On July 7, there's going to be a grand opening of an interesting but controversial attraction in Northern Kentucky. An Australian named Ken Ham runs a ministry called Answers in Genesis and has already built one attraction called the Creation Museum in the same region. The new site is called the Ark Encounter.
Some people oppose these types of endeavors mainly because they don't believe in God. That's understandable. I mean, if you don't believe in God, there are many things in life you don't have to worry about. For example, if there's no God, there aren't any consequences for sin. In fact, if there's no God, there's nobody to say what sin is.
That's got to be a great way to live your life... do whatever you want and not have to worry about any repercussions. However, if someone comes across evidence that demonstrates the reality of God's existence, you'd have to completely change not just your worldview but your entire lifestyle. That'd be a bummer!
However, not everybody opposed to what Ken Ham is doing are atheists. Some people who believe in God say that the message this project seeks to spread is antithetical to science. They say that stuff like this makes all Christians look stupid.
But I have a question for those people; if the word "science" means knowledge, (and it does - I looked it up) shouldn't these projects be considered "science" museums? I know they might be presenting conclusions about the evidence that may not conform with what you believe but the evidence is still real.
Science is supposed to be about seeking knowledge, no matter what conclusions we find. If studying the evidence leads to a conclusion that contradicts our presuppositions, what's the most likely reason; a bad conclusion or a bad presupposition?
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
God bless ISIS
I wonder if I should be concerned. I realize that some of my recent posts have been dealing with what might be considered controversial topics. Heck, if someone reading doesn't know me personally and my sense of "snark." they might even consider them inflammatory.
I've noticed that in the past few weeks, some of my page views have been coming from places in Europe. Am I now on one of ISIS's watch lists? If so, I just want to take the opportunity to say a few words to that potential audience.
You claim to be followers of the Prophet. He recorded, "If you were in doubt as to what We revealed unto you, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before you: the Truth has indeed come to you from your Lord: so be in no wise of those of doubt." Surah 10:94
If you are true followers, you know the Book to which he refers is the book I know as the Bible. Of it, the Prophet also recorded, "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message, and We will assuredly guard it from corruption." Surah 15:9
So, according to the Prophet, what is recorded about Isa (Jesus) in my Bible should be an accurate representation of the things he did and said while he was on Earth two millennia ago. One of the things he taught was that we should love ore enemies, bless those that curse us, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who persecute us.
I don't know how you feel about my previous posts but if they enraged you and you're seeking to avenge the Prophet for something I've said, just know that I love you and will pray for you and may God bless you.
I've noticed that in the past few weeks, some of my page views have been coming from places in Europe. Am I now on one of ISIS's watch lists? If so, I just want to take the opportunity to say a few words to that potential audience.
You claim to be followers of the Prophet. He recorded, "If you were in doubt as to what We revealed unto you, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before you: the Truth has indeed come to you from your Lord: so be in no wise of those of doubt." Surah 10:94
If you are true followers, you know the Book to which he refers is the book I know as the Bible. Of it, the Prophet also recorded, "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message, and We will assuredly guard it from corruption." Surah 15:9
So, according to the Prophet, what is recorded about Isa (Jesus) in my Bible should be an accurate representation of the things he did and said while he was on Earth two millennia ago. One of the things he taught was that we should love ore enemies, bless those that curse us, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who persecute us.
I don't know how you feel about my previous posts but if they enraged you and you're seeking to avenge the Prophet for something I've said, just know that I love you and will pray for you and may God bless you.
Monday, June 20, 2016
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
"But this was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control." -1984, G. Orwell
The "he" in that quote is the protagonist from 1984, "Winston." The context is that he's in the middle of considering the world stage at the moment. Of the three world powers, his homeland, Oceania, was presently at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia. Everyone else had been brainwashed into believing that this was the way it had always been but Winston remembered that not long before, it had been the other way around.
Winston worked at the Ministry of Truth and it was his job to monitor the news and make sure that all reports and records conformed to what was considered to be the official record provided by Big Brother. If something came in that went against that, it was rewritten to align with whatever the official propaganda was and then all traces of the actual story were destroyed.
The ultimate result of this was to effectively erase people's memories of the event. However, Winston consistently had access to the truth, so his mind wasn't so easily duped.
Orwell's work was sci-fi about the 80's written in the 40's so it's pure fancy, right? Well, consider this story about how 60% of Democrats don't think the Orlando shooting had anything to do with Islam. Right before our very eyes we see the Orwellian nature of the current administration. Even worse, they don't need a Minitrue to scrub the news for them... the press is doing it for them without coercion! What's more, we've got our own Miniplenty telling us the unemployment rate is under 5%.
Ultimately though, the ones to watch for are the Ministry of Love and the Thought Police.
The "he" in that quote is the protagonist from 1984, "Winston." The context is that he's in the middle of considering the world stage at the moment. Of the three world powers, his homeland, Oceania, was presently at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia. Everyone else had been brainwashed into believing that this was the way it had always been but Winston remembered that not long before, it had been the other way around.
Winston worked at the Ministry of Truth and it was his job to monitor the news and make sure that all reports and records conformed to what was considered to be the official record provided by Big Brother. If something came in that went against that, it was rewritten to align with whatever the official propaganda was and then all traces of the actual story were destroyed.
The ultimate result of this was to effectively erase people's memories of the event. However, Winston consistently had access to the truth, so his mind wasn't so easily duped.
Orwell's work was sci-fi about the 80's written in the 40's so it's pure fancy, right? Well, consider this story about how 60% of Democrats don't think the Orlando shooting had anything to do with Islam. Right before our very eyes we see the Orwellian nature of the current administration. Even worse, they don't need a Minitrue to scrub the news for them... the press is doing it for them without coercion! What's more, we've got our own Miniplenty telling us the unemployment rate is under 5%.
Ultimately though, the ones to watch for are the Ministry of Love and the Thought Police.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Wanna mess with the IRS?
You know all those tax forms you fill out when you start a new job? Like the one called W-4? You know what that's for, right? That's where you instruct your new employer just how much of your paycheck you'd like them to send to the IRS each pay period.
Well, did you know you can fill out a new one at any time and your employer will adjust that amount? The system is set up like that in case you ever have any changes. Maybe you had a baby and you need to change your number of dependents. Maybe a child grows up and starts to claim himself as a dependent.
Whatever the case, the amount you have withheld isn't written in stone. Some people like the feeling of getting a big refund so they set it up to have a little extra withheld each week. That's kind of stupid because it's like loaning your money to the feds, interest free. But hey, it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. Do whatever floats your boat. Personally, I try to set it so they take just the right amount so that when I do my taxes at the end of the year, I don't get a refund.
Anyway, that same system actually allows you to reduce your withholding to zero. You could set your dependents so high, they don't take anything out. Now you'd still have to set that money aside to be able to pay your taxes when they're actually due on April 15th but imagine what that would do to the federal government if everyone did that.
You see, they spend that money as soon as they get it. How shocked would they be if they didn't get any for an entire year?
Friday, June 17, 2016
On orchestrations and overtures
George Lucas said, "Music is the magic dust of movies."
If you're like me, you missed the TNT broadcast the other night of the AFI Lifetime Achievement Award honoring John Williams. Fortunately, I knew I wouldn't be able watch it live so I watched it today on the DVR.
As I watched, my recurrent thought was, "Who's going to take his place when he's gone?" But then I kept thinking, "Who came before him?"
At the end, when Williams gave his acceptance speech, he shared a story about Steven Spielberg and the first time Spielberg showed him Schindler's List. Williams recounted how much the movie, without music, had impacted him and how he had to go outside to gather his emotions. When he came back, he told Spielberg that this movie needed a better composer. Spielberg replied, "I know but they're all dead."
I realized at that moment how fortunate we all are to be living at this time. Sure, it would have been amazing to live in the age of the greats like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. It's like composers grew on trees up until about 150 years ago but then the industrial revolution came along and the Renaissance died.
At least the music hasn't died. We might only have one great composer in our time but he's left his mark on our culture. It was overwhelming hearing them roll through the clips of so many familiar themes... E.T., Jaws, Superman, Close Encounters, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Star Wars. It's just incredible to think one man could create so many different sounds that are recognizable the instant we hear them.
Of course, the one that's probably the most recognizable in the world is timeless and it's my personal favorite, Williams's 1984 composition, Olympic Fanfare and Theme.
If you're like me, you missed the TNT broadcast the other night of the AFI Lifetime Achievement Award honoring John Williams. Fortunately, I knew I wouldn't be able watch it live so I watched it today on the DVR.
As I watched, my recurrent thought was, "Who's going to take his place when he's gone?" But then I kept thinking, "Who came before him?"
At the end, when Williams gave his acceptance speech, he shared a story about Steven Spielberg and the first time Spielberg showed him Schindler's List. Williams recounted how much the movie, without music, had impacted him and how he had to go outside to gather his emotions. When he came back, he told Spielberg that this movie needed a better composer. Spielberg replied, "I know but they're all dead."
I realized at that moment how fortunate we all are to be living at this time. Sure, it would have been amazing to live in the age of the greats like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. It's like composers grew on trees up until about 150 years ago but then the industrial revolution came along and the Renaissance died.
At least the music hasn't died. We might only have one great composer in our time but he's left his mark on our culture. It was overwhelming hearing them roll through the clips of so many familiar themes... E.T., Jaws, Superman, Close Encounters, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Star Wars. It's just incredible to think one man could create so many different sounds that are recognizable the instant we hear them.
Of course, the one that's probably the most recognizable in the world is timeless and it's my personal favorite, Williams's 1984 composition, Olympic Fanfare and Theme.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
"That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."
A few posts back, I linked to a clip from The American President. That movie is packed full of blog ideas so let me do one now.
In that same clip, President Shepherd (Michael Douglas), in reference to his reelection opponent, Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss), says, "Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it." He then goes into a spiel about Bob, a Republican, not being interested in solving problems but rather, making voters afraid of something and getting people to vote for him.
The movie speech is definitely inspiring. Heck, in the edit room, I'm sure someone could make Hillary Clinton look inspiring. But in reality, Bill Clinton was naturally good at this kind of speech. On teleprompter, Barrack Obama's also good at it.
But the irony is, when they do it, they themselves are guilty of the very thing Shepherd accuses Rumson of doing. Shepherd is making people "afraid" of Rumson by accusing Rumson of making people "afraid." There's some liberal logic for you. And in the movie speech, Shepherd goes on to make people "afraid" of global warming and guns.
In real life, Obama does the same thing. He keeps trying to make Americans "afraid" of global warming, guns, the rich, free speech, you name it. Obama's career would have never gotten started without finding and exploiting the fears of his constituency. Hillary's trying to do it, too, but she just doesn't have the flair for it. For one thing, she's so robotic in her delivery but her biggest problem is that she just doesn't have a shred of credibility.
Anyway, they all get their tricks from "Rules For Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. I wanted to introduce him to the continuum of my blog to write about him occasionally.
In that same clip, President Shepherd (Michael Douglas), in reference to his reelection opponent, Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss), says, "Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it." He then goes into a spiel about Bob, a Republican, not being interested in solving problems but rather, making voters afraid of something and getting people to vote for him.
The movie speech is definitely inspiring. Heck, in the edit room, I'm sure someone could make Hillary Clinton look inspiring. But in reality, Bill Clinton was naturally good at this kind of speech. On teleprompter, Barrack Obama's also good at it.
But the irony is, when they do it, they themselves are guilty of the very thing Shepherd accuses Rumson of doing. Shepherd is making people "afraid" of Rumson by accusing Rumson of making people "afraid." There's some liberal logic for you. And in the movie speech, Shepherd goes on to make people "afraid" of global warming and guns.
In real life, Obama does the same thing. He keeps trying to make Americans "afraid" of global warming, guns, the rich, free speech, you name it. Obama's career would have never gotten started without finding and exploiting the fears of his constituency. Hillary's trying to do it, too, but she just doesn't have the flair for it. For one thing, she's so robotic in her delivery but her biggest problem is that she just doesn't have a shred of credibility.
Anyway, they all get their tricks from "Rules For Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. I wanted to introduce him to the continuum of my blog to write about him occasionally.
You majored in what?!?
I want to come at the Stanford rape story from a different angle. I wrote about it here but I also made a provocative post about it on my facebook wall. That started a conversation with a female friend who called me out on poor timing. A few days later, I also had a male friend do the same thing privately. What I found ironic is the number of women who privately applauded me.
In case you're in the dark, I took the opportunity to address the problems with rampant alcohol consumption on college campuses. Without excusing the rapist, I was pointing out that if the woman wasn't drunk to the point of passing out or if she had a sober chaperone, the incident wouldn't have happened.
The point here is that, inappropriate timing or not, nobody told me I was wrong. So why is booze such a big deal in our centers of higher learning? I'm not asking that rhetorically. I didn't go to college and I don't drink... I never have and at this stage in my life, it's likely I never will. So I honestly can't answer the question myself.
Also, it's apparent sex plays a large role in the lives of college students. That I can verify from some of the conversations I hear from my collegiate Uber passengers. Sometimes, I feel I'm invisible when I hear how openly they talk about it with each other... guys and girls.
All of this leads me to wonder about the nature of these institutions these days. Are our colleges and universities really about education or have they simply become the most expensive brothels in history? Wouldn't it be cheaper and safer to just let kids lay around and get drunk at home for four years?
In case you're in the dark, I took the opportunity to address the problems with rampant alcohol consumption on college campuses. Without excusing the rapist, I was pointing out that if the woman wasn't drunk to the point of passing out or if she had a sober chaperone, the incident wouldn't have happened.
The point here is that, inappropriate timing or not, nobody told me I was wrong. So why is booze such a big deal in our centers of higher learning? I'm not asking that rhetorically. I didn't go to college and I don't drink... I never have and at this stage in my life, it's likely I never will. So I honestly can't answer the question myself.
Also, it's apparent sex plays a large role in the lives of college students. That I can verify from some of the conversations I hear from my collegiate Uber passengers. Sometimes, I feel I'm invisible when I hear how openly they talk about it with each other... guys and girls.
All of this leads me to wonder about the nature of these institutions these days. Are our colleges and universities really about education or have they simply become the most expensive brothels in history? Wouldn't it be cheaper and safer to just let kids lay around and get drunk at home for four years?
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
What about report cards?
Post #70.
A couple of weeks and I'll be finishing month number three, a quarter of the way to my goal. A month and I'll hit 100 posts. At 300 words each, that's 30,000 words.
Am I a good writer? I don't know. I'd like to think so but the jury's still out. I know someone is reading these things because in 2½ months, my blog's had over 1,000 views. But apart from dependable ol' Mom hitting "like" on facebook with each entry she reads, I don't know what you think.
In case you're reading this but you're new to my blog, I recommend going back and reading my older posts, especially the first two. If you want to know what I'm trying to do, those are critical to "getting it."
However, getting people to read it isn't the point. My stated goal is to see if I have what it takes to be a writer and if so, to maybe even launch a writing career. I don't know what that'd look like but I'm just getting started. But even beyond all of that, I really want to make a difference.
As a result of the road I've travelled in my life, I've read many different things. I've studied a combination of topics that've given me a worldview that I want to share with others. In recent years, I know conversations I've had with a lifelong Democrat have brought them revelation and they're now highly disillusioned with that party. I didn't brainwash them but I did shine light into dark corners and they came to their own conclusions.
If this project and any future opportunities that come my way have the same kind of results, I'll know my effort wasn't a waste. So, please, comment if you're so led.
You're a grand ol' flag...
Flag Day has come and gone so maybe I can get away with being a little irreverent on the subject.
I support the right to burn the American flag as a form of protest. In other words, I oppose laws banning flag desecration.
I just ticked off a lot of people, I know. And there's no point apologizing because I'm not sorry and I doubt I'll ever change my mind. Don't get me wrong... it's not because I like or support people who burn the flag or walk on the flag or do any other disrespectful act to the flag.
In fact, I think they're idiots. I think they don't have a clue about the price that's been paid over the past three centuries in order to protect their right to do so. But being an idiot isn't a crime. Being offensive isn't a crime... at least not in America.
I think Michael Douglas did a pretty good job as Andrew Shepherd in The American President. Though he plays a Democrat and I'd argue most points he makes in the role, I agree with his line, "The symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. (It) also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest."
That's exactly the point. No matter how patriotic you are, if you're an American, your allegiance isn't to a piece of fabric. It's to those words written on parchment, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
You'll never see me burn a flag and if I see someone doing it, I'm probably going to find out what they're protesting and go support that. But if I see you attacking someone for burning a flag, I'm going to defend the flag burner.
I support the right to burn the American flag as a form of protest. In other words, I oppose laws banning flag desecration.
I just ticked off a lot of people, I know. And there's no point apologizing because I'm not sorry and I doubt I'll ever change my mind. Don't get me wrong... it's not because I like or support people who burn the flag or walk on the flag or do any other disrespectful act to the flag.
In fact, I think they're idiots. I think they don't have a clue about the price that's been paid over the past three centuries in order to protect their right to do so. But being an idiot isn't a crime. Being offensive isn't a crime... at least not in America.
I think Michael Douglas did a pretty good job as Andrew Shepherd in The American President. Though he plays a Democrat and I'd argue most points he makes in the role, I agree with his line, "The symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. (It) also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest."
That's exactly the point. No matter how patriotic you are, if you're an American, your allegiance isn't to a piece of fabric. It's to those words written on parchment, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
You'll never see me burn a flag and if I see someone doing it, I'm probably going to find out what they're protesting and go support that. But if I see you attacking someone for burning a flag, I'm going to defend the flag burner.
Sticks and stones, or something like that
After my last post, my thoughts lingered on perverts and Islam and Obama. I started thinking about how the left's explanation for why Muslims hate us is that we do so many things to upset them; that we made them so mad for invading Iraq, for being in Saudi Arabia, the we help Israel fight Hamas. They say that if we just left everyone alone and minded our own business, the Islamic world would be our friends.
I find that terribly hard to believe. One reason is that a while back, in an attempt to broker a peace deal between Israel and the late PLO leader, Yassar Arafat, the Israelis once offered him more than for what he had asked. The Israelis really wanted a peace deal and they were willing to pay a steep price for it. The catch was, Arafat never wanted peace. The whole reason for his existence was strife. A deal would've put him out of business.
Not much has changed. The recent negotiations that Secretary of State, John Kerry, had with Iran weren't much different. We got nothing out of the deal, the Iranians got more than they expected, and the Iranians are even closer now to getting nukes than they were before. The icing on the cake was the billions they got to fund terrorism.
No, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of doing what it takes to make the Islamic world like us, at least in that regard. But they still hate us and they're still trying to kill us. Over seven years of playing nice and what's it getting us? Boston. Paris. San Bernardino. Orlando.
So what's the problem? Do you think maybe they hate us so much because someone's calling them religious perverts and they can't get to the Namecaller-in-chief?
I find that terribly hard to believe. One reason is that a while back, in an attempt to broker a peace deal between Israel and the late PLO leader, Yassar Arafat, the Israelis once offered him more than for what he had asked. The Israelis really wanted a peace deal and they were willing to pay a steep price for it. The catch was, Arafat never wanted peace. The whole reason for his existence was strife. A deal would've put him out of business.
Not much has changed. The recent negotiations that Secretary of State, John Kerry, had with Iran weren't much different. We got nothing out of the deal, the Iranians got more than they expected, and the Iranians are even closer now to getting nukes than they were before. The icing on the cake was the billions they got to fund terrorism.
No, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of doing what it takes to make the Islamic world like us, at least in that regard. But they still hate us and they're still trying to kill us. Over seven years of playing nice and what's it getting us? Boston. Paris. San Bernardino. Orlando.
So what's the problem? Do you think maybe they hate us so much because someone's calling them religious perverts and they can't get to the Namecaller-in-chief?
Who're you callin' pervert, Mr. President?
I don't suppose it should surprise anyone to see President Obama and Donald Trump get into a war of words. And while I'm certainly not a fan of Trump, I have to admit that the President has me scratching my head over his remarks on Islam.
He, and others, insist on characterizing the Orlando shooter and ISIS of "perverting" Islam in order to justify their actions. What I'm wondering is exactly how they're doing that. The Qur'an and the Hadith are pretty clear on what they have to say about homosexuality - it's a sin.
And in nations that adopt Islam as a legal system, that makes it a crime... punishable by death. In fact, 11 Muslim-majority nations have made it a capital offense. Polling in those nations show that anywhere from 80-95% of the population think homosexuality is morally wrong.
So, just who's perverting Islam, Mr. President? ...ISIS or whoever's advising you on what Islam teaches?
On top of this, the President uses terms like "hate" to describe the Orlando shooter. From what I've read, the nations that execute individuals caught in the act claim to do so out of compassion. they teach that the "guilty" parties are in misery so execution releases them from their bondage to their sins.
And while I'm thinking about it, compare all of this to Christian fundamentalists. Yes, we also teach that homosexuality is a sin and we also have compassion for those guilty of it, as well as any other sin. The difference is that we don't want to kill anyone. We just want to share the message that someone shared with us; repent of sin and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
You're free to ignore us and you're even free to be mad at us. Just don't think we're perverts.
He, and others, insist on characterizing the Orlando shooter and ISIS of "perverting" Islam in order to justify their actions. What I'm wondering is exactly how they're doing that. The Qur'an and the Hadith are pretty clear on what they have to say about homosexuality - it's a sin.
And in nations that adopt Islam as a legal system, that makes it a crime... punishable by death. In fact, 11 Muslim-majority nations have made it a capital offense. Polling in those nations show that anywhere from 80-95% of the population think homosexuality is morally wrong.
So, just who's perverting Islam, Mr. President? ...ISIS or whoever's advising you on what Islam teaches?
On top of this, the President uses terms like "hate" to describe the Orlando shooter. From what I've read, the nations that execute individuals caught in the act claim to do so out of compassion. they teach that the "guilty" parties are in misery so execution releases them from their bondage to their sins.
And while I'm thinking about it, compare all of this to Christian fundamentalists. Yes, we also teach that homosexuality is a sin and we also have compassion for those guilty of it, as well as any other sin. The difference is that we don't want to kill anyone. We just want to share the message that someone shared with us; repent of sin and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
You're free to ignore us and you're even free to be mad at us. Just don't think we're perverts.
This little light of mine
It's been a long time since I stubbed my toes on anything. There could be a couple of different reasons. One is that we've been in our house for almost 7 years, so getting up in the middle of the night has become somewhat familiar. Another is that it seems like just about all of our furniture is kind of toe-friendly, if you know what I mean... soft couches without exposed legs, bedpost legs that are fat and round. Plus, our layout creates fairly clear and straight paths.
But I think the biggest reason is that our house never really gets that dark. The neighbors have a streetlight and when we moved in, I installed some on our garage, so at night, there's always this dim glow throughout most of the house from the light coming through the windows. Now, if there's ever a power outage in our neighborhood, that's a different story.
Isn't it amazing, the difference a little light makes? Have you ever been in such darkness that you couldn't see your hand if you held it right in front of your face? But even in that kind of darkness, isn't it amazing how much difference just the slightest amount of light can make?
Sometimes, I come home late from Uber-ing and I go in the closet to change clothes. To keep from disturbing my bride, I close the door and just the little light from my cell phone is enough to help me see what I'm doing.
As chaotic and violent as our world is becoming through the darkness of sin, it's not hard to imagine what happens if someone shines a little bit of the Light of the World by way of living their own life as a follower of Jesus Christ. How brightly lit is your world?
But I think the biggest reason is that our house never really gets that dark. The neighbors have a streetlight and when we moved in, I installed some on our garage, so at night, there's always this dim glow throughout most of the house from the light coming through the windows. Now, if there's ever a power outage in our neighborhood, that's a different story.
Isn't it amazing, the difference a little light makes? Have you ever been in such darkness that you couldn't see your hand if you held it right in front of your face? But even in that kind of darkness, isn't it amazing how much difference just the slightest amount of light can make?
Sometimes, I come home late from Uber-ing and I go in the closet to change clothes. To keep from disturbing my bride, I close the door and just the little light from my cell phone is enough to help me see what I'm doing.
As chaotic and violent as our world is becoming through the darkness of sin, it's not hard to imagine what happens if someone shines a little bit of the Light of the World by way of living their own life as a follower of Jesus Christ. How brightly lit is your world?
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Uber me back to the ballpark
1997.
That's the last time I followed Major League Baseball with enthusiasm. Born and raised in Northern Virginia in a post-Washington Senators era, Baltimore was my team. Cal Ripken, Jr, Brady Anderson, Mike Mussina... the mid-90's were heady days to be an O's fan.
For two magical seasons in '96 and '97, they were competitive with Davey Johnson at the helm. He led them to the post-season each year but it wasn't without turmoil. Johnson never got along with hands-on owner, Peter Angelos. With future Hall of Fame second baseman, Roberto Alomar, serving as a catalyst, Johnson was forced out the day he was named AL Manager of the Year.
All of this came on the heels of several strikes and lockouts and many baseball fans were getting fed up with the sport already. Add to that the beginning of a 15 year stretch of losing for the Orioles and I just lost interest.
But I have to admit, two decades later, I get the feeling the ice might be starting to melt. I've mentioned before that I drive for Uber in Washington. One of my new experiences coming with that is becoming acutely aware of baseball in DC. The Nationals are hot right now and I don't go a day without giving a ride to at least one fan.
Business-wise, it'd be foolish of me NOT to listen to the games on the radio while I work. For one thing, it gives many of my riders entertainment with something they enjoy. But just as importantly, if the Nats are at home, it gives me a way to know when the game's about to end so I can head to the ballpark to be available.
What's all this mean? I think I might be becoming a "curly W" fan.
That's the last time I followed Major League Baseball with enthusiasm. Born and raised in Northern Virginia in a post-Washington Senators era, Baltimore was my team. Cal Ripken, Jr, Brady Anderson, Mike Mussina... the mid-90's were heady days to be an O's fan.
For two magical seasons in '96 and '97, they were competitive with Davey Johnson at the helm. He led them to the post-season each year but it wasn't without turmoil. Johnson never got along with hands-on owner, Peter Angelos. With future Hall of Fame second baseman, Roberto Alomar, serving as a catalyst, Johnson was forced out the day he was named AL Manager of the Year.
All of this came on the heels of several strikes and lockouts and many baseball fans were getting fed up with the sport already. Add to that the beginning of a 15 year stretch of losing for the Orioles and I just lost interest.
But I have to admit, two decades later, I get the feeling the ice might be starting to melt. I've mentioned before that I drive for Uber in Washington. One of my new experiences coming with that is becoming acutely aware of baseball in DC. The Nationals are hot right now and I don't go a day without giving a ride to at least one fan.
Business-wise, it'd be foolish of me NOT to listen to the games on the radio while I work. For one thing, it gives many of my riders entertainment with something they enjoy. But just as importantly, if the Nats are at home, it gives me a way to know when the game's about to end so I can head to the ballpark to be available.
What's all this mean? I think I might be becoming a "curly W" fan.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Ask not what your country can do for you, or something like that
Once again, if collectivism is beneficial to humanity, why does it have to be forced? Most people accept living in a family setting, in a town, in a state, even within a national governmental system. Collectivism has its benefits. It reduces workloads while increasing quality of life. But at what point does it become unacceptable to us?
If we're honest, nobody would say they'd be perfectly content to live their entire lives in complete isolation. In fact, if someone said they would be, I'd suspect they have a mental disorder. And as such, it's incumbent upon us to be able to live in community with each other.
In community, we've learned that it's more efficient if we each specialize in something to meet a specific need for the entire community as opposed to having to meet every one of our own needs by ourselves. One of us is able to produce all the food needed, another all the shelter needed, and another all the clothing needed.
But what happens when someone decides to take a day off? Or a week? Or forever? Some people are simply lazy. Even productive people get lazy sometimes. The collectivist system breaks down when the community guarantees everyone's needs will be met, even if they don't produce anything for the community.
Selfishness is the default setting of human nature. If you don't believe me, look at a baby. There's no one more selfish than a baby, crying when he's hungry or soiled or just plain sleepy. And he won't be quieted until his needs are met, without regard for others.
On the other hand, selflessness has to be learned. And no collectivist society can long survive unless all members know and exercise complete selflessness.
If we're honest, nobody would say they'd be perfectly content to live their entire lives in complete isolation. In fact, if someone said they would be, I'd suspect they have a mental disorder. And as such, it's incumbent upon us to be able to live in community with each other.
In community, we've learned that it's more efficient if we each specialize in something to meet a specific need for the entire community as opposed to having to meet every one of our own needs by ourselves. One of us is able to produce all the food needed, another all the shelter needed, and another all the clothing needed.
But what happens when someone decides to take a day off? Or a week? Or forever? Some people are simply lazy. Even productive people get lazy sometimes. The collectivist system breaks down when the community guarantees everyone's needs will be met, even if they don't produce anything for the community.
Selfishness is the default setting of human nature. If you don't believe me, look at a baby. There's no one more selfish than a baby, crying when he's hungry or soiled or just plain sleepy. And he won't be quieted until his needs are met, without regard for others.
On the other hand, selflessness has to be learned. And no collectivist society can long survive unless all members know and exercise complete selflessness.
Back to Ind vs Coll
So, why is communism a dirty word? Many old enough to remember what the world was like prior to the end of the Cold War bristle at the idea of collectivism. Meanwhile, younger generations, many of whom embrace the ideas suggested by the likes of Bernie Sanders, are at odds with such sentiment. They see the ideals of socialism as justice, fairness, equality.
So where's the disconnect? How can one generation despise collectivism while the next romanticizes it? Forgive me for my lack of a better word but I'd say it's simple ignorance... on both sides. And it's not actually new to this generation.
Just as some glorify collectivism today, there have been others before. Think Johnson's "Great Society" or Roosevelt's "New Deal." These were all about "progress" and "helping those who can't help themselves." The catch is, Hitler and Stalin kind of got the same ideas from Marx.
But while there is that connection between Western Progressives and the European tyrants of the eary-1900's, not many conservatives would suggest that the American counterparts were so despotic. Even still, most are quick to denounce any form of collectivism as evil. But why?
Well, the bottom line is that we, as individuals, typically reject the parts of collectivism that cause us to lose. We might accept it when we benefit at the expense of others but when we find ourselves amongst the "others" and someone else is reaping what we sowed, we resist.
That's where communism gets its ugly history. Those who sought to implement it quickly discovered that human nature tends to exhibit a selfish side and the only way to overcome that is to force people against their will to do what needs to be done.
So, if collectivism is beneficial to humanity, why does it have to be forced?
So where's the disconnect? How can one generation despise collectivism while the next romanticizes it? Forgive me for my lack of a better word but I'd say it's simple ignorance... on both sides. And it's not actually new to this generation.
Just as some glorify collectivism today, there have been others before. Think Johnson's "Great Society" or Roosevelt's "New Deal." These were all about "progress" and "helping those who can't help themselves." The catch is, Hitler and Stalin kind of got the same ideas from Marx.
But while there is that connection between Western Progressives and the European tyrants of the eary-1900's, not many conservatives would suggest that the American counterparts were so despotic. Even still, most are quick to denounce any form of collectivism as evil. But why?
Well, the bottom line is that we, as individuals, typically reject the parts of collectivism that cause us to lose. We might accept it when we benefit at the expense of others but when we find ourselves amongst the "others" and someone else is reaping what we sowed, we resist.
That's where communism gets its ugly history. Those who sought to implement it quickly discovered that human nature tends to exhibit a selfish side and the only way to overcome that is to force people against their will to do what needs to be done.
So, if collectivism is beneficial to humanity, why does it have to be forced?
Thursday, June 9, 2016
The Day After
Sorry, but I can't help myself. Where's that dead horse?
In the midst of this Stanford rape story, I saw an article about campus rapes. (Forgive me but I didn't save the link and I don't remember what site it was on.) It seems that claims have been made that 1 in 5 women on college campuses have been raped. The article cited a study that debunked that claim and found that it's actually more like 1 in 50. Now, they were quick to point out that that's still too often, that just one rape is too many.
However, I'm even wondering about the 1 in 50. Maybe it's because I never went to college, I've never been drunk, and I've never raped anyone, but even that still sounds high. I mean, the typical university has something like 10,000 students? And over half of those are women? So, at any given moment, there are over 100 rape victims on the average campus and we're not doing anything about it?
It makes me wonder if instead of rape on our college campuses, we don't have a plague of regret. I mean, how unreasonable is it to think Girl gets WAY too drunk and loses inhibition, goes wherever she's led by Boy, wakes up in his dorm room the next morning not remembering how she got there or what she did, has to do the walk of shame, and utterly regrets getting so drunk?
I can certainly believe that 1 in 5 college women have experienced that feeling. But does that qualify as rape?
Again, I come back to my point of preserving the English language. If there's a blur happening between the words "rape" and "regret," do me a favor and let's stop it before it gets out of control.
In the midst of this Stanford rape story, I saw an article about campus rapes. (Forgive me but I didn't save the link and I don't remember what site it was on.) It seems that claims have been made that 1 in 5 women on college campuses have been raped. The article cited a study that debunked that claim and found that it's actually more like 1 in 50. Now, they were quick to point out that that's still too often, that just one rape is too many.
However, I'm even wondering about the 1 in 50. Maybe it's because I never went to college, I've never been drunk, and I've never raped anyone, but even that still sounds high. I mean, the typical university has something like 10,000 students? And over half of those are women? So, at any given moment, there are over 100 rape victims on the average campus and we're not doing anything about it?
It makes me wonder if instead of rape on our college campuses, we don't have a plague of regret. I mean, how unreasonable is it to think Girl gets WAY too drunk and loses inhibition, goes wherever she's led by Boy, wakes up in his dorm room the next morning not remembering how she got there or what she did, has to do the walk of shame, and utterly regrets getting so drunk?
I can certainly believe that 1 in 5 college women have experienced that feeling. But does that qualify as rape?
Again, I come back to my point of preserving the English language. If there's a blur happening between the words "rape" and "regret," do me a favor and let's stop it before it gets out of control.
One more on rape
I don't like "beating a dead horse" but I've never let it stop me. This one isn't about Stanford but it is about rape, a specific rape.
Ben Roethlisberger.
Love him or hate him, he's a great NFL quarterback. However, if you hate him, I'm guessing you also think he's a rapist. For the record, yes, he did pay a settlement to one woman who was interviewed by police after they had been together one night. However, it's also the record that he's never been charged with a crime for that or any other incident.
My past two posts have been an effort to get people to make a distinction between "reasons" and "excuses" and I want to use Roethlisberger as an illustration.
I'd like to think we still operate under the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Well, to prove guilt, you have to ascertain the facts and then use judgment to determine guilt or innocence based on those facts.
With Roethlisberger, the facts are:
1. His party went to three separate bars that night.
2. The girl was already at the first bar and was one of several who accepted free drinks from Roethlisberger.
3. The girl followed his party to the other two bars and continued to accept free drinks from him.
4. The girl interacted (flirted) with him throughout the night.
5. She was led to a secluded area but was not forced to stay, where she and Roethlisberger had physical relations.
6. When she rejoined her friends, she was disheveled and shaken and they later contacted the police on her behalf.
7. She and Roethlisberger were separately interviewed and he wasn't charged.
Those are the facts. Is it enough information to determine if it was rape? Well, that's where judgment takes over. What's your judgment?
Ben Roethlisberger.
Love him or hate him, he's a great NFL quarterback. However, if you hate him, I'm guessing you also think he's a rapist. For the record, yes, he did pay a settlement to one woman who was interviewed by police after they had been together one night. However, it's also the record that he's never been charged with a crime for that or any other incident.
My past two posts have been an effort to get people to make a distinction between "reasons" and "excuses" and I want to use Roethlisberger as an illustration.
I'd like to think we still operate under the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Well, to prove guilt, you have to ascertain the facts and then use judgment to determine guilt or innocence based on those facts.
With Roethlisberger, the facts are:
1. His party went to three separate bars that night.
2. The girl was already at the first bar and was one of several who accepted free drinks from Roethlisberger.
3. The girl followed his party to the other two bars and continued to accept free drinks from him.
4. The girl interacted (flirted) with him throughout the night.
5. She was led to a secluded area but was not forced to stay, where she and Roethlisberger had physical relations.
6. When she rejoined her friends, she was disheveled and shaken and they later contacted the police on her behalf.
7. She and Roethlisberger were separately interviewed and he wasn't charged.
Those are the facts. Is it enough information to determine if it was rape? Well, that's where judgment takes over. What's your judgment?
More on Stanford
Now let me take a swing at this from the other side of the plate.
In my last post, I bemoaned being chastised for pointing out that the girl being too drunk was one of the reasons the Stanford rape happened. It turns out that to the other party, me saying so implies that the guy's actions were justified.
I made no such claim but as I pointed out in that post, many of us are confusing "reasons" and "excuses."
There's a big problem if we let that confusion continue. We actually enable the rapist. You see, that was his legal defense. His lawyer laid out the reasons why this incident happened and then tried to argue that it wasn't rape as a result. Perhaps this lawyer is also clouding the distinction between "reason" and "excuse" or perhaps he's aware of the differences but he knows the jury isn't and he's playing to that.
Either way, that's a dangerous place to go. As I said in the last post, there's always a reason something happens. Good or bad, right or wrong, if you have enough information, everything can be explained. In fact, if you want to exercise proper judgment in determining guilt or innocence, it's critically important to ascertain the reason why it happened. Only then can you properly determine fault, if any.
In this age of political correctness and even more so with the rise of an anti-PC presidential candidate like Donald Trump, it's important that we don't lose our ability to communicate with each other. Expressing ourselves is so much more that what clothes we wear or what bathroom we use. We have to be able to have discourse with one another without fear of being misrepresented.
Otherwise, we're in for an arduous and painful descent into idiocracy.
In my last post, I bemoaned being chastised for pointing out that the girl being too drunk was one of the reasons the Stanford rape happened. It turns out that to the other party, me saying so implies that the guy's actions were justified.
I made no such claim but as I pointed out in that post, many of us are confusing "reasons" and "excuses."
There's a big problem if we let that confusion continue. We actually enable the rapist. You see, that was his legal defense. His lawyer laid out the reasons why this incident happened and then tried to argue that it wasn't rape as a result. Perhaps this lawyer is also clouding the distinction between "reason" and "excuse" or perhaps he's aware of the differences but he knows the jury isn't and he's playing to that.
Either way, that's a dangerous place to go. As I said in the last post, there's always a reason something happens. Good or bad, right or wrong, if you have enough information, everything can be explained. In fact, if you want to exercise proper judgment in determining guilt or innocence, it's critically important to ascertain the reason why it happened. Only then can you properly determine fault, if any.
In this age of political correctness and even more so with the rise of an anti-PC presidential candidate like Donald Trump, it's important that we don't lose our ability to communicate with each other. Expressing ourselves is so much more that what clothes we wear or what bathroom we use. We have to be able to have discourse with one another without fear of being misrepresented.
Otherwise, we're in for an arduous and painful descent into idiocracy.
On Stanford and reason
What's happening to the English language? Are we becoming so undereducated that we don't know the difference between words?
The recent news story about the Stanford rapist generated many conversations, to be sure, but one I had led me to wonder why we can't do a better job expressing ourselves.
Of course the guy was guilty of rape. I never questioned that. However, if we, as a society, want to learn from incidents like this, we need to be able to analyze why they happen. And in the process, we have to be able to draw the distinction between "reasons" and "excuses."
In other words, there's always a reason "why" something happens but the judgment of guilt or innocence comes based on whether or not someone's actions are justified based on those reasons.
For example, breaking the windows on a locked car isn't justified if you're doing it to steal something our of the car. However, if it's a hot, sunny day and the driver left a baby in the backseat, it is.
In my conversation, I was breaking down the reasons this rape happened. One of them is the guy's character being accentuated by his impaired judgment. However, another is the girl's availability coming as a result of a lack of consciousness.
We should be able to say as much without assigning guilt to either party. Maybe it's because I have an engineering type of mindset but I'd like to think it's also simple common sense; there's a mechanical failure, you find the cause, you fix it, then you let the court decide if anyone is liable.
It should be the same here; the incident happened because... Then let judgment dictate whether or not it's rape. Has political correctness gotten so bad that we can't follow that simple process?
The recent news story about the Stanford rapist generated many conversations, to be sure, but one I had led me to wonder why we can't do a better job expressing ourselves.
Of course the guy was guilty of rape. I never questioned that. However, if we, as a society, want to learn from incidents like this, we need to be able to analyze why they happen. And in the process, we have to be able to draw the distinction between "reasons" and "excuses."
In other words, there's always a reason "why" something happens but the judgment of guilt or innocence comes based on whether or not someone's actions are justified based on those reasons.
For example, breaking the windows on a locked car isn't justified if you're doing it to steal something our of the car. However, if it's a hot, sunny day and the driver left a baby in the backseat, it is.
In my conversation, I was breaking down the reasons this rape happened. One of them is the guy's character being accentuated by his impaired judgment. However, another is the girl's availability coming as a result of a lack of consciousness.
We should be able to say as much without assigning guilt to either party. Maybe it's because I have an engineering type of mindset but I'd like to think it's also simple common sense; there's a mechanical failure, you find the cause, you fix it, then you let the court decide if anyone is liable.
It should be the same here; the incident happened because... Then let judgment dictate whether or not it's rape. Has political correctness gotten so bad that we can't follow that simple process?
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Be fruitful, or something like that
It's been a while so I thought I'd come back to my individualism vs collectivism conversation. I've tried to demonstrate that despite the best intentions of leftists, true collectivism doesn't work. However, despite claims from some on the right, pure individualism isn't possible, either. Let's dig a little deeper.
In it's purest form, what does individualism look like? Have you ever seen those wilderness survival reality shows? You know the ones with a guy with a camera on his own out in the wild? Individualism is kind of like those reality shows, but with no camera.
A lone individual, on his own in that setting, is responsible for his own food, shelter, clothing, and security. It's possible, but he'd have to set priorities in order to make it. The first priority would be water, then food, then maybe temporary shelter. As those needs are met, he could then begin to focus on long term needs, like replacing worn out clothing and finding or building better shelter. Meanwhile, he'd have to focus on security at all times.
His initial food supply would have to come from basic hunting and gathering but as more of his needs are met, he might begin to have time for cultivation in order to grow and store food supplies.
Of course, if he ever finds and secures a mate, the work load could begin to be shared and he'd have more spare time. That might lead to children, who while at first, might mean extra work, eventually, they'll become additional hands to also share the workload.
And now, we're well on our way to collectivism. But that's my underlying point in this discussion. While nobody wants a completely collectivist society, we don't really want to live as individuals, either. Some might say, "The more, the merrier!"
In it's purest form, what does individualism look like? Have you ever seen those wilderness survival reality shows? You know the ones with a guy with a camera on his own out in the wild? Individualism is kind of like those reality shows, but with no camera.
A lone individual, on his own in that setting, is responsible for his own food, shelter, clothing, and security. It's possible, but he'd have to set priorities in order to make it. The first priority would be water, then food, then maybe temporary shelter. As those needs are met, he could then begin to focus on long term needs, like replacing worn out clothing and finding or building better shelter. Meanwhile, he'd have to focus on security at all times.
His initial food supply would have to come from basic hunting and gathering but as more of his needs are met, he might begin to have time for cultivation in order to grow and store food supplies.
Of course, if he ever finds and secures a mate, the work load could begin to be shared and he'd have more spare time. That might lead to children, who while at first, might mean extra work, eventually, they'll become additional hands to also share the workload.
And now, we're well on our way to collectivism. But that's my underlying point in this discussion. While nobody wants a completely collectivist society, we don't really want to live as individuals, either. Some might say, "The more, the merrier!"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)