I am not sure why I do this to myself.
Whenever Ralph Wiley writes something for ESPN, I always read it and then wonder why I keep reading his stuff afterward. Today's piece is about why the Lakers are beatable. In and of itself if you can get past him telling about how wonderful a ball player he is and pretending to be a hip, urban dude by using inexplicably poor grammar it is a good article. He has a great point about kids learning an important lesson in the NBA, there are TONS of guys who can shoot the ball but not so many that can get the shot off. So much of the NBA anymore is standing around watching one guy drive the lane.
Of course Wiley rambles off onto race issues, as if anything at all in the context of the article has anything to do with race. He just can't see the world around him because he is so consumed about perceived racism, and yet has the temerity to claim that HE alone has risen above racial issues, even referring to race some made up construct, at one point referencing >>>the other so-called "race,"<<<
So-called race? He then goes on to claim he is the black equivalent in sports journalism to Larry Bird, the guy on the outside looking in at a profession full of people of the "other so-called race". He claims that his being such a great writer and black "made you not a colleague but a threat." He claims people said that if he were white he would be just another writer. Hey Wiley, heads up: you ARE just another writer. I daresay if you WERE a white guy you would be unemployed because your writing is miserable. This may be the best line of all "One thing I did learn: I always could tell when I was writing well, because I would come in and nobody would speak to me."
Good Lord the arrogance of this guy! He has some good insights into the game and he has some great contacts, but you can't ever enjoy that because he is slapping you in the face with his angry black man routine. Maybe if you truly tried to just write instead of climbing on a soapbox about how wronged you are as a black man (who has a great job, writing for ESPN, appearing on TV, going to tons of sporting events for free, no doubt with a very nice house and very nice car) we could find out if you are as great a writer as you claim. Do you think that if someone who doesn't know you read your work without the racial overtones they would find it brilliant? I doubt it.
Friday, May 28, 2004
It's been a while...
How incredibly dumb is this? The Catholic church just doesn't get it apparently. Cardinal Law leaves Boston in disgrace, the poster child for the Catholic church failing to protect children and indeed perhaps partially complicit in the continued abuse by priests that they KNEW were molesting kids. The Boston archdiocese is a mess and is closing 65 more parishes.
So in response, they elevate Cardinal Law to a very visible and prominent post instead of squirreling him away somewhere. The Vatican is either completely ignorant of how this looks or is arrogantly assuming they are above the law (no pun intended) or both.
How incredibly dumb is this? The Catholic church just doesn't get it apparently. Cardinal Law leaves Boston in disgrace, the poster child for the Catholic church failing to protect children and indeed perhaps partially complicit in the continued abuse by priests that they KNEW were molesting kids. The Boston archdiocese is a mess and is closing 65 more parishes.
So in response, they elevate Cardinal Law to a very visible and prominent post instead of squirreling him away somewhere. The Vatican is either completely ignorant of how this looks or is arrogantly assuming they are above the law (no pun intended) or both.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
I found this article on Fox News fascinating.
Fox looks at a rather esoteric part of the publishing business, Bible proofreading. The company in question, Peachtree Editorial and Proofreading, just finished the proofreading of the newest conservative Bible translation, the Holman Standard Christian Bible. They spent over two years on the process, making sure the avoid errors like this one...
>>>A list hangs in the Gundens' office as a reminder of just how much rides on their work. The list, a collection of notorious typos found in the Bible, features one prominent error from a 1631 King James edition: "Thou shalt commit adultery."<<<
As cofounder June Gunden says, proofreading the Bible is a whole different story from proofreading a regular book...
>>>With an ordinary book, "you can put up with more because it's not something you're basing your whole life on," June Gunden said. "It's information, but it's not really life-changing information. It's not something you believe to be infallible."<<<
Interesting stuff. It is indeed a calling more than a job.
Fox looks at a rather esoteric part of the publishing business, Bible proofreading. The company in question, Peachtree Editorial and Proofreading, just finished the proofreading of the newest conservative Bible translation, the Holman Standard Christian Bible. They spent over two years on the process, making sure the avoid errors like this one...
>>>A list hangs in the Gundens' office as a reminder of just how much rides on their work. The list, a collection of notorious typos found in the Bible, features one prominent error from a 1631 King James edition: "Thou shalt commit adultery."<<<
As cofounder June Gunden says, proofreading the Bible is a whole different story from proofreading a regular book...
>>>With an ordinary book, "you can put up with more because it's not something you're basing your whole life on," June Gunden said. "It's information, but it's not really life-changing information. It's not something you believe to be infallible."<<<
Interesting stuff. It is indeed a calling more than a job.
Another good article from FrontPage.com, this one by Frank Gaffney regarding the collective yawn from the media and the Left regarding the WMDs found in Iraq.
Gaffney has probably the best synopsis of the WMD issue I have seen...
>>>Rarely has this phenomenon been more in evidence than with respect to Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. Practically everyone – members of the Coalition’s intelligence services, the United Nations, even the French, Germans and Russians – recognized that, at one time, Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and a program for building nuclear devices. Since he never satisfactorily accounted for the complete destruction of the stocks of WMDs, like those he previously used in lethal attacks on Iran and his own Kurds, the only reasonable conclusion was that they continued to exist in some form, in unknown quantity. <<<
Everyone knows he had them, we couldn't prove he didn't and he refused to cooperate to let us look, so we had to assume he still had them (and I believe he did and they do). The John Kerry's of the world would just as soon take this crazed dictator at his word, right up until the checmical clouds enveloped Chicago, Tel Aviv or Boston.
Now the burden of proof is that we need to see STOCKPILES of the weapons, or as Gaffney puts it, the classic liberal tactic of moving the goalposts.
Gaffney has probably the best synopsis of the WMD issue I have seen...
>>>Rarely has this phenomenon been more in evidence than with respect to Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. Practically everyone – members of the Coalition’s intelligence services, the United Nations, even the French, Germans and Russians – recognized that, at one time, Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and a program for building nuclear devices. Since he never satisfactorily accounted for the complete destruction of the stocks of WMDs, like those he previously used in lethal attacks on Iran and his own Kurds, the only reasonable conclusion was that they continued to exist in some form, in unknown quantity. <<<
Everyone knows he had them, we couldn't prove he didn't and he refused to cooperate to let us look, so we had to assume he still had them (and I believe he did and they do). The John Kerry's of the world would just as soon take this crazed dictator at his word, right up until the checmical clouds enveloped Chicago, Tel Aviv or Boston.
Now the burden of proof is that we need to see STOCKPILES of the weapons, or as Gaffney puts it, the classic liberal tactic of moving the goalposts.
This isn't funny so much as ironic and sad. The radical Left is so clueless about what is really happening in this world. They seem to think that outside a few corporate boardrooms and Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch that everyone thinks the way they do.
Frontpage.com reports that a couple of British homosexual groups, "OutRage" and "Queer Youth Alliance" (you have to hand it to homosexual activists, they do love to come up with catchy names) went to a pro-Palestinian rally at Trafalgar Sqaure in London. They were apparently there to show solidarity with the Palestinians against those evil Zionists in Isreal, but also to ask the muslims to pretty please stop persecuting homosexuals. Lo and behold, the muslims were none too receptive or tolerant!
>>>As soon as they arrived at the square to members of the two groups were surrounded by an angry, screaming mob of Islamic fundamentalists, Anglican clergymen, members of the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition, and officials from the protest organizers, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).
They variously attacked the gay activists as “racists”, “Zionists”, “CIA and MI5 agents”, “supporters of the Sharon government” and accused the gays of “dividing the Free Palestine movement”.<<<
Nothing worse than a crowd containing Islamic fundamentalists, commies and Anglican clergy! Some of the homosexual protestors carried signs saying "Israel: stop persecuting Palestine! Palestine: stop persecuting queers!"
I am guessing that the evil Israelis are far more tolerant of homosexuals than the gentle Palestinians.
Frontpage.com reports that a couple of British homosexual groups, "OutRage" and "Queer Youth Alliance" (you have to hand it to homosexual activists, they do love to come up with catchy names) went to a pro-Palestinian rally at Trafalgar Sqaure in London. They were apparently there to show solidarity with the Palestinians against those evil Zionists in Isreal, but also to ask the muslims to pretty please stop persecuting homosexuals. Lo and behold, the muslims were none too receptive or tolerant!
>>>As soon as they arrived at the square to members of the two groups were surrounded by an angry, screaming mob of Islamic fundamentalists, Anglican clergymen, members of the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition, and officials from the protest organizers, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).
They variously attacked the gay activists as “racists”, “Zionists”, “CIA and MI5 agents”, “supporters of the Sharon government” and accused the gays of “dividing the Free Palestine movement”.<<<
Nothing worse than a crowd containing Islamic fundamentalists, commies and Anglican clergy! Some of the homosexual protestors carried signs saying "Israel: stop persecuting Palestine! Palestine: stop persecuting queers!"
I am guessing that the evil Israelis are far more tolerant of homosexuals than the gentle Palestinians.
A sad day for me...
Tonight is the final episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer spin-off Angel. I know, not exactly typical Christian fare and it often had objectionable material, but we loved both Angel and Buffy. With the end tonight, the franchise that is Buffy goes to it's final resting place: reruns on FX. Fare thee well to Angel, Lorne, Spike, Wesley and even annoying Connor. We have enjoyed it.
Tonight is the final episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer spin-off Angel. I know, not exactly typical Christian fare and it often had objectionable material, but we loved both Angel and Buffy. With the end tonight, the franchise that is Buffy goes to it's final resting place: reruns on FX. Fare thee well to Angel, Lorne, Spike, Wesley and even annoying Connor. We have enjoyed it.
I came across this quote today on the webpage of Alpha & Omega ministries, seems especially apropos given the prior post about mormonism...
"For piety has no enemies more inveterate than those who have sincerely embraced a false religion, thinking it true." Theodore Beza
How correct! True believers in a false belief system, trying to replace truth with fervency.
"For piety has no enemies more inveterate than those who have sincerely embraced a false religion, thinking it true." Theodore Beza
How correct! True believers in a false belief system, trying to replace truth with fervency.
It is always interesting to read the text of talks by Gordon Hinckley and other mormon leaders, you have to dig past the facade a little bit to get the real message. The best talks are those aimed strictly at a mormon audience, they kind of let their grey hair down a bit and talk more openly about what their church really believes.
Hinckley and Boyd Packer, one of the mormon "apostles", spoke at a 175th anniversary celebration of the restoration of the mormon priesthood. Some of the terminology they used is telling...
>>>"This authority can only be exercised in righteousness," <<<
>>>"Let the world do what it will. You have something the world does not."<<<
>>>He urged priesthood holders to keep the Word of Wisdom, which prohibits consumption of alcohol, coffee, tea and illicit drugs. "They will rob you of self-mastery," he said.<<<
>>>He said the restoration of the priesthood has created a "Kingdom of Priests." Priesthood holders are just ordinary men but are given power by the priesthood to proclaim the gospel to the world.<<<
There was lots of talk of "worthiness" and "righteousness". Christians know that none are worthy, none are righteous except Jesus Christ, which is why He and only He could serve as a sacrifice for our sins. The arrogance of mormonism says that I an worthy, I am righteous, I can enter the temple because I am more worthy than non-mormons because I don't drink coffee. Forget what the Bible says very clearly about legalism and dietary restrictions, we have a living prophet!
We see one of the telltale signs of a cult, the idea that they are more special than the rest of the world, they possess special knowledge, and that exclusivity helps to control them.
Hinckley and Boyd Packer, one of the mormon "apostles", spoke at a 175th anniversary celebration of the restoration of the mormon priesthood. Some of the terminology they used is telling...
>>>"This authority can only be exercised in righteousness," <<<
>>>"Let the world do what it will. You have something the world does not."<<<
>>>He urged priesthood holders to keep the Word of Wisdom, which prohibits consumption of alcohol, coffee, tea and illicit drugs. "They will rob you of self-mastery," he said.<<<
>>>He said the restoration of the priesthood has created a "Kingdom of Priests." Priesthood holders are just ordinary men but are given power by the priesthood to proclaim the gospel to the world.<<<
There was lots of talk of "worthiness" and "righteousness". Christians know that none are worthy, none are righteous except Jesus Christ, which is why He and only He could serve as a sacrifice for our sins. The arrogance of mormonism says that I an worthy, I am righteous, I can enter the temple because I am more worthy than non-mormons because I don't drink coffee. Forget what the Bible says very clearly about legalism and dietary restrictions, we have a living prophet!
We see one of the telltale signs of a cult, the idea that they are more special than the rest of the world, they possess special knowledge, and that exclusivity helps to control them.
An interesting editorial from the Cincinnati Enquirer today (which may not be my hometown newspaper much longer...)on the medicating of our children to achieve perfect behavior.
A recent report from Medco, cited in the Enquirer:
>>>showed a 23 percent increase in use of behavioral medication for all children, including a 49 percent increase in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs by children under 5. Now Americans spend more on drugs for ADHD and depression than they do on antibiotics, or asthma or allergy medications for children.<<<
This raises questions more questions. Why do we seek to medicate our children into submission? The report suggests the increased use because it is so effective. I have no doubt that dulling their senses slows them down, but I have a few other scenarios...
1) Our society spends so much time acquiring and consuming, we have little time for parenting. Both parents work to buy bigger houses, bigger SUVs and spend lots of money on kids in lieu of spending lots of TIME with them. This leaves parents woefully unequipped to deal with their children consistently, so it is easier to dope them up.
2) People are having children much later and as such have less energy to deal with rambunctious kids. I know that personally, since when we had our oldest child I was in college and 22 years old. I had a LOT more energy than I do with number 6 at 32 years of age.
3) Everyone seems to want the model child, perfectly behaved, active in a thousand activities, etc. While I insist that my children are polite and well mannered, I also recognize that 3 and 5 year old boys are wrecking machines so you have to take the good with the bad.
Are children today more prone to ADHD then they were 20, 30, 50 years ago? I doubt it. Perhaps it has more to do with all the sugar they eat and all the TV/video games they watch. As a child I barely watched TV, because there was nothing TO watch. PBS had some kids shows in the morning, but they were more educational and slower paced. You would never mistake Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, Captain Kangaroo and Sesame Street with Yu-Gi-Oh, Teen Titans or Rugrats.
Before you fill your kids with drugs to sedate them, try unplugging the TV. Or better yet, try to actually parent them rather than numb them.
A recent report from Medco, cited in the Enquirer:
>>>showed a 23 percent increase in use of behavioral medication for all children, including a 49 percent increase in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs by children under 5. Now Americans spend more on drugs for ADHD and depression than they do on antibiotics, or asthma or allergy medications for children.<<<
This raises questions more questions. Why do we seek to medicate our children into submission? The report suggests the increased use because it is so effective. I have no doubt that dulling their senses slows them down, but I have a few other scenarios...
1) Our society spends so much time acquiring and consuming, we have little time for parenting. Both parents work to buy bigger houses, bigger SUVs and spend lots of money on kids in lieu of spending lots of TIME with them. This leaves parents woefully unequipped to deal with their children consistently, so it is easier to dope them up.
2) People are having children much later and as such have less energy to deal with rambunctious kids. I know that personally, since when we had our oldest child I was in college and 22 years old. I had a LOT more energy than I do with number 6 at 32 years of age.
3) Everyone seems to want the model child, perfectly behaved, active in a thousand activities, etc. While I insist that my children are polite and well mannered, I also recognize that 3 and 5 year old boys are wrecking machines so you have to take the good with the bad.
Are children today more prone to ADHD then they were 20, 30, 50 years ago? I doubt it. Perhaps it has more to do with all the sugar they eat and all the TV/video games they watch. As a child I barely watched TV, because there was nothing TO watch. PBS had some kids shows in the morning, but they were more educational and slower paced. You would never mistake Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, Captain Kangaroo and Sesame Street with Yu-Gi-Oh, Teen Titans or Rugrats.
Before you fill your kids with drugs to sedate them, try unplugging the TV. Or better yet, try to actually parent them rather than numb them.
Passing the buck, ducking the question, avoiding conflict?
I am not sure what fits best here. The highest court of the Presbyterian Church USA has refused to overturn a lower court's inexplicable ruling that Stephen van Kuiken was not in violation of church law when he married homosexuals, which is expressly forbidden by said churches bylaws. They clearly want to avoid any sort of stance on this issue, so they tried to weasel out of it by claiming that since he is no longer a Presbyterian, they have no authority in this case…
>>>The highest court ruled Tuesday that the Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken's resignation as a minister and church member put him outside church jurisdiction.
"There is no way that the court could hear a case involving someone who is no longer a Presbyterian," said Laurie Griffith, judicial process manager at Presbyterian headquarters in Louisville. <<<
Silly me, but the case in question has huge ramifications for the PCUSA. Van Kuiken WAS a Presbyterian minister when he violated church law and the lower court ruling was from a regional PCUSA church court. How is this possibly anything other than abdicating responsibility. Needless to say, van Kuiken sees this as a victory…
>>>Griffith said the dismissal leaves the Maumee ruling with no effect beyond the parties involved in the Van Kuiken case.
Van Kuiken disagreed and believes the ruling sets a precedent.
"It's like any other appeals court decision, in that it stands unless it's overruled by a higher court," he said.<<<
I have to agree with van Kuiken here, this DOES set a precedent and a dangerous one.
By their silence and refusal to act, the PCUSA has given tacit approval to it's ministers to flaunt their breaking of church law, as clearly the hierarchy has no backbone and lacks teeth. The phrase "paper tiger" comes to mind. How long can it be before the PCUSA slips away into shame and obscurity like the Episcopal church? Bible believing Presbyterians in the PCUSA need to find a new church home or make some changes fast.
I am not sure what fits best here. The highest court of the Presbyterian Church USA has refused to overturn a lower court's inexplicable ruling that Stephen van Kuiken was not in violation of church law when he married homosexuals, which is expressly forbidden by said churches bylaws. They clearly want to avoid any sort of stance on this issue, so they tried to weasel out of it by claiming that since he is no longer a Presbyterian, they have no authority in this case…
>>>The highest court ruled Tuesday that the Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken's resignation as a minister and church member put him outside church jurisdiction.
"There is no way that the court could hear a case involving someone who is no longer a Presbyterian," said Laurie Griffith, judicial process manager at Presbyterian headquarters in Louisville. <<<
Silly me, but the case in question has huge ramifications for the PCUSA. Van Kuiken WAS a Presbyterian minister when he violated church law and the lower court ruling was from a regional PCUSA church court. How is this possibly anything other than abdicating responsibility. Needless to say, van Kuiken sees this as a victory…
>>>Griffith said the dismissal leaves the Maumee ruling with no effect beyond the parties involved in the Van Kuiken case.
Van Kuiken disagreed and believes the ruling sets a precedent.
"It's like any other appeals court decision, in that it stands unless it's overruled by a higher court," he said.<<<
I have to agree with van Kuiken here, this DOES set a precedent and a dangerous one.
By their silence and refusal to act, the PCUSA has given tacit approval to it's ministers to flaunt their breaking of church law, as clearly the hierarchy has no backbone and lacks teeth. The phrase "paper tiger" comes to mind. How long can it be before the PCUSA slips away into shame and obscurity like the Episcopal church? Bible believing Presbyterians in the PCUSA need to find a new church home or make some changes fast.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Coming to a country and courtroom near you...
For all those who think that homosexual activists will be satisfied with "merely" getting the ability to marry legally, think again. Their agenda goes much deeper, and for proof we need look just a nation to the north away.
Canada has criminalized any sort of speech which may be interpreted as inciting violence against homosexuals. Given that that is a pretty broad concept, almost anything could potentially fall into that category, including preaching from the Bible. Think it can't happen? Here is what Canadian Christians say:
>>>"Pastors are afraid. They're afraid to preach on this subject," sad Janet Epp of the Buckingham Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. "Nobody wants to have the police come to their door." <<<
Think it can't happen here? Think again. Who would have thought five years ago, it the midst of the Bill Clinton "If it feels good do it" regime that we would be having homoerotic unions solemnized as marriages in Massachusetts. We already have the cries for more "hate speech" and "hate crime" legislation. The problem is in the interpreting of what constitutes hate speech. Think a federal judge wouldn't say that Romans 1 is hate speech? Think that denying a homosexual couple a marriage in a Baptist church isn't hate speech? Who knows, maybe the Bible itself will become hate literature and be banned in America. Think it can’t happen? Keep thinking that way and it will.
The First Amendment is teetering on the brink here, freedom of religious expression is about to give way to the absolute demand of tolerance of any behavior, no matter how perverse. The radical liberal fringe already tries to shout down it's opposition with invectives and lies. Soon they will have the full backing of the courts and police. It CAN happen here and it WILL happen here, unless Christians unite and say NO MORE!
For all those who think that homosexual activists will be satisfied with "merely" getting the ability to marry legally, think again. Their agenda goes much deeper, and for proof we need look just a nation to the north away.
Canada has criminalized any sort of speech which may be interpreted as inciting violence against homosexuals. Given that that is a pretty broad concept, almost anything could potentially fall into that category, including preaching from the Bible. Think it can't happen? Here is what Canadian Christians say:
>>>"Pastors are afraid. They're afraid to preach on this subject," sad Janet Epp of the Buckingham Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. "Nobody wants to have the police come to their door." <<<
Think it can't happen here? Think again. Who would have thought five years ago, it the midst of the Bill Clinton "If it feels good do it" regime that we would be having homoerotic unions solemnized as marriages in Massachusetts. We already have the cries for more "hate speech" and "hate crime" legislation. The problem is in the interpreting of what constitutes hate speech. Think a federal judge wouldn't say that Romans 1 is hate speech? Think that denying a homosexual couple a marriage in a Baptist church isn't hate speech? Who knows, maybe the Bible itself will become hate literature and be banned in America. Think it can’t happen? Keep thinking that way and it will.
The First Amendment is teetering on the brink here, freedom of religious expression is about to give way to the absolute demand of tolerance of any behavior, no matter how perverse. The radical liberal fringe already tries to shout down it's opposition with invectives and lies. Soon they will have the full backing of the courts and police. It CAN happen here and it WILL happen here, unless Christians unite and say NO MORE!
What does it mean to be a Republican anymore?
I have been critical of Bush on a number of spending issues, but the other day he came out in opposition to a tobacco buyout to relieve tobacco growers. Living in a tobacco state, Kentucky, it has made a small splash around here. A number of GOP senators and candidates have tried to sway Bush on this issue and of course John Kerry is all for it.
My question is two fold. One, should we be in the business of propping up tobacco farmers? Now I can see the strategic need to have food crop and livestock growers stay in business, but tobacco is hardly a strategically important crop. Two, and on the same lines, how odd is it to spend all this money to help prop up tobacco growers when we turn around and spend billions to fight tobacco and treat tobacco related illnesses?
These are Republicans? Let the Democrats stick to the subsidy programs, we are supposed to be in favor of SMALLER government!
We ought not be propping up, buying out or otherwise interfering in the growing of tobacco. It kills people and serves no real purpose, so let it die and if need be use those funds to help farmers who grow food (although I would prefer we not prop them up at all, given the world farming situation it is vital we maintain our own food supply and not become dependent on foreign supplies)
I have been critical of Bush on a number of spending issues, but the other day he came out in opposition to a tobacco buyout to relieve tobacco growers. Living in a tobacco state, Kentucky, it has made a small splash around here. A number of GOP senators and candidates have tried to sway Bush on this issue and of course John Kerry is all for it.
My question is two fold. One, should we be in the business of propping up tobacco farmers? Now I can see the strategic need to have food crop and livestock growers stay in business, but tobacco is hardly a strategically important crop. Two, and on the same lines, how odd is it to spend all this money to help prop up tobacco growers when we turn around and spend billions to fight tobacco and treat tobacco related illnesses?
These are Republicans? Let the Democrats stick to the subsidy programs, we are supposed to be in favor of SMALLER government!
We ought not be propping up, buying out or otherwise interfering in the growing of tobacco. It kills people and serves no real purpose, so let it die and if need be use those funds to help farmers who grow food (although I would prefer we not prop them up at all, given the world farming situation it is vital we maintain our own food supply and not become dependent on foreign supplies)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)