The Government of Alabama "the Beautiful": 50 out of 50. (Dead last for you non-math majors.)
I thought that might be a little high.
Where does your state rank?
Monday, January 31, 2005
Friday, January 28, 2005
Our New Animal
Celia
Okay, Celia's a dog, a puppy, and appears to be a black lab...mostly/partially. She is 2 3/4 months old, weighs 11.5 lbs; her favorite color is black; her favorite food is Science Diet; her favorite activity is whining; her favorite toy is a close race between the chew rope and the tennis ball.
Red Mountain Park: A Step Up
Birmingham stands to gain a much needed park near its downtown if this deal with U.S. Steel Corp stands. One of my soap boxes about B'ham is the city's lack of user-friendly parks. With a metro population over one million, Greater Birmingham finds itself in 2005 with very few places to play and exercise. Another proposal that is in the works is to turn a stretch of old railroad tracks that run through downtown B'ham into a greenway that would run between the already split downtown banking and hospital districts.
Birmingham is lagging behind in a day when cities have come to recognize that quality of life depends on people being able to enjoy being outside. Another area in which B'ham lags behind is in the downtown area. Efforts are underway to bring new housing and business to the immediate downtown, but there are still many, many eyesores that need to be dealt with if people are going to want to spend time downtown. With development booming in the area and property values continuing to skyrocket, U.S. Steel should be applauded for its cooperation, agreeing to sell land to the city for a much less than its worth.
Few sidewalks are currently in place to serve the suburbs. Fewer street lights can be found outside of downtown. Being on the front edge of the Central Time Zone, darkness comes in the winter by 4:30. I've written before about the statistics calling Alabama the most obese state. Surely one can find a correlation between the lack of opportunity to enjoy outdoor activities in Birmingham and this problem of obesity.
As the article states the proposed park would contain both developed and undeveloped areas to serve the greater B'ham area. Within the metro population of over one million, the city of Birmingham is only a percentage as Hoover, Homewood, Mountain Brook, Vestavia Hills, and Irondale all contain significant population bases, but each city runs its own government. One has only to look around to see the lack of cooperation among the cities in the metro area. The proposed park would be near all six cities, but little effort can be found by the cities to bring such projects to pass.
Turning Legion Field into a domed stadium has been the talk of Birmigham for some time. The B'ham city council seems to believe that such a stadium would be a great step for the city. Comparing numbers, a large, centrally located park is going to be a much greater boost to the standard of living for the area. A domed stadium may attract some large sporting events, but for pure everyday use, what Birmingham is lacking and needing is this type of park, not an idle-sitting football field.
Birmingham is lagging behind in a day when cities have come to recognize that quality of life depends on people being able to enjoy being outside. Another area in which B'ham lags behind is in the downtown area. Efforts are underway to bring new housing and business to the immediate downtown, but there are still many, many eyesores that need to be dealt with if people are going to want to spend time downtown. With development booming in the area and property values continuing to skyrocket, U.S. Steel should be applauded for its cooperation, agreeing to sell land to the city for a much less than its worth.
Few sidewalks are currently in place to serve the suburbs. Fewer street lights can be found outside of downtown. Being on the front edge of the Central Time Zone, darkness comes in the winter by 4:30. I've written before about the statistics calling Alabama the most obese state. Surely one can find a correlation between the lack of opportunity to enjoy outdoor activities in Birmingham and this problem of obesity.
As the article states the proposed park would contain both developed and undeveloped areas to serve the greater B'ham area. Within the metro population of over one million, the city of Birmingham is only a percentage as Hoover, Homewood, Mountain Brook, Vestavia Hills, and Irondale all contain significant population bases, but each city runs its own government. One has only to look around to see the lack of cooperation among the cities in the metro area. The proposed park would be near all six cities, but little effort can be found by the cities to bring such projects to pass.
Turning Legion Field into a domed stadium has been the talk of Birmigham for some time. The B'ham city council seems to believe that such a stadium would be a great step for the city. Comparing numbers, a large, centrally located park is going to be a much greater boost to the standard of living for the area. A domed stadium may attract some large sporting events, but for pure everyday use, what Birmingham is lacking and needing is this type of park, not an idle-sitting football field.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Tsunami First Hand
A Birmingham couple witnessed the tsunami from an elevated location and then attempted to help the victims. Their story is an interesting one that gives a first-hand account.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Boys to Men and Game Snake
An article in the Birmingham News is about a new way of getting together to play. The website is www.gamesnake.com and it offers men the chance to gather "the guys" just like when they were younger. Simply choose your sports and your skill levels, and then you can either invite or be invited by others in your area to events that match your descriptions.
While the concept is pretty neat, it strikes at something that haunts men in our society. Once men move on from college their circles of friends seem to diminish. Not that we all have to be playing pick-up basketball with our 5 closest friends every afternoon, but there is a real need for men to sustain friendships with other men. It's just plain healthy and good for us. Certianly the role of a wife becomes first and foremost for the married man, but it is too easy to completely remove oneself from the world and from those vital friendships with other guys.
There are plenty of factors, of course, that could be considered. A man who is, let's say 32, does not likely live with 3 other guys his age. His place of work is made up of a wide-variety of people, among whom he might come across one tennis or racketball player and maybe a foursome for golf, but there is probably not going to be the makings of a 3-on-3 basketball game at the worksite.
Here's applause to the idea behind gamesnake.com.
While the concept is pretty neat, it strikes at something that haunts men in our society. Once men move on from college their circles of friends seem to diminish. Not that we all have to be playing pick-up basketball with our 5 closest friends every afternoon, but there is a real need for men to sustain friendships with other men. It's just plain healthy and good for us. Certianly the role of a wife becomes first and foremost for the married man, but it is too easy to completely remove oneself from the world and from those vital friendships with other guys.
There are plenty of factors, of course, that could be considered. A man who is, let's say 32, does not likely live with 3 other guys his age. His place of work is made up of a wide-variety of people, among whom he might come across one tennis or racketball player and maybe a foursome for golf, but there is probably not going to be the makings of a 3-on-3 basketball game at the worksite.
Here's applause to the idea behind gamesnake.com.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Alabama is #1 in a Venti Society
Alabama is the fattest state in the union. 28.4% of Alabama's residents are overweight according to one study. Taking it in stride, the state that houses the headquarters for Southern Living claims that food must be better here. Um, okay. The Vodka is better in Russia and the marijuana is fresher (or greener, I wouldn't know) in Mexico, so when in Rome...
People take so little responsibility for the problem that we can't expect anything other than labeling obesity as a disease rather than a lack of self-control. Our "Biggie" society offers more and bigger of everything. Why get a 12-oz cola when you can buy a 32-oz for 20 cents more?? Why buy a tall (small) latte when you can get a venti (large) latte? Do people realize how much milk is in a latte?
Who is to blame? Everyone. I'm certainly against any notion that people should be able to bring lawsuits against fast food or anyone else. You buy it and eat it. They advertise it. We're all in this together.
On the flip side, we shouldn't make obesity a crime. Our society has already made smokers to be the most vile of people. What's next? Are we going to make overweight people sit in their own section in the restaurant? There's morally wrong with being overweight. (Note, I didn't say there's nothing wrong with indulging oneself.) The fact that Alabama is #1 in percentage of overweight citizens means that Alabama will have to deal with the health risks in the years to come. Alabama's healthcare system will have to meet these needs at a higher rate than others around the country. Alabama's insurers will foot the bill as well as anyone who is privileged to pay taxes.
Living in Birmingham, there is noticeably less opportunity to exercise outdoors than in other cities. Having moved from Louisville, the city parks of Louisville are tremendously better than those of Birmingham. Cities need to plan for such things, because the discipline of exercise is hard enough when the opportunity is near and easy. When it is hardly available, don't expect the population to go too far out of their way.
People take so little responsibility for the problem that we can't expect anything other than labeling obesity as a disease rather than a lack of self-control. Our "Biggie" society offers more and bigger of everything. Why get a 12-oz cola when you can buy a 32-oz for 20 cents more?? Why buy a tall (small) latte when you can get a venti (large) latte? Do people realize how much milk is in a latte?
Who is to blame? Everyone. I'm certainly against any notion that people should be able to bring lawsuits against fast food or anyone else. You buy it and eat it. They advertise it. We're all in this together.
On the flip side, we shouldn't make obesity a crime. Our society has already made smokers to be the most vile of people. What's next? Are we going to make overweight people sit in their own section in the restaurant? There's morally wrong with being overweight. (Note, I didn't say there's nothing wrong with indulging oneself.) The fact that Alabama is #1 in percentage of overweight citizens means that Alabama will have to deal with the health risks in the years to come. Alabama's healthcare system will have to meet these needs at a higher rate than others around the country. Alabama's insurers will foot the bill as well as anyone who is privileged to pay taxes.
Living in Birmingham, there is noticeably less opportunity to exercise outdoors than in other cities. Having moved from Louisville, the city parks of Louisville are tremendously better than those of Birmingham. Cities need to plan for such things, because the discipline of exercise is hard enough when the opportunity is near and easy. When it is hardly available, don't expect the population to go too far out of their way.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Revoco
Latin. v. to call back, recall, to call off, withdraw
I watched Luther the other night. Great movie. He is asked to utter this one word, revoco, "I recant," (in case you're not familiar with the story.)
Joseph Fiennes interview, on the other hand, on the extras is rather disconcerting. While I thought the movie seemed fairly accurate with what I know about Martin Luther's life, Fiennes, who played the character of Luther, seemed to have totally missed out on the 'purpose' of the very person that he did such a fine job of portraying. "Social reform" is the wrong answer when asked about the major purpose of Luther's actions.
See what TruePravda had to say back in October '03 about the movie.
I watched Luther the other night. Great movie. He is asked to utter this one word, revoco, "I recant," (in case you're not familiar with the story.)
Joseph Fiennes interview, on the other hand, on the extras is rather disconcerting. While I thought the movie seemed fairly accurate with what I know about Martin Luther's life, Fiennes, who played the character of Luther, seemed to have totally missed out on the 'purpose' of the very person that he did such a fine job of portraying. "Social reform" is the wrong answer when asked about the major purpose of Luther's actions.
See what TruePravda had to say back in October '03 about the movie.
Friday, January 14, 2005
A Novel Goes Public
Dolor for Misdeeds is a novel that I've written and decided to publish to the web. I've read worse novels and I've read better, but it is a very strange feeling to have one's own words in such a form and to read over them. Sometimes I'm impressed with it and sometimes I'm disgusted by it, but it's mine nonetheless. Check it out and beware that the website is slightly less than professional. (If I were a web-designer would I be blogging on Blogger?)
Monday, January 10, 2005
Barricades
As the barricades around the Jefferson Memorial are becoming permanent, our nation is moving toward limiting access to everything. What's next, a wall around the Grand Canyon? A visit to Philadelphia reveals the same thing, our nation's greatest landmarks are surrounded by the most atrocious-looking blocks of concrete you can find. The reasons are well known, but the mindset that we can protect every interest by building walls around it just doesn't seem American. I want to be able to visit the Washington Monument without squeezing through a barricade and slipping past guards with high-powered rifles.
America does have to work hard in a post-9/11 world to make sure that we are not "open" but at some point the questions have to be raised about what is suitable for us to live with. How much of our access do we limit in order to protect? Wouldn't these barricades be better served on the border with Mexico? It's a bit like putting up a fence directly around your house rather than around your yard.
America does have to work hard in a post-9/11 world to make sure that we are not "open" but at some point the questions have to be raised about what is suitable for us to live with. How much of our access do we limit in order to protect? Wouldn't these barricades be better served on the border with Mexico? It's a bit like putting up a fence directly around your house rather than around your yard.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Belarus: A "Different Reality"
The world has been advised that there will be no revolution of any color in Belarus. This kind of confidence comes on the heels of an amazing vote of 80% in favor of changing the country's constitution to allow President Lukashenko to seek a third term, something he will be 100% assured of winning.
"Old School" is Belarus. The unrest in other former Soviet republics has not been the case in the population 10 million Belarus. With the kind of supreme authority that made the Soviet Union impervious to change, Lukashenko keeps Belarus steady as a rock. His government provides healthy information that keeps the people settled. This week the foreign minister is quoted as saying: "The economy is developing at a fast pace. People's incomes are growing quickly. Everything taken together is not giving any ground for events similar to the Ukrainian ones." He also dismisses any notions that similar unrest to that of Ukraine could be present in Belarus: we have a different country, different reality."
Yes, rest assured, the economy of Belarus is booming and the standard of living is a thing of envy. Sound familiar?
"Old School" is Belarus. The unrest in other former Soviet republics has not been the case in the population 10 million Belarus. With the kind of supreme authority that made the Soviet Union impervious to change, Lukashenko keeps Belarus steady as a rock. His government provides healthy information that keeps the people settled. This week the foreign minister is quoted as saying: "The economy is developing at a fast pace. People's incomes are growing quickly. Everything taken together is not giving any ground for events similar to the Ukrainian ones." He also dismisses any notions that similar unrest to that of Ukraine could be present in Belarus: we have a different country, different reality."
Yes, rest assured, the economy of Belarus is booming and the standard of living is a thing of envy. Sound familiar?
Archie Bunker's God
What good is going to church?
On an episode of "All in the Family" the other night on TV Land, the show ended with some pretty serious questions about God and life in general. Archie's wife (is it Edith?) laments over the death of someone she knew (no, I wasn't really paying attention.) In her remorse, she contemplates giving up church attendance because she doesn't see that it's doing any good. Archie chides that she needs to keep going to represent the family before God – someone's got to do it.
Not far below the surface of what is said in this episode is a very common understanding of church. This understanding takes church attendance to be a merit of grace before God: If I go to church I am achieving favor with God. As if some sort of good influence is achieved by being in church regularly, the expected result is that fewer bad things will happen in this life to people who go to church. Edith's faith (faith in church, not really in God) is shaken because this bad event occurs. She doesn't understand how God can do this to her even though she always goes to church. Subsequently, "why even go" is the question she raises.
The heart of the problem: people cannot earn favor with God. Being made right with God is a gift from God that comes by grace. [Romans 3:23] We can do nothing to earn it. It comes by grace through faith. [Ephesians 2:8-10] Good works get us nowhere. An atheist could be the kindest, most giving person you ever meet.
So what good is church? As believers, we are a part of the church because we are in Christ. Attending worship is a response of believers to knowing God. For the believer, attending church is absolutely crucial. The person who claims to know Christ but claims no need for church needs to evaluate his/her faith.
Is there any good in going to church for the non-Christian? Yes! But not in terms of earning a good standing with God. Rather, hearing God's word preached (hopefully with a true gospel presentation) and seeing believers worship are a couple of the means that God uses to bring people to faith in Christ. [Romans 10:14; 1 Corinthians 14:24-25]
On an episode of "All in the Family" the other night on TV Land, the show ended with some pretty serious questions about God and life in general. Archie's wife (is it Edith?) laments over the death of someone she knew (no, I wasn't really paying attention.) In her remorse, she contemplates giving up church attendance because she doesn't see that it's doing any good. Archie chides that she needs to keep going to represent the family before God – someone's got to do it.
Not far below the surface of what is said in this episode is a very common understanding of church. This understanding takes church attendance to be a merit of grace before God: If I go to church I am achieving favor with God. As if some sort of good influence is achieved by being in church regularly, the expected result is that fewer bad things will happen in this life to people who go to church. Edith's faith (faith in church, not really in God) is shaken because this bad event occurs. She doesn't understand how God can do this to her even though she always goes to church. Subsequently, "why even go" is the question she raises.
The heart of the problem: people cannot earn favor with God. Being made right with God is a gift from God that comes by grace. [Romans 3:23] We can do nothing to earn it. It comes by grace through faith. [Ephesians 2:8-10] Good works get us nowhere. An atheist could be the kindest, most giving person you ever meet.
So what good is church? As believers, we are a part of the church because we are in Christ. Attending worship is a response of believers to knowing God. For the believer, attending church is absolutely crucial. The person who claims to know Christ but claims no need for church needs to evaluate his/her faith.
Is there any good in going to church for the non-Christian? Yes! But not in terms of earning a good standing with God. Rather, hearing God's word preached (hopefully with a true gospel presentation) and seeing believers worship are a couple of the means that God uses to bring people to faith in Christ. [Romans 10:14; 1 Corinthians 14:24-25]
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Tsunami Relief Contest
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
