political system. However, the worship service is neither the time nor the place for a political speaker or a political rally to take place.
Every church certainly falls short of worshiping in the most biblical way that we are able. Many things could and should be changed to make our worship more God-centered and less man-centered. The church that would claim to have everything perfectly in order would surely be sinful in such a claim. This matter is not one for a church to boast over another church. Rather, it is a pressing matter for us to examine ourselves and to seek to be more biblical churches in the future than the present.
Sincerely,
Colby Willen
The presence of people at church for worship should be the most sanctified gathering we experience this side of heaven. At the very heart of worship is the acknowledgment and attributing of God's worthiness to him as God. There should be no secondary or other focus of our worship. Anything that falls outside of pure reverence for God should be questioned sternly.
Now there are many things that become questionable in worship if we are to take worship as seriously as the Christian faith warrants. Accordingly, the presence of any politician for political gain at a worship service is first and foremost a neglect for the God that we should be gathering to worship. No matter how 'religious' the politician may be or claim to be, there is no place in worship for stumping, as Jared Bridges soundly defends.
Politicians should absolutely be welcomed when attending our churches, just as every other person. There would even seemingly be no problem with a politician holding an office in the church so long as the person met the biblical qualifications for the position. However, allowing a mortal man or woman the platform to advance their political views and allow such a presentation to become mixed with the church's gathering to worship an Almighty God is completely and utterly deplorable. How can any church stand for such a shameful distraction?
As the news has covered politicians speaking lately in churches trying to gather last-minute votes I feel like the church is being prostituted to the world. When a church becomes no more than a social organization that invites politicians to come and address its members (even in a non-partisan "both sides" event) the church has ceased to be the church. For whatever purpose these people are gathering, it is not to be the church nor to worship God.
Believers in Christ should be informed voters. Believers in Christ should be active in our country's political system. However, the worship service is neither the time nor the place for a political speaker or a political rally to take place.
Every church certainly falls short of worshiping in the most biblical way that we are able. Many things could and should be changed to make our worship more God-centered and less man-centered. The church that would claim to have everything perfectly in order would surely be sinful in such a claim. This matter is not one for a church to boast over another church. Rather, it is a pressing matter for us to examine ourselves and to seek to be more biblical churches in the future than the present.
Sincerely,
Colby Willen
Friday, October 22, 2004
Kids, Children, Soldiers
Kids. n. a.k.a. "children"
a.k.a. "The American soldier."
Will someone please identify which soldier in the American military was drafted and sent to war? Also, where are these 13-year olds that liberals keep insinuating when they talk about our 'kids' fighting in Iraq?
Maureen Dowd jumps on this platform in her editorial yesterday by tossing out the "we sent our kids to fight" line. No, Maureen, that would be the Palestinians. In America we allow our people to choose. When our 18 year-old men and women decide that a respectable and honorable way of life is to join the military, then we honor that choice. We're all in favor of choice aren't we?
As a nation, we are not sending our sons and daughters to war. We're sending our strength to war. As the book of Proverbs states, "the glory of young men is their strength." Are we supposed to limit our military to the middle-aged? Maybe the elderly should be the ones on the front lines...is this what liberals are suggesting?
Luckily we still have a generation that has enough pride in being American that they desire to fight for and defend the country. We still have a volunteer army, and we still have the greatest military in the history of the world. Does it hurt to see our loved ones injured or killed in the struggle against terrorism? Certainly. But let's not make them to be martyrs.
As for Dowd's attack on Bush's faith, she makes the war out to be a religious crusade. There certainly is a religious crusade going on, and it is one that would abolish America if it could get its hands on the right weapons. Since when did being a President who believes in God become contrary to American ideals? A quick look down the lines of presidential history shows some amazingly religious men who led from the oval office. Sure, there have been some who were nominally Christian, but never before has there been such media attacks on the CIC for mentioning God and the Bible, but then, that's another blog entry for another day.
a.k.a. "The American soldier."
Will someone please identify which soldier in the American military was drafted and sent to war? Also, where are these 13-year olds that liberals keep insinuating when they talk about our 'kids' fighting in Iraq?
Maureen Dowd jumps on this platform in her editorial yesterday by tossing out the "we sent our kids to fight" line. No, Maureen, that would be the Palestinians. In America we allow our people to choose. When our 18 year-old men and women decide that a respectable and honorable way of life is to join the military, then we honor that choice. We're all in favor of choice aren't we?
As a nation, we are not sending our sons and daughters to war. We're sending our strength to war. As the book of Proverbs states, "the glory of young men is their strength." Are we supposed to limit our military to the middle-aged? Maybe the elderly should be the ones on the front lines...is this what liberals are suggesting?
Luckily we still have a generation that has enough pride in being American that they desire to fight for and defend the country. We still have a volunteer army, and we still have the greatest military in the history of the world. Does it hurt to see our loved ones injured or killed in the struggle against terrorism? Certainly. But let's not make them to be martyrs.
As for Dowd's attack on Bush's faith, she makes the war out to be a religious crusade. There certainly is a religious crusade going on, and it is one that would abolish America if it could get its hands on the right weapons. Since when did being a President who believes in God become contrary to American ideals? A quick look down the lines of presidential history shows some amazingly religious men who led from the oval office. Sure, there have been some who were nominally Christian, but never before has there been such media attacks on the CIC for mentioning God and the Bible, but then, that's another blog entry for another day.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Prescient
Prescient. adj. Having knowledge of coming events; foreseeing; conscious beforehand.
More than one paper has used the term "prescient" to describe the Senator running for President as they place themselves firmly in his corner. Don't we all wish we had a candidate who was relatively prescient? But in truth, none are. Maybe a glimpse here and there, but wishy-washy on current topics doesn't convince one that a candidate is prescient. Someone who stands resolute on the direction of the country seems to deserve the term to a little higher degree.
Maybe these papers meant that Kerry was prescient of what he needed to say for the next polling results. Maybe this term should be 'pollscient' instead.
More than one paper has used the term "prescient" to describe the Senator running for President as they place themselves firmly in his corner. Don't we all wish we had a candidate who was relatively prescient? But in truth, none are. Maybe a glimpse here and there, but wishy-washy on current topics doesn't convince one that a candidate is prescient. Someone who stands resolute on the direction of the country seems to deserve the term to a little higher degree.
Maybe these papers meant that Kerry was prescient of what he needed to say for the next polling results. Maybe this term should be 'pollscient' instead.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Some Light
In a devotional called Light on the Path Heinrich Bitzer gives the reader a verse or two in Hebrew and Greek each day, often steering his reader to translate an Old Testament verse and a related New Testament verse that gives some interesting and related things to consider. Today's verses are an excellent example:
Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Yours is the dominion, O LORD, and You exalt Yourself as head over all. (I Chronicles 29:11)
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:27-30)
Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Yours is the dominion, O LORD, and You exalt Yourself as head over all. (I Chronicles 29:11)
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:27-30)
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Bubba Voted Out
Travis ("Bubba") was voted off Survivor tonight. His "secret signals" to the other tribe got all the women on his tribe fired up. From there he had no chance. So the hope of Sullivan Central High School is voted off the island.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Bubba Survives Survivor
Bubba makes it personal for me as he's the first person I've actually known on the show. We were in school together since we were kids (he, Travis, was a year ahead of me.) We played football together for a couple of years when we were kids.
For some reason I've been a fan of Survivor since I caught the last two episodes of the first series. I think it is my competitive nature and my fantasy of wondering how I would do on the show. I argue that lying is completely permissable since it's only a game - lying would be the same as not showing someone else your cards or not exposing your motivations for a purchase in Monopoly.
As for Bubba and the men's team, they have failed to play the game in a fashion that will help them to win. Each of the men seems so concerned/threatened by the other men that they are overly concerned about voting each other out than about beating the women and retaining a strong team presence. If and when the tribes merge, the larger tribe almost always has the upper hand in voting out the former members of the smaller tribe. In this case, the women would dominate the men. However, the producers/planners of the game have shown that they can mix things up from time to time to make the game interesting just when one 'tribe' seems overly dominant.
As for Bubba's chances, I think they are reasonable. While he has taken up with the 'older' men in the tribe, he seems to be on pretty good terms with the others that still remain.
Interesting fact about Bubba: the orange Bob Barker shirt that he is always wearing is the shirt that was popular in our high school way back when. I don't know if he has preserved his shirt this long or if maybe he got a new one somewhere especially to wear on survivor (though the one he's wearing doesn't look too new.)
For some reason I've been a fan of Survivor since I caught the last two episodes of the first series. I think it is my competitive nature and my fantasy of wondering how I would do on the show. I argue that lying is completely permissable since it's only a game - lying would be the same as not showing someone else your cards or not exposing your motivations for a purchase in Monopoly.
As for Bubba and the men's team, they have failed to play the game in a fashion that will help them to win. Each of the men seems so concerned/threatened by the other men that they are overly concerned about voting each other out than about beating the women and retaining a strong team presence. If and when the tribes merge, the larger tribe almost always has the upper hand in voting out the former members of the smaller tribe. In this case, the women would dominate the men. However, the producers/planners of the game have shown that they can mix things up from time to time to make the game interesting just when one 'tribe' seems overly dominant.
As for Bubba's chances, I think they are reasonable. While he has taken up with the 'older' men in the tribe, he seems to be on pretty good terms with the others that still remain.
Interesting fact about Bubba: the orange Bob Barker shirt that he is always wearing is the shirt that was popular in our high school way back when. I don't know if he has preserved his shirt this long or if maybe he got a new one somewhere especially to wear on survivor (though the one he's wearing doesn't look too new.)
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Track Record
What do comets, baseball pitchers, the moon, and stock shares have in common? We can predict where they're going by where they've been and appear to be heading. Curt Schilling didn't start the first game of the post-season for the Red Sox because of any other reason than his track record for the past 3-6 months of pitching. If you're investing, would you rather put your money in a proven fund or go with an unknown based on promises of a different agenda to come?
But, claiming that something or someone will go in a direction they have failed previously to go is like predicting that hurricane Jeanne would turn due West when it was heading due East into the Atlantic - there was little reason and no predictions that the change would actually happen. I kind of get that same feeling in hearing the presidential and vice-presidential debates. A man's words only carry so much meaning, and when his words deviate from his track record, we have little evidence that his words are trustworthy. If Curt Schilling had gone 3-15 for the season and wound up with a 7.83 era for the Red Sox, no matter how strongly he insisted that he would pitch a winning game in the playoffs, his case would hold little water.
You decide.
But, claiming that something or someone will go in a direction they have failed previously to go is like predicting that hurricane Jeanne would turn due West when it was heading due East into the Atlantic - there was little reason and no predictions that the change would actually happen. I kind of get that same feeling in hearing the presidential and vice-presidential debates. A man's words only carry so much meaning, and when his words deviate from his track record, we have little evidence that his words are trustworthy. If Curt Schilling had gone 3-15 for the season and wound up with a 7.83 era for the Red Sox, no matter how strongly he insisted that he would pitch a winning game in the playoffs, his case would hold little water.
You decide.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Polygamy
This word is about to come out of the closet if the liberal left has any say in the matter. The irony is that the liberal left stammers and stutters whenever polygamy is brought up in debate, tending to denounce polygamy because it is "wrong." I'm sorry, but the word "wrong" should only be applied by the left to conservative ideas.
Dr. Albert Mohler addresses the slippery slope that seems like the next logical progression if our society is to adopt gay marriage. Mohler responds to one of the first actual arguments in favor of the legality of polygamy in USA Today by Jonathan Turley. Turley calls polygamy laws "hypocrisy," and he is correct if we are to adopt gay marriage as a constitutional right.
The relativism present in most arguments in favor of gay marriage becomes ludicrous when examined. People ultimately begin to argue the existence right and wrong when pushed to answer precisely why gay marriage is okay but other deviations on marriage are not equally proper. The morality of the issue is based more on public opinion than any objective standard. As long as polygamy is only endorsed by a quiet minority, the left can sweep in under the rug. But what happens when the same kind of activism that has pushed homosexuality for the past 30 or so years catches the polygamy wave?
For the present, I think Turley argument is actually a benefit to the conservative side. Turley's argument is accurate, and he brings to light the path that is beckoning to a society that reinterprets its constitutional freedoms to allow for everything under the sun.
Dr. Albert Mohler addresses the slippery slope that seems like the next logical progression if our society is to adopt gay marriage. Mohler responds to one of the first actual arguments in favor of the legality of polygamy in USA Today by Jonathan Turley. Turley calls polygamy laws "hypocrisy," and he is correct if we are to adopt gay marriage as a constitutional right.
The relativism present in most arguments in favor of gay marriage becomes ludicrous when examined. People ultimately begin to argue the existence right and wrong when pushed to answer precisely why gay marriage is okay but other deviations on marriage are not equally proper. The morality of the issue is based more on public opinion than any objective standard. As long as polygamy is only endorsed by a quiet minority, the left can sweep in under the rug. But what happens when the same kind of activism that has pushed homosexuality for the past 30 or so years catches the polygamy wave?
For the present, I think Turley argument is actually a benefit to the conservative side. Turley's argument is accurate, and he brings to light the path that is beckoning to a society that reinterprets its constitutional freedoms to allow for everything under the sun.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Ethical Blogging
Rebecca's Pocket gives a good piece on the ethics involved in the world of weblogs. Why are blogs not taken more seriously out there by the mainstream media? Part of the reason is the trust factor. People trust The Washington Post and the New York Times because the reports in these publications have been proven factual over the years (minus a few glitches and omissions, of course.) The reason people in the blog world visit a few select big-name blogs is the trust we develop in these to be accurate and dependable. Visiting any random blog is like interviewing a person on the street - you have no idea what you are getting.
Much has been made of the 'checks and balances' that blogs have come to weigh in with on the media. Still, the notion of 'checks and balances' as they apply to blogs really only apply to those which have enough traffic to create a balanced system. 99.9% of blogs out there (according to figures established in my own mind) do not receive the traffic to truly make them a balanced vehicle of truth, though the lack of this accountability does not imply that they are not true. If I published on my blog tomorrow that Martians had landed in my back yard and were setting up a pizza parlor marketed toward Star Trek and Star Wars fanatics, the tabloids might show up to interview me but no one (or few) in the blog world would rush to my defense. Conversely, at a low traffic blog, the truest analysis is likely to get merely a passing yawn.
The interesting part about the whole system is the way that the big blogs are like a towering structure built with the smaller blogs as the support. Instapundit is 200,000 hits strong partially because of the information gathered from the blogosphere. Glenn Reynolds then both gives credibility to other blogs and is viewed as a good 'thermometer' for the accuracy of other things going on out there (taking nothing away from his own articles and original blog entries.)
On the flip side, just as a major newspaper can be burned by one of its own who decides to make up the facts for its stories, the blogosphere is infinitely more susceptible to such problems. Bloggers as a whole will never be taken too seriously just as letters to the editor in every small town newspaper across the country carry little weight until the proven name of the community weighs in with an opinion.
Much has been made of the 'checks and balances' that blogs have come to weigh in with on the media. Still, the notion of 'checks and balances' as they apply to blogs really only apply to those which have enough traffic to create a balanced system. 99.9% of blogs out there (according to figures established in my own mind) do not receive the traffic to truly make them a balanced vehicle of truth, though the lack of this accountability does not imply that they are not true. If I published on my blog tomorrow that Martians had landed in my back yard and were setting up a pizza parlor marketed toward Star Trek and Star Wars fanatics, the tabloids might show up to interview me but no one (or few) in the blog world would rush to my defense. Conversely, at a low traffic blog, the truest analysis is likely to get merely a passing yawn.
The interesting part about the whole system is the way that the big blogs are like a towering structure built with the smaller blogs as the support. Instapundit is 200,000 hits strong partially because of the information gathered from the blogosphere. Glenn Reynolds then both gives credibility to other blogs and is viewed as a good 'thermometer' for the accuracy of other things going on out there (taking nothing away from his own articles and original blog entries.)
On the flip side, just as a major newspaper can be burned by one of its own who decides to make up the facts for its stories, the blogosphere is infinitely more susceptible to such problems. Bloggers as a whole will never be taken too seriously just as letters to the editor in every small town newspaper across the country carry little weight until the proven name of the community weighs in with an opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
