A new fashion trend has women wearing ties. But, when it comes down to it, I think it looks terrible on a woman. Am I a chauvinist?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Ties
Sometimes I have to wear a tie. I like the way they look, but they are not comfortable for me to wear and I only wear them if I have to.
A new fashion trend has women wearing ties. But, when it comes down to it, I think it looks terrible on a woman. Am I a chauvinist?
A new fashion trend has women wearing ties. But, when it comes down to it, I think it looks terrible on a woman. Am I a chauvinist?
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Wake Up America
I wanted to re-print an article from NRO. It's right on and worth sharing:
Soul Survivors
The meaning of Mumbai.
By Thomas Sowell
Will the horrors unleashed by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai cause any second thoughts by those who are so anxious to start weakening the American security systems currently in place, including government interceptions of international phone calls and the holding of terrorists at Guantánamo?
Maybe. But never underestimate partisan blindness in Washington or in the mainstream media where, if the Bush administration did it, then it must be wrong.
Contrary to some of the more mawkish notions of what a government is supposed to be, its top job is the protection of the people. Nobody on 9/11 would have thought that we would see nothing comparable again in this country for seven long years.
Many people seem to have forgotten how, in the wake of 9/11, every great national event — the World Series, Christmas, New Year’s, the Super Bowl — was under the shadow of a fear that this was when the terrorists would strike again.
They didn’t strike again here, even though they have struck in Spain, Indonesia, England, and India, among other places. Does anyone imagine that this was because they didn’t want to hit America again?
Could this have had anything to do with all the security precautions that liberals have been complaining about so bitterly, from the interception of international phone calls to forcing information out of captured terrorists?
Too many people refuse to acknowledge that benefits have costs, even if that cost means only having no more secrecy when making international phone calls than you have when sending e-mails, in a world where computer hackers abound. There are people who refuse to give up anything, even to save their own lives.
A very shrewd observer of the deterioration of Western societies, British writer Theodore Dalrymple, said: “This mental flabbiness is decadence, and at the same time a manifestation of the arrogant assumption that nothing can destroy us.”
There are growing numbers of things that can destroy us. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer than the United States has lasted, and yet it too was destroyed.
Millions of lives were blighted for centuries thereafter, because the barbarians who destroyed Rome were incapable of replacing it with anything at all comparable. Neither are those who threaten to destroy the United States today.
The destruction of the United States will not require enough nuclear bombs to annihilate cities and towns across America. After all, the nuclear destruction of just two cities was enough to force Japan to surrender — and the Japanese had far more willingness to fight and die than most Americans have today.
How many Americans are willing to see New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles all disappear in nuclear mushroom clouds, rather than surrender to whatever outrageous demands the terrorists make?
Neither Barack Obama nor those with whom he will be surrounded in Washington show any signs of being serious about forestalling such a terrible choice by taking any action with any realistic chance of preventing a nuclear Iran.
Once suicidal fanatics have nuclear bombs, that is the point of no return. We, our children, and our grandchildren will live at the mercy of the merciless, who have a track record of sadism.
There are no concessions we can make that will buy off hate-filled terrorists. What they want — what they must have for their own self-respect, in a world where they suffer the humiliation of being visibly centuries behind the West in so many ways — is our being brought down in humiliation, including self-humiliation.
Even killing us will not be enough, just as killing Jews was not enough for the Nazis, who first had to subject them to soul-scarring humiliations and dehumanization in their death camps.
This kind of hatred may not be familiar to most Americans but what happened on 9/11 should give us a clue — and a warning.
The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center buildings could not have been bought off by any concessions, not even the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in bailout money today.
They want our soul — and if they are willing to die and we are not, they will get it.
© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Soul Survivors
The meaning of Mumbai.
By Thomas Sowell
Will the horrors unleashed by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai cause any second thoughts by those who are so anxious to start weakening the American security systems currently in place, including government interceptions of international phone calls and the holding of terrorists at Guantánamo?
Maybe. But never underestimate partisan blindness in Washington or in the mainstream media where, if the Bush administration did it, then it must be wrong.
Contrary to some of the more mawkish notions of what a government is supposed to be, its top job is the protection of the people. Nobody on 9/11 would have thought that we would see nothing comparable again in this country for seven long years.
Many people seem to have forgotten how, in the wake of 9/11, every great national event — the World Series, Christmas, New Year’s, the Super Bowl — was under the shadow of a fear that this was when the terrorists would strike again.
They didn’t strike again here, even though they have struck in Spain, Indonesia, England, and India, among other places. Does anyone imagine that this was because they didn’t want to hit America again?
Could this have had anything to do with all the security precautions that liberals have been complaining about so bitterly, from the interception of international phone calls to forcing information out of captured terrorists?
Too many people refuse to acknowledge that benefits have costs, even if that cost means only having no more secrecy when making international phone calls than you have when sending e-mails, in a world where computer hackers abound. There are people who refuse to give up anything, even to save their own lives.
A very shrewd observer of the deterioration of Western societies, British writer Theodore Dalrymple, said: “This mental flabbiness is decadence, and at the same time a manifestation of the arrogant assumption that nothing can destroy us.”
There are growing numbers of things that can destroy us. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer than the United States has lasted, and yet it too was destroyed.
Millions of lives were blighted for centuries thereafter, because the barbarians who destroyed Rome were incapable of replacing it with anything at all comparable. Neither are those who threaten to destroy the United States today.
The destruction of the United States will not require enough nuclear bombs to annihilate cities and towns across America. After all, the nuclear destruction of just two cities was enough to force Japan to surrender — and the Japanese had far more willingness to fight and die than most Americans have today.
How many Americans are willing to see New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles all disappear in nuclear mushroom clouds, rather than surrender to whatever outrageous demands the terrorists make?
Neither Barack Obama nor those with whom he will be surrounded in Washington show any signs of being serious about forestalling such a terrible choice by taking any action with any realistic chance of preventing a nuclear Iran.
Once suicidal fanatics have nuclear bombs, that is the point of no return. We, our children, and our grandchildren will live at the mercy of the merciless, who have a track record of sadism.
There are no concessions we can make that will buy off hate-filled terrorists. What they want — what they must have for their own self-respect, in a world where they suffer the humiliation of being visibly centuries behind the West in so many ways — is our being brought down in humiliation, including self-humiliation.
Even killing us will not be enough, just as killing Jews was not enough for the Nazis, who first had to subject them to soul-scarring humiliations and dehumanization in their death camps.
This kind of hatred may not be familiar to most Americans but what happened on 9/11 should give us a clue — and a warning.
The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center buildings could not have been bought off by any concessions, not even the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in bailout money today.
They want our soul — and if they are willing to die and we are not, they will get it.
© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
1975?
Ok, so my posts tend to be on the serious side. To show those of you who don't know me that I am truly a clown at heart, here is something I hope you enjoy. The good thing about blogs is that you never know where they’ll take you.
This week I faced the long overdue, inevitable, arduous, humbling task of buying new jeans. The last time I bought jeans was probably 10 years ago and they (all 2 pairs) have finally reached a stage that every 16 year old envied. Many people told me that at least it was good that I still fit in them after 10 years, but I understand the miracle of jeans where they tend to stretch “with you” over time.
The first store I went into was the Gap because that is where I always bought jeans before. The main reason for my loyalty to the Gap was because their jeans do not advertise the waist size on a big exposed tag right over my right rear pocket (take note of this Levi Strauss and Co.!). As I entered the Gap for the first time in a decade, I noticed that they are no longer the store I remember. This makes sense because I don’t understand teenagers and the Gap clearly evolved right along with the age group. It took all of about 5 minutes for me to walk out of the Gap thinking, “Great, now what?”
Next stop, a store that I could go to and not stand out like..well, like Ed at a Young Jeezy concert; Dillards. Once in Dillards I was faced with a huge wall of, yes, Levis. Ugh. Will I have to pay $35 per pair for the privilege of advertising my waist size to the world? I tried on a few and thought, “Well, I’m in a mall. I’ll shop around a little”.
Here is where the blog takes you somewhere you didn’t expect…As I walked through the mall I passed a store I hadn’t been in since Jimmy Carter was president; JC Penney. Nothing says “Shop here if for no other reason that you are not cool any more” like JC Penney. And yes, I bought two pair of jeans at a great price and they fit! So, to honor JC Penney (MY new store for jeans), let’s take a trip down memory lane and visit the JC Penney catalog from 1975. Enjoy.
This week I faced the long overdue, inevitable, arduous, humbling task of buying new jeans. The last time I bought jeans was probably 10 years ago and they (all 2 pairs) have finally reached a stage that every 16 year old envied. Many people told me that at least it was good that I still fit in them after 10 years, but I understand the miracle of jeans where they tend to stretch “with you” over time.
The first store I went into was the Gap because that is where I always bought jeans before. The main reason for my loyalty to the Gap was because their jeans do not advertise the waist size on a big exposed tag right over my right rear pocket (take note of this Levi Strauss and Co.!). As I entered the Gap for the first time in a decade, I noticed that they are no longer the store I remember. This makes sense because I don’t understand teenagers and the Gap clearly evolved right along with the age group. It took all of about 5 minutes for me to walk out of the Gap thinking, “Great, now what?”
Next stop, a store that I could go to and not stand out like..well, like Ed at a Young Jeezy concert; Dillards. Once in Dillards I was faced with a huge wall of, yes, Levis. Ugh. Will I have to pay $35 per pair for the privilege of advertising my waist size to the world? I tried on a few and thought, “Well, I’m in a mall. I’ll shop around a little”.
Here is where the blog takes you somewhere you didn’t expect…As I walked through the mall I passed a store I hadn’t been in since Jimmy Carter was president; JC Penney. Nothing says “Shop here if for no other reason that you are not cool any more” like JC Penney. And yes, I bought two pair of jeans at a great price and they fit! So, to honor JC Penney (MY new store for jeans), let’s take a trip down memory lane and visit the JC Penney catalog from 1975. Enjoy.
let the teasing begin:
What you wore when you wanted to be beat up at school:
What you wore when you wanted to be beat up around the neighborhood: (The catalog had lots of men and women in matching outfits. Evidently that was popular in 1975)
What you wore when you wanted to be beat up ate the gym:
What you wore if you are a white guy and want to get beat up while out for the evening: (JC Penney was going for the Super Fly look)
What you wore when you wanted to get beat up at the office: (Man Mates...hmmmm)
Here are some of those matching outfits I mentioned:
Chips, Ace? Don't mind if I do Gary.......
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Politics and the English Language
From an Article written by Liam Julian called Entering Casablanca November 13, 2008 - National Review Online:
President elect Obama is selecting his staff and readying himself for the challenges he will meet when he assumes the presidency in January and Americans will soon see truthfully what type of president we’ve elected. But before Campaign 2008 recedes into history and is, as our modern way would have it, erased from our memories, it’s worth reflecting on the words of the man who will now inhabit the White House, on how those words inspired so many, and on whether the person who spoke them meant them — and whether the words actually mean anything at all
President elect Obama inspired the nation with a campaign focused on change and hope. He energized an electorate with his words, and I doubt there is hardly a person around who would disagree that Barak Obama campaigned on this idea of Hope; Hope for change. Here are just a few of the thousands of quotes regarding this theme:
Hope is his thing! He communicated it to the thousands — sometimes hundreds of thousands — who attended his rallies. He wrote a book called “The Audacity of Hope”. Dr. David Spiegel, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science has been recently quoted on NPR as saying,
In Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, you’ll find this remarkable passage:
Astounding, isn’t it? He didn’t know what to say then, so he just blurted out “change.” One has sufficient reason to wonder whether Obama didn’t employ this exact strategy, of evoking amorphous change in lieu of solid substance, throughout the past two years and thereby ascend to the highest office in the land.
If you have the time I recommend you read an essay written in 1946 by George Orwell, called Politics and the English Language. Its subject is the depreciation of the English language — more specifically, how bad writing leads to poor thinking leading to more bad writing and, eventually, begets a society that cannot distinguish meaningful words from empty ones. To bait you into reading it, here is the opening paragraph:
Here is the link: Orwell 1946 Politics and the English Language
President elect Obama is selecting his staff and readying himself for the challenges he will meet when he assumes the presidency in January and Americans will soon see truthfully what type of president we’ve elected. But before Campaign 2008 recedes into history and is, as our modern way would have it, erased from our memories, it’s worth reflecting on the words of the man who will now inhabit the White House, on how those words inspired so many, and on whether the person who spoke them meant them — and whether the words actually mean anything at all
President elect Obama inspired the nation with a campaign focused on change and hope. He energized an electorate with his words, and I doubt there is hardly a person around who would disagree that Barak Obama campaigned on this idea of Hope; Hope for change. Here are just a few of the thousands of quotes regarding this theme:
“In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?” July, 2004 – Keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
“All odds — all odds — said I shouldn’t be standing here. But I am because of love and education and lots of hope. That’s what we can stand for in four days. That’s what you can stand for.” – January, 2008 at New Hampshire Primaries
“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” - 2008 Democratic National Convention
Hope is his thing! He communicated it to the thousands — sometimes hundreds of thousands — who attended his rallies. He wrote a book called “The Audacity of Hope”. Dr. David Spiegel, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science has been recently quoted on NPR as saying,
It is unquestionable that Obama inspired millions, but on what is their inspiration based? Is their hope perhaps "too far off the mark"? At the end of his report, the host of the show on NPR said,”If hope gets too far off the mark, it’s more likely to hurt you than help you. Hope works when the person who is promising you something is genuine about trying to deliver it.” (Emphasis mine)
“Barack Obama inspired me. . . . His promise sits like a weight on his shoulders.”If I think back on the campaign I cannot remember one instance where he ever tried to temper the Hope. But now, as the transition to the White House has begun, I’ve seen two news conferences where that temperance of hope is being communicated. Today, his staff claims to be startled that their man’s preaching hit home! Here is a link to one of the many news reports on this: NY Times - Obama Aides Tamp Down Expectations
In Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, you’ll find this remarkable passage:
“When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly. Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House. . . . Change in the Congress. . . . Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed.”
Astounding, isn’t it? He didn’t know what to say then, so he just blurted out “change.” One has sufficient reason to wonder whether Obama didn’t employ this exact strategy, of evoking amorphous change in lieu of solid substance, throughout the past two years and thereby ascend to the highest office in the land.
If you have the time I recommend you read an essay written in 1946 by George Orwell, called Politics and the English Language. Its subject is the depreciation of the English language — more specifically, how bad writing leads to poor thinking leading to more bad writing and, eventually, begets a society that cannot distinguish meaningful words from empty ones. To bait you into reading it, here is the opening paragraph:
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Here is the link: Orwell 1946 Politics and the English Language
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Veterans Day
It is the day after Veterans Day. I wanted to wait a day before I wrote something because the actual day is so full of emotion for me I wanted to digest those thoughts and feelings first and then write whatever came to my mind.
First, I want to thank my fellow veterans for serving. We are a small minority of the American citizenry, roughly 7.2% of all American men and only 0.6% of American women are veterans. No group more proud, yet humble.
Thinking back on my experiences and what I learned, I had a few thoughts:
The Flag – The flag holds a special meaning for the veteran. While serving in the military you quickly learn that the flag stands for home and is your “home base”. No matter where you are in the world, seeing that flag brings an indescribable feeling of home and more than that, it contains the ideals of America and the countrymen we serve. This is why veterans have the special privilege to be able to salute the flag whether in uniform or not, rather than what all other citizens are called to do; place your hand over your heart when addressing the flag.
The Smell of an Envelope – I am sorry to say, but the newest generation of service men and women may never experience this. Because of ever advancing communication technology like email, text and video messaging, you’ve probably never received a hand written letter from home. I can remember receiving letters from family and (especially) girl friends and the first thing you would do is smell the inside of the envelope. That wisp of air contains memories of home.
Elderly Veterans – I can hardly control my emissions even as I write this! For me, looking into the eyes of an elderly veteran, especially one who has been in battle, is more than I can bear. Getting to meet a veteran of WWII or Korea, is tough for me. It’s something about the years they’ve lived after their service that means so much to me. Veterans day is probably the only day of the year these heroes are actually appreciated.
That’s about it. Only one last thing; did you know that TAPS has lyrics? Here they are:
Fading light dims the sight
And a star gems the sky, gleaming bright
From afar drawing nigh, Falls the night.
Day is done, gone the sun
From the hills, from the lake, from the sky
All is well, safely rest;
God is nigh.
Then goodnight, peaceful night;
Till the light of the dawn shineth bright.
God is near, do not fear,
Friend, goodnight.
First, I want to thank my fellow veterans for serving. We are a small minority of the American citizenry, roughly 7.2% of all American men and only 0.6% of American women are veterans. No group more proud, yet humble.
Thinking back on my experiences and what I learned, I had a few thoughts:
The Flag – The flag holds a special meaning for the veteran. While serving in the military you quickly learn that the flag stands for home and is your “home base”. No matter where you are in the world, seeing that flag brings an indescribable feeling of home and more than that, it contains the ideals of America and the countrymen we serve. This is why veterans have the special privilege to be able to salute the flag whether in uniform or not, rather than what all other citizens are called to do; place your hand over your heart when addressing the flag.
The Smell of an Envelope – I am sorry to say, but the newest generation of service men and women may never experience this. Because of ever advancing communication technology like email, text and video messaging, you’ve probably never received a hand written letter from home. I can remember receiving letters from family and (especially) girl friends and the first thing you would do is smell the inside of the envelope. That wisp of air contains memories of home.
Elderly Veterans – I can hardly control my emissions even as I write this! For me, looking into the eyes of an elderly veteran, especially one who has been in battle, is more than I can bear. Getting to meet a veteran of WWII or Korea, is tough for me. It’s something about the years they’ve lived after their service that means so much to me. Veterans day is probably the only day of the year these heroes are actually appreciated.
That’s about it. Only one last thing; did you know that TAPS has lyrics? Here they are:
Fading light dims the sight
And a star gems the sky, gleaming bright
From afar drawing nigh, Falls the night.
Day is done, gone the sun
From the hills, from the lake, from the sky
All is well, safely rest;
God is nigh.
Then goodnight, peaceful night;
Till the light of the dawn shineth bright.
God is near, do not fear,
Friend, goodnight.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Obama the Abortionist
While everyone is focusing on the economy as we near Election Day, the issue of abortion has moved to a point of obscurity. If the average person knew and understood the position of Senator Obama, I can hardly understand why anyone, even a moderate “Pro-Choicer”, wouldn’t gasp.
A dangerous bill that will increase abortions by an enormous amount is being resurrected by abortion advocates: the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) H.R. 1964 and S.1173. FOCA is usually reported as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” but it is much more. Since the Webster and Casey decisions in 1989 and 1992, the Supreme Court has allowed states to limit abortion somewhat by such things as requiring parental involvement and informed consent, prohibiting government funding of most abortion, and more recently outlawing most partial birth abortions.
But FOCA tolerates none of this. Advocates and opponents of FOCA all agree that the bill would nullify every legal limit on abortion, state, federal or otherwise. Americans United for Life, as well as the Family Research Council, explain this fact in great detail. Abortion advocates who want FOCA concur: NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and FOCA sponsor Senator Barbara Boxer all contend that FOCA will strike down all state pro-life laws.
Senator Obama has said that singning FOCA will be the first thing he does as President. Click on the following link to see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8
Considering current reduction factors, parental involvement laws lead to 0.54 fewer abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age, informed consent laws lead to 0.92 fewer, and state restrictions on Medicaid funding lead to 2.08 fewer. Both pro-life and pro-abortion organizations tell us which states have these laws in place: 36 states have parental involvement laws, 26 states have informed consent laws, and 34 states have funding restrictions.
The U.S. Census Bureau gives us projections for 2009 of females age 15-44 in each of these states. Then it’s a simple matter of cross-referencing the number of women of childbearing age in each state with each abortion restriction. The grand total number of abortions reduced by these laws is 124,947.6, per year. This is a minimum. FOCA will strike down other laws, state and federal, that reduce abortions, and will force states to facilitate abortions.
Even with this minimum, that’s 125,000 children that were not killed this year because we have these laws, and 125,000 children (added to the existing 1.3 million abortions) who will be killed in 2009 and every year after if FOCA is passed. FOCA is indeed a staggering expansion of abortion, both in principle and in actual lives lost
125,000 more abortions is only the tip of the FOCA iceberg. It will also make criminals of Doctors and Nurses who refuse to perform abortions and will allow for tax dollars to be used to fund abortions. Don’t forget that since Roe v Wade abortion has become a $1 Billion industry in this country and Planned Parenthood is the leader in the abortion business.
A dangerous bill that will increase abortions by an enormous amount is being resurrected by abortion advocates: the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) H.R. 1964 and S.1173. FOCA is usually reported as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” but it is much more. Since the Webster and Casey decisions in 1989 and 1992, the Supreme Court has allowed states to limit abortion somewhat by such things as requiring parental involvement and informed consent, prohibiting government funding of most abortion, and more recently outlawing most partial birth abortions.
But FOCA tolerates none of this. Advocates and opponents of FOCA all agree that the bill would nullify every legal limit on abortion, state, federal or otherwise. Americans United for Life, as well as the Family Research Council, explain this fact in great detail. Abortion advocates who want FOCA concur: NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and FOCA sponsor Senator Barbara Boxer all contend that FOCA will strike down all state pro-life laws.
Senator Obama has said that singning FOCA will be the first thing he does as President. Click on the following link to see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8
Considering current reduction factors, parental involvement laws lead to 0.54 fewer abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age, informed consent laws lead to 0.92 fewer, and state restrictions on Medicaid funding lead to 2.08 fewer. Both pro-life and pro-abortion organizations tell us which states have these laws in place: 36 states have parental involvement laws, 26 states have informed consent laws, and 34 states have funding restrictions.
The U.S. Census Bureau gives us projections for 2009 of females age 15-44 in each of these states. Then it’s a simple matter of cross-referencing the number of women of childbearing age in each state with each abortion restriction. The grand total number of abortions reduced by these laws is 124,947.6, per year. This is a minimum. FOCA will strike down other laws, state and federal, that reduce abortions, and will force states to facilitate abortions.
Even with this minimum, that’s 125,000 children that were not killed this year because we have these laws, and 125,000 children (added to the existing 1.3 million abortions) who will be killed in 2009 and every year after if FOCA is passed. FOCA is indeed a staggering expansion of abortion, both in principle and in actual lives lost
125,000 more abortions is only the tip of the FOCA iceberg. It will also make criminals of Doctors and Nurses who refuse to perform abortions and will allow for tax dollars to be used to fund abortions. Don’t forget that since Roe v Wade abortion has become a $1 Billion industry in this country and Planned Parenthood is the leader in the abortion business.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Obama the Postmodernist
Ok, I couldn’t come up with a better title than the one the author of a very good article I want you to read, so I just used it as my title as well. I’m so glad I came across the piece in USA Today written by Jonah Goldberg. It sums up perfectly the worldview of Barak Obama, and that of so many people today, and not only in our country. The link to the article is at the end of this post, but if you’re not sure what postmodernism is then this quote from Mr. Obama is a good example. Mr. Obama was asked if he could define sin and his reply was that
“Sin is being out of alignment with my values ."
Read the article to get the full extent of Mr. Obama’s view on Truth. What scares me is that his view is very popular in this day and age. You see the postmodernist doesn’t believe in absolute Truth. To him there is no standard outside of ourselves that determines objective Truth. There are truths, but no Truth; values, but no ultimate Value.
This is how the worldly man copes with his sin; how the postmodernist thinks - If I convince myself there is no objective Truth; nothing outside of myself to hold me accountable then I can determine what is right or wrong. AND, the more people I convince to agree with “my” truth, the better I can feel about it. Case in point, abortion. How this horror can be carried out in our country legally escapes me. Yet it is; why? Because people have exchanged the Truth of God for a lie and have the nerve to call that lie truth. They say, “A woman should have the right to do with her body what she wants”. Question: Does God ever give anyone the right to do that which is wrong? NO, of course not! So what we have here is the redefining of the concept of ones “Rights”. If you ask where they got that right, they’ll say from the government, the Supreme Court. And how was it that the government made that decision? Did God say it was ok? No. In fact that decision to grant the “right” to an abortion is in actuality based on the peoples preference. It all comes down to preference. If it’s the people preference to allow same sex marriage, or the sale of child sex slaves or whatever is the preference of the day, then that is determined to be a right. In other words, truth is subjective.
Shame on us; every one of us.
Here is the link to the article: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/08/obama-the-postm.html
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
By Chance Given Time
Ok, I haven't written in a while, but I was just reading some online articles and one caught my eye called New Research Suggests Simple Approach to Beginning of Life, by Michael Schirber of LiveScience.com. In the article, which I've quoted below, we once again find the popular scientific formula for the formation of life. It goes like this: Space+Time+Chance=Life.
In a previous post I wrote called The Soft Pillow of Science (Wednesday, July 11, 2007), I wrote how scientists today ascribe power to the word chance; and not just any power, but the power to create something from nothing. You can go back and read that post to understand what I mean. Here is the quote found in the article:
That quote (emphasis mine) shows the prevailing alternative to the idea of life being created by a self existent, eternal, purposive Being who is the cause of all effects; the Unmoved Mover as Aristotle called Him. Chance is not a thing! It can not create anything no matter how much time is allowed.
Oh, and by the way, if I were around in 1953 I would have asked Stanley Miller and Harold Urey if they could recreate their primordial soup experiment once again, only this time they first need to also create their own hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water starting with nothing. How did those chemicals get in place before a stray lightning bolt caused the supposed reaction? Ex nihilo nihil fit!
In a previous post I wrote called The Soft Pillow of Science (Wednesday, July 11, 2007), I wrote how scientists today ascribe power to the word chance; and not just any power, but the power to create something from nothing. You can go back and read that post to understand what I mean. Here is the quote found in the article:
Primordial soup
Many scientists believe the origin-of-life story is that complex biological compounds assembled by chance out of an organic broth on the early Earth's surface. This pre-biotic synthesis culminated in bio-molecules being able to make copies of itself. The first support for this idea of life arising out of the primordial soup came from the famous 1953 experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, in which they generated amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — by applying sparks to a test tube of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water. If amino acids could come together out of raw ingredients, then bigger, more complex molecules could presumably form given enough time.
That quote (emphasis mine) shows the prevailing alternative to the idea of life being created by a self existent, eternal, purposive Being who is the cause of all effects; the Unmoved Mover as Aristotle called Him. Chance is not a thing! It can not create anything no matter how much time is allowed.
Oh, and by the way, if I were around in 1953 I would have asked Stanley Miller and Harold Urey if they could recreate their primordial soup experiment once again, only this time they first need to also create their own hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water starting with nothing. How did those chemicals get in place before a stray lightning bolt caused the supposed reaction? Ex nihilo nihil fit!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Awesome!
Did you know that today, March 10th, is (was) the International Day of Awesomeness? Isn’t that awesome! Check it out at http://dayofawesomeness.com/ and then come back and read on.
If you read the first page of the website, you would see that the day really has a comical side to it. But still, it also is the straw that broke the camel's back for me in terms of the use of the word itself. Unfortunately, the word awesome must now be entered onto the official list of words whose actual meaning has been dumbed-down, changed, ruined and otherwise rendered unrecognizable because we decided the original definition wasn’t good enough for us.
Awesome! I just got Halo 3. That football game was awesome! If you were to ask someone what the word awesome means, they would tell you that awesome means cool, exciting, or amazing. But the real definition of awesome is an adjective describing awe. Now what is awe?
Awe (noun) - an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like: in awe of God.
Can that definition ever accurately be applied to a sport, a video game, a steak, a TV show, a job, a car, a vacation, a joke, a new computer, my blog, etc?
Think about how awesome God is. Have you ever looked at the night sky in a really dark place? Have you seen one of those science shows showing the process of human conception and development in the womb? Think about God’s plan of redemption? This only scratches the surface.
Our lives are full of all kinds of exciting games, delicious food, entertaining TV shows, interesting jobs, cool cars, fun vacations, funny jokes, fast computers and intellectually stimulating blogs. I for one plan on doing my best to keep the word awesome restricted to describe those things that inspire awe.
If you read the first page of the website, you would see that the day really has a comical side to it. But still, it also is the straw that broke the camel's back for me in terms of the use of the word itself. Unfortunately, the word awesome must now be entered onto the official list of words whose actual meaning has been dumbed-down, changed, ruined and otherwise rendered unrecognizable because we decided the original definition wasn’t good enough for us.
Awesome! I just got Halo 3. That football game was awesome! If you were to ask someone what the word awesome means, they would tell you that awesome means cool, exciting, or amazing. But the real definition of awesome is an adjective describing awe. Now what is awe?
Awe (noun) - an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like: in awe of God.
Can that definition ever accurately be applied to a sport, a video game, a steak, a TV show, a job, a car, a vacation, a joke, a new computer, my blog, etc?
Think about how awesome God is. Have you ever looked at the night sky in a really dark place? Have you seen one of those science shows showing the process of human conception and development in the womb? Think about God’s plan of redemption? This only scratches the surface.
Our lives are full of all kinds of exciting games, delicious food, entertaining TV shows, interesting jobs, cool cars, fun vacations, funny jokes, fast computers and intellectually stimulating blogs. I for one plan on doing my best to keep the word awesome restricted to describe those things that inspire awe.
Monday, March 03, 2008
What's The Difference?
The people I work with all know I’m a Christian and I do my best to show them exactly what being a Christian is. The opinions vary. One person I work with always challenges me in various ways, mostly concerning science and evolution. Recently he posed a new challenge; one concerning right and wrong.
This person’s opinion is that since us Christians have all the answers we must also have a “holier than thou” attitude. In reality I can see how he could get that opinion with the way some Christians act. Anyway, my friend came to me and asked my opinion on something that had happened to him over the weekend. He had gone to the Home Depot and paid for his items with his debit card. As he was leaving the store a clerk ran up to him and said “Sir. You forgot your change.” The clerk was holding $50 in cash. My friend said that he knew he didn’t select to receive any cash back and he knew that the money wasn’t his, but he took it anyway. Here is how the conversation went (I’ll call my friend “Rod”):
Rod: So, would you have taken the money?
Ed: No I wouldn’t have. If I looked at my receipt and saw that I didn’t accidentally choose cash back, then I would not have taken it. That’s stealing.
Rod: Do you know how much those stores make in a single day? $50 isn’t going to ruin their business.
Ed: That doesn’t matter. It’s still wrong.
Rod: Oh like you’ve never stolen. Have you ever taken money that wasn’t yours?
Ed: Yes.
Rod: So what’s the difference?
Ed: None. I am equally as guilty as you are. The thing is that you need to understand why some people go to hell because of their sin and some people go to heaven in spite of their sin. The reason that happens is because of Jesus. Jesus is the difference.
Jesus is the difference. Jesus. Jesus!
This person’s opinion is that since us Christians have all the answers we must also have a “holier than thou” attitude. In reality I can see how he could get that opinion with the way some Christians act. Anyway, my friend came to me and asked my opinion on something that had happened to him over the weekend. He had gone to the Home Depot and paid for his items with his debit card. As he was leaving the store a clerk ran up to him and said “Sir. You forgot your change.” The clerk was holding $50 in cash. My friend said that he knew he didn’t select to receive any cash back and he knew that the money wasn’t his, but he took it anyway. Here is how the conversation went (I’ll call my friend “Rod”):
Rod: So, would you have taken the money?
Ed: No I wouldn’t have. If I looked at my receipt and saw that I didn’t accidentally choose cash back, then I would not have taken it. That’s stealing.
Rod: Do you know how much those stores make in a single day? $50 isn’t going to ruin their business.
Ed: That doesn’t matter. It’s still wrong.
Rod: Oh like you’ve never stolen. Have you ever taken money that wasn’t yours?
Ed: Yes.
Rod: So what’s the difference?
Ed: None. I am equally as guilty as you are. The thing is that you need to understand why some people go to hell because of their sin and some people go to heaven in spite of their sin. The reason that happens is because of Jesus. Jesus is the difference.
Jesus is the difference. Jesus. Jesus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
