"Name's Ash. Housewares."
Well why not? With Sears and Kmart merging it sounds a lot better than "Big S".
"THIS IS MY BOOMSTICK!!"
Hail to the king, baby.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
"Shop smart... shop S-Mart!"
"Name's Ash. Housewares."
Well why not? With Sears and Kmart merging it sounds a lot better than "Big S".
"THIS IS MY BOOMSTICK!!"
Hail to the king, baby.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Boy Scouts abandoned as Pentagon retreats on sponsorship
Let me get this straight: our military can take over a hostile town in the middle of a god-forsaken desert... but can't sponsor Boy Scouts meeting on their own bases?
It's almost funny: that our government can topple most of the others in the world, but folds completely when taking on the ACLU.
Whoever made the ultimate decision to implement this policy is an idiot. For one thing, although it doesn't ban Boy Scouts from meeting on bases, it certainly does discourage it, especially overseas where there are no realistic alternatives for meeting places. For another, a very large number of officers in the U.S. military were once Boy Scouts, and a lot of them made it all the way to Eagle Scout. By caving to the ACLU on this, the U.S. government is giving no appreciation to the Boy Scouts of America for the fine young men that have come out of it and into the military's ranks: it's like plowing up your best garden on account of a single gopher.
Read the full story as USA Today is reporting it here.
It's almost funny: that our government can topple most of the others in the world, but folds completely when taking on the ACLU.
Whoever made the ultimate decision to implement this policy is an idiot. For one thing, although it doesn't ban Boy Scouts from meeting on bases, it certainly does discourage it, especially overseas where there are no realistic alternatives for meeting places. For another, a very large number of officers in the U.S. military were once Boy Scouts, and a lot of them made it all the way to Eagle Scout. By caving to the ACLU on this, the U.S. government is giving no appreciation to the Boy Scouts of America for the fine young men that have come out of it and into the military's ranks: it's like plowing up your best garden on account of a single gopher.
Read the full story as USA Today is reporting it here.
Monday, November 15, 2004
NEW COMMENT POLICY: Time to separate the wheat from the chaff
Starting a new policy this afternoon: the comment feature is getting turned off. If anyone wants to e-mail me at theknightshift@gmail.com, I will read you comment there and choose whether or not to edit the post to include your remarks.
Wish I didn't have to do this, but over the past several days this blog has attracted - in addition to plenty of good and sincere readers - way too many idiots. One of them, claiming to be a Marine stationed in Washington D.C., resorted to posting threats of murder after finding himself on the losing end of a discussion. I doubt that he was a real Marine: all the ones I've known weren't hot-heads. They're also a smart enough bunch that they can think for themselves: they have to be. This one didn't have an original thought in his head. And a real Marine wouldn't threaten violence or death like this guy was: when you learn how to kill a man, you also learn how not to kill a man. Whoever this phony is, his lack of self-discipline would have gotten him booted out of Parris Island and classified 4F before "Taps" tonight.
I'm not obligated to give him a mouthpiece for his stupidity. His or anyone else's for that matter.
It did cross my mind that I could merely make the commenting available only to registered Blogger users... but that would be unfair to those who wanted to comment but had no desire to start a blog of their own. It couldn't remain something open for just anyone to post to though: not as nasty as some of them have been. All of those have come from people who may or may not have been too coward to publish their identity, so they kept it "Anonymous". It's just me doing this blog, not a staff of dozens, and I have neither the time or the desire to go through and cull out the bad ones from the good. And I believe that if you've something to say and if you really believe in it, unless you've a darned good reason for hiding your identity you better stand up where everyone can see you as you say it. Not doing that destroys the credibility of both your message and yourself.
To all the people who've been serious and considerate toward this blog, even those who may stand in disagreement with me on some things but still gave me a polite and enjoyable discussion: I apologize to you, and it hadn't come to this. But I'll strive to keep it going even if I have to add comments to each post manually.
Wish I didn't have to do this, but over the past several days this blog has attracted - in addition to plenty of good and sincere readers - way too many idiots. One of them, claiming to be a Marine stationed in Washington D.C., resorted to posting threats of murder after finding himself on the losing end of a discussion. I doubt that he was a real Marine: all the ones I've known weren't hot-heads. They're also a smart enough bunch that they can think for themselves: they have to be. This one didn't have an original thought in his head. And a real Marine wouldn't threaten violence or death like this guy was: when you learn how to kill a man, you also learn how not to kill a man. Whoever this phony is, his lack of self-discipline would have gotten him booted out of Parris Island and classified 4F before "Taps" tonight.
I'm not obligated to give him a mouthpiece for his stupidity. His or anyone else's for that matter.
It did cross my mind that I could merely make the commenting available only to registered Blogger users... but that would be unfair to those who wanted to comment but had no desire to start a blog of their own. It couldn't remain something open for just anyone to post to though: not as nasty as some of them have been. All of those have come from people who may or may not have been too coward to publish their identity, so they kept it "Anonymous". It's just me doing this blog, not a staff of dozens, and I have neither the time or the desire to go through and cull out the bad ones from the good. And I believe that if you've something to say and if you really believe in it, unless you've a darned good reason for hiding your identity you better stand up where everyone can see you as you say it. Not doing that destroys the credibility of both your message and yourself.
To all the people who've been serious and considerate toward this blog, even those who may stand in disagreement with me on some things but still gave me a polite and enjoyable discussion: I apologize to you, and it hadn't come to this. But I'll strive to keep it going even if I have to add comments to each post manually.
One of the things in this life that I've never understood
Have a few things to do this afternoon but to kill time while working on other projects I flicked through some TV channels to see if anything good was on (hardly ever watch TV, truth be known, apart from "The Simpsons", "Smallville", "Powerpuff Girls" and "Johnny Bravo" on Cartoon Network, and the Hitler... I mean, History Channel).
Lo and behold, right now HBO is running 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I've seen this dozens of times over the years since I was ten years old. It's been out since 1968.
Can anybody please tell me what the hell is the plot of this movie?!?
I mean, what STORY is being told here??? Big black brick makes apes throw bones in the air, followed by big black brick hurting some dudes' ears on the moon, followed by big black brick making a computer go murderously nuts before said big black brick makes some astronaut guy do an LSD trip then turns him into a really really big baby.
To reiterate: "Huh?"
There's a fine line between genius and insanity, and here Stanley Kubrick dipped his toes into more than enough of both. But it's still his greatest movie ever... and one of the greatest movies ever made. True, it's somewhat dated now: 2001 didn't happen like the film prophesied be (which in 1997 Arthur C. Clarke - who co-wrote the screenplay with Kubrick - blamed on the Vietnam War, Watergate and the Challenger disaster) but on every level this movie still holds its own against the test of time. For one thing, I know of no other document from the early space age that best represents the hopefulness and optimism that people back then had in the future. That's going to make 2001 especially haunting in years to come: we're going to look back on this movie and the time it's from and ask ourselves "What happened? Where did we go wrong?"
Why did we go wrong? At 30 I'm way young, but plenty old enough to remember reading about the things that were going to happen in my lifetime: colonies on the moon. Pleasure excursions to Mars. Mining the asteroid belt. Something called the Daedalus Project that British engineers hoped to launch toward Barnard's Star and arrive there 50 years later to see if planets were there). A "space bridge" that would connect a station on earth with a geosynchronous satellite so that stuff could be hoisted into orbit without costly rockets... and a zillion other things that a six-year old kid back then daydreamed about seeing before he hit retirement age (at which point Winnebago would be selling an interplanetary mobile home to tool around in).
What do kids dream about nowadays? Do they still look forward to when they can wave back at their friends home on Earth while they're off at summer camp on the Moon? And if they can't... why? Where did we cross the line that turned a far-off glimpse toward a bright tomorrow into escapist nonsense and delusions of grandeur? I mean, given the choice to determine which way this world went, I'd rather it head in the direction that Kubrick and Clarke showed us in 2001 instead of the over-computerized drug-riddled corporate-driven wasteland of William Gibson's Neuromancer (a very good book by the way: it's where the term "cyberspace" was first coined, not to mention paving the way for modern sci-fi like The Matrix). Is it too much to think that we can still aspire for something better than the soulless decadence that we're barreling headlong into? Do any of us dare to dream anymore?
That's one of the things in this life that I've never understood (thought I was just talking about the title of the movie there, huh? :-)
All that said, and for everything it stands for that never came to pass (yet anyway), 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of my all-time favorite movies: even though every time I watch it I can grasp the storyline... but when I wake up the next morning I can remember nothing about what it was really all about.
But next time you do, here's some neat things to keep in mind when you watch 2001: A Space Odyssey:
Lo and behold, right now HBO is running 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I've seen this dozens of times over the years since I was ten years old. It's been out since 1968.
Can anybody please tell me what the hell is the plot of this movie?!?
I mean, what STORY is being told here??? Big black brick makes apes throw bones in the air, followed by big black brick hurting some dudes' ears on the moon, followed by big black brick making a computer go murderously nuts before said big black brick makes some astronaut guy do an LSD trip then turns him into a really really big baby.
To reiterate: "Huh?"
There's a fine line between genius and insanity, and here Stanley Kubrick dipped his toes into more than enough of both. But it's still his greatest movie ever... and one of the greatest movies ever made. True, it's somewhat dated now: 2001 didn't happen like the film prophesied be (which in 1997 Arthur C. Clarke - who co-wrote the screenplay with Kubrick - blamed on the Vietnam War, Watergate and the Challenger disaster) but on every level this movie still holds its own against the test of time. For one thing, I know of no other document from the early space age that best represents the hopefulness and optimism that people back then had in the future. That's going to make 2001 especially haunting in years to come: we're going to look back on this movie and the time it's from and ask ourselves "What happened? Where did we go wrong?"
Why did we go wrong? At 30 I'm way young, but plenty old enough to remember reading about the things that were going to happen in my lifetime: colonies on the moon. Pleasure excursions to Mars. Mining the asteroid belt. Something called the Daedalus Project that British engineers hoped to launch toward Barnard's Star and arrive there 50 years later to see if planets were there). A "space bridge" that would connect a station on earth with a geosynchronous satellite so that stuff could be hoisted into orbit without costly rockets... and a zillion other things that a six-year old kid back then daydreamed about seeing before he hit retirement age (at which point Winnebago would be selling an interplanetary mobile home to tool around in).
What do kids dream about nowadays? Do they still look forward to when they can wave back at their friends home on Earth while they're off at summer camp on the Moon? And if they can't... why? Where did we cross the line that turned a far-off glimpse toward a bright tomorrow into escapist nonsense and delusions of grandeur? I mean, given the choice to determine which way this world went, I'd rather it head in the direction that Kubrick and Clarke showed us in 2001 instead of the over-computerized drug-riddled corporate-driven wasteland of William Gibson's Neuromancer (a very good book by the way: it's where the term "cyberspace" was first coined, not to mention paving the way for modern sci-fi like The Matrix). Is it too much to think that we can still aspire for something better than the soulless decadence that we're barreling headlong into? Do any of us dare to dream anymore?
That's one of the things in this life that I've never understood (thought I was just talking about the title of the movie there, huh? :-)
All that said, and for everything it stands for that never came to pass (yet anyway), 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of my all-time favorite movies: even though every time I watch it I can grasp the storyline... but when I wake up the next morning I can remember nothing about what it was really all about.
But next time you do, here's some neat things to keep in mind when you watch 2001: A Space Odyssey:
- Not a single note of music was explicitly written for the movie. Every piece heard derived from previously-composed works, including the film's signature theme from "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss.And finally, Arthur C. Clarke no doubt put it best when describing 2001: A Space Odyssey: "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."
- The graphics shown on the computer monitors were all hand-drawn slides. Computer technology could not yet render the complex images expected from those that would be operating spacecraft systems thirty years in the future.
- After production, director Kubrick ordered all the models, sets, and costumes used in the movie to be destroyed. And just to be safe he had the respective blueprints burned and trashed as well. His reason? That 2001 shouldn't be cheapened by future low-budget sci-fi flicks making use of its props (though it also created a major headache when its sorta-sequel 2010 started production in 1983).
- "Daisy", the song that HAL sings while dying was in reality the very first song performed by a real computer, at IBM in 1961. Incidentally, one part of the song goes "I'm half crazy".
- The ACTUAL beginning of the movie is rarely shown on television... and for a long time wasn't even available on home video. It's several minutes of Gyorgy Ligeti's "Atmospheres" (later used during the "stargate" sequence as the monolith hurls David Bowman across countless light-years to the source of its power) played against a pitch-black screen. This overture has been restored in recent VHS and DVD releases.
- Speaking of which, Ligeti sued Kubrick for using his music without permission in the movie. He won.
- The movie is 139 minutes long but contains no dialogue for 88 minutes of its run... including within the half-hours at both the beginning and end of the film.
- HAL's name came from going one-letter away from each letter in "IBM".
- The "floating pen" in the shuttle is actually attached to a sheet of glass that the camera is aiming through. The stewardess merely pulls it off the sheet when she sticks it back into Heywood Floyd's pocket.
- There was real text written for the instructions on the zero-gravity toilet that Floyd uses en route to the Moon. You can read them for yourself at IMDB's page about 2001 trivia.
- Supposedly when the screen says "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" you can listen to "Echoes" from Pink Floyd's "Meddle" album and it perfectly syncs-up with the stargate sequence (much the same way that the band's "Dark Side of the Moon" album can be played alongside The Wizard of Oz).
- During one screening during its initial run, the image of Bowman reborn as the Starchild at the end of the movie caused one theater-goer to run wildly toward the screen screaming "IT'S GOD!! IT'S GOD!!"
The Polar Express review
There are two ways to watch The Polar Express: as a wide-eyed seven-year old kid or as a rationale and "wiser" adult, and the choice is going to shape how you feel when you walk away from the theater. If you don't want to be set up for potential letdown, go in as the kid. Or at least – at risk of giving away the theme of the movie – have a little faith.
The Polar Express is a visual feast and assault on the senses that shreds the envelope that used to hold everything possible with computer-generated animation. It also breaks new ground on how the virtual camera is used. In that respect it's sorta the CGI-equivalent to Citizen Kane, when Orson Welles pioneered striking new camera angles that conveyed the story as much as the actual acting did. I know that juxtaposition of Zemeckis with Welles is going to blow some people’s minds, but I'm serious: there are things in The Polar Express that to the best of my knowledge haven’t been done before in terms of computer cinematography.
But the strength of that was likely an unintended byproduct of the REAL achievement: the ultra-photo-realistic computer rendering. Tom Hanks plays six different characters in The Polar Express, having to endure countless hours of acting before motion-capture cameras with dozens of tiny computer-trackable balls glued to his face to get every nuance of his expressions. Intellectually I knew that but when faced with the actual experience: that was Tom Hanks – the REAL Tom Hanks – onscreen, not a digital doppleganger. It sure as heck doesn't look fake. Very little does look synthetic: at the very least something or a person (the main girl character easily comes to mind 'cuz her face seemed almost fish-frozen at times, like they couldn't get her expressions to work quite right) is only minimally artificial... but the onslaught of vividness around those instances make them pretty forgivable. See the kid at the beginning of the movie? Try and believe that he's NOT a real boy. Sure fooled the heck out of my wife and her parents when we saw the movie two days ago.
All of these and more makes The Polar Express work as I believe Zemeckis intended it to be: a living, breathing illustrated children's storybook (a living, breathing adaptation of Chris Van Allsburg's original book, anyway). To that end it succeeds wildly, and I tend to believe that in years to come this will be a classic Christmas movie. The real problem comes in when you try to enjoy this movie on the level of most adults and in that respect, it's a little lacking of things. The plot could do with some beefing-up and there is very little in the way of character development: we aren't even told the names of the boy who first gets on the train or of the girl he befriends (voiced by Nona Gaye from The Matrix sequels). It would have been nice to know something a little more about the train and its crew (including two roles – Smokey and Steamer – that were voiced by Michael Jeter just before he passed away) and without that the whole enterprise seems too surreal: when you think about it for awhile the Polar Express seems like a "train of damned souls" from some 1950s EC Comics book.
When the train arrives at the North Pole we are treated to a vast megalopolis of elven bureaucracy... but there was something missing from its personality a bit, like instead of the focus being on Christmas it's on Santa Claus. That was kinda creepy also: watching millions of elves rallying to fix their gaze on Santa was too much like Triumph of the Will with a Perry Como soundtrack. Still, it was pretty fun to discover how it is that Santa knows who is naughty and nice, with a system that would have made George Orwell beam with pride.
But for all the things that could be said about what it's wanting of, The Polar Express more than makes up for it in utter spell-binding awe. I'd love to see this in full glory on an IMAX screen someday. But even if you can't, The Polar Express is worth the gas and ticket money to check out this holiday season. And don't worry about some of the more negative reviews that have been floating around: you can hear the bell, even if they cannot.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Coming Soon: The civil war of American Christianity
This is the last post I intend to make for this weekend, at least 'til tomorrow night when a full review of The Polar Express should appear here. My mind has been too fixated on the Serious the past few weeks: it needs some time bathing in the Silly. Apart from church and quality time with my lovely spousal overunit, the rest of this weekend is devoted toward reading some good comic books (speaking of which, the last few issues of "Amazing Spider-Man" are something I'd love to touch upon soon) and playing Star Wars Galaxies... which has become a WAY heckuva lot more fun since the space expansion was added a few weeks ago. I'm now flying my own personal Star Wars character around the galaxy in a luxury space-yacht that I christened the "Not For Hire": first person who can tell me where exactly that name comes from gets a Gmail account all their very own. Send your answer here.
But before tuning out completely from more sober affairs, I'm going to posit the following notion for consideration, 'cuz it's one that's grown pretty apparent from this side of things...
There is now a schism within Christianity in America. It is steadily becoming more perceivable that two distinct factions are developing and each of us that profess faith in Christ, whether we realize it or not, will have to choose which of the two sides it is that the heart's desires will find fulfillment. But the difference will become so great that it will be impossible for both sides to enjoy concourse and communion between them. One way or the other, we're going to have to measure and consider which it will be that we are compelled to serve more. And though I doubt that it will entail any violent repercussions, there will arise conflict enough to impact most of our society in more ways than I care to think about at this late hour.
I'll elaborate on this again, probably sometime this week. But if you want a hint as to what I'm talking about: one side prays that our desires will be met, while the other merely prays that "Thy will be done".
More on this later. Now, go to bed!
But before tuning out completely from more sober affairs, I'm going to posit the following notion for consideration, 'cuz it's one that's grown pretty apparent from this side of things...
There is now a schism within Christianity in America. It is steadily becoming more perceivable that two distinct factions are developing and each of us that profess faith in Christ, whether we realize it or not, will have to choose which of the two sides it is that the heart's desires will find fulfillment. But the difference will become so great that it will be impossible for both sides to enjoy concourse and communion between them. One way or the other, we're going to have to measure and consider which it will be that we are compelled to serve more. And though I doubt that it will entail any violent repercussions, there will arise conflict enough to impact most of our society in more ways than I care to think about at this late hour.
I'll elaborate on this again, probably sometime this week. But if you want a hint as to what I'm talking about: one side prays that our desires will be met, while the other merely prays that "Thy will be done".
More on this later. Now, go to bed!
Anybody remember that old 90s movie Demolition Man? Well...
...who'da thunk that eleven years later it would threaten to become the most prophetic movie in history.
It didn't matter to them whether the right person made it to the governor's mansion in California: they only wanted to "win". And their best shot at it was to line up all their ducks behind a box-office superstar who was practically guaranteed to win. And now some people want to further this one man's career along by going so far as to amend the U.S. Constitution...?!
I like Arnold Schwarzenegger as an actor. In a perfect world he'd leave being governor so that he can finally make King Conan: Crown of Iron with John Milius. He's one of my favorite actors and I've a lot of his movies on DVD in our collection here. That does not automatically make him the next Ronald Reagan... and certainly not enough to alter the Constitution to favor any one individual. If it's to be changed, let it be for a more serious reason than this.
Ads to Back Schwarzenegger for PresidentY'know, it's almost kinda funny: Rush Limbaugh argued in his 1992 book "The Way Things Ought To Be" that celebrities shouldn't get involved in government based solely on the merit of their being famous: he even used Schwarzenegger as an example, suggesting that at the rate celebs were appearing before Congress that Ah-nuldt would soon be using his role from Total Recall to support manned flights to Mars. Rush spent an entire chapter condemning this. Then ten years later Schwarzenegger runs for governor of California... by using his celebrity status and nothing else to overshadow and crush all competition. And Limbaugh and so many others went nuts for it.
California Group to Air Ads Backing Amendment to Let Schwarzenegger Run for President
SACRAMENTO, Calif. Nov 13, 2004 — Californians will soon see advertisements urging them to help give Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other foreign-born citizens the chance to run for president.
The cable television ads, set to being running Monday, are from a Silicon Valley-based group that wants to amend the U.S. Constitution, which limits the presidency to people born in the United States. Schwarzenegger was born in Austria but became a U.S. citizen in 1983.
...
Schwarzenegger, 57, has said he would consider running for president if the Constitution allowed but hasn't pushed for a constitutional change.
Slam here for the rest of the story.
It didn't matter to them whether the right person made it to the governor's mansion in California: they only wanted to "win". And their best shot at it was to line up all their ducks behind a box-office superstar who was practically guaranteed to win. And now some people want to further this one man's career along by going so far as to amend the U.S. Constitution...?!
I like Arnold Schwarzenegger as an actor. In a perfect world he'd leave being governor so that he can finally make King Conan: Crown of Iron with John Milius. He's one of my favorite actors and I've a lot of his movies on DVD in our collection here. That does not automatically make him the next Ronald Reagan... and certainly not enough to alter the Constitution to favor any one individual. If it's to be changed, let it be for a more serious reason than this.
The Polar Express: more to say later about it but for now...
Beautiful. Stunning. Incredible. Breathtaking.
The bar has been raised. Again. This was the best computer-generated animation I've ever seen.
Have plans for the rest of the evening, but will attempt to do this movie justice with a real review later this weekend. In the meantime, there's a lot less memorable things that you could spend twenty bucks on: go and grab your intimate other and take 'em to see The Polar Express tonight or tomorrow. And just to be safe, tie a rag around your head to keep your jaw from hitting that filthy theater floor when it drops.
The bar has been raised. Again. This was the best computer-generated animation I've ever seen.
Have plans for the rest of the evening, but will attempt to do this movie justice with a real review later this weekend. In the meantime, there's a lot less memorable things that you could spend twenty bucks on: go and grab your intimate other and take 'em to see The Polar Express tonight or tomorrow. And just to be safe, tie a rag around your head to keep your jaw from hitting that filthy theater floor when it drops.
Kyle Williams asks "Will Dems and GOP merge?"
Kyle Williams has a good piece about the closing gap between Democrats and Republicans over at World Net Daily today. He sees the GOP's increasing liberalism as a sure sign that there is nothing definitive between the two and that something must happen to provide a real alternative. 'Course, some of us out here hold that the Democrats and Republicans are really one party already, only masquerading as a two-party system so that people will be more apt to kill each other about it being "us versus them" while the distraction lets the politicians and partisan hacks rob us blind and encroach on our liberties. Yer not supposed to pay attention to the man behind the curtain, don't ya know...
Say what you will about the Soviet Union: at least the ruling regime there was honest about being just one party. They're starting to positively seem like the model of political integrity.
Say what you will about the Soviet Union: at least the ruling regime there was honest about being just one party. They're starting to positively seem like the model of political integrity.
Who the hell is Scott Peterson, and why should I really care?
All I know is that he was on trial for the murder of his wife and unborn child and he got found guilty yesterday. Other than that I've been completely ignorant of this entire case.
Seriously, what impact does Scott Peterson have on my life? None, really.
It wasn't long ago that a man killed the pregnant mother of his child not far away from here in Burlington NC, cut the body into pieces and stuffed them into a trashcan. Funny how that never got any national airplay... but then, a double-murder in a blue-collar industrial town just isn't as glamorous as a double-murder in posh, ritzy California. Low-income assailant and victim versus young married couple where she and the baby died so that he could live the party life again: you tell me which one the TV cameras are going to play up and focus on the most.
Chalk up the Peterson murder case as the latest in a string of incidents - like the OJ trial and JonBenet Ramsey murder - that too many Americans got caught up in paying too much attention to, like a long drawn-out train wreck. Tragic as all of these things were, the real tragedy outside of the courtroom is that a nation obsessed with celebrity and fame is so addicted to finding - or making - a story like this to focus its attention on, that it's distracted from the things around them that REALLY matter.
But it's so much more fun to see Scott Peterson looking at the death penalty here than it is to watch dozens of American kids over the past several days cut to pieces in the streets of Fallujah, I suppose. Even though it wasn't their fault that they weren't spoiled rich kids trying to return to bachelorhood.
Seriously, what impact does Scott Peterson have on my life? None, really.
It wasn't long ago that a man killed the pregnant mother of his child not far away from here in Burlington NC, cut the body into pieces and stuffed them into a trashcan. Funny how that never got any national airplay... but then, a double-murder in a blue-collar industrial town just isn't as glamorous as a double-murder in posh, ritzy California. Low-income assailant and victim versus young married couple where she and the baby died so that he could live the party life again: you tell me which one the TV cameras are going to play up and focus on the most.
Chalk up the Peterson murder case as the latest in a string of incidents - like the OJ trial and JonBenet Ramsey murder - that too many Americans got caught up in paying too much attention to, like a long drawn-out train wreck. Tragic as all of these things were, the real tragedy outside of the courtroom is that a nation obsessed with celebrity and fame is so addicted to finding - or making - a story like this to focus its attention on, that it's distracted from the things around them that REALLY matter.
But it's so much more fun to see Scott Peterson looking at the death penalty here than it is to watch dozens of American kids over the past several days cut to pieces in the streets of Fallujah, I suppose. Even though it wasn't their fault that they weren't spoiled rich kids trying to return to bachelorhood.
Friday, November 12, 2004
If you don't believe that George W. Bush has evil intentions after reading THIS, you're a hopelessly deluded fool
And let me justify that statement by adding this: at age 30, I've spent almost half my life on a farm. Living it. Working it. Blessing it. Cursing it. Laughing at certain times and crying at others. Rejoicing when we had a good year and struggling to help the family during the bad ones.
We were a farm family surrounded by other farm families and that sense of community left an indelible mark on my life. I grew up learning about things like honor and trust from men like my Dad and other men that tilled fields and milked cows. No one around us lacked for the friendly hand of a neighbor.
And no one suffered the agony of being alone when consolation was needed most. My Dad is the strongest man that I've ever known, and I never knew him to shed a tear. Until the day came that a 19-year old kid working on our farm - a young man that Dad had practically watched grow up - was killed in a freak tractor accident. In the short time that he was there Mike became like the older brother that I never had. And Dad, who was a close friend with Mike's father before he died, had taken Mike in under his wing as a protege' and apprentice... and even as a second son.
Every farmer within a five-mile radius of our place descended on our farm that day, as the emergency workers and others worked to recover Mike's body from beneath the tractor. If unable to do anything else they were there for our family, offering words of comfort and prayers. Just letting us know that we weren't alone. If it hadn't been for that kind of sense of common sympathy, I don't know where any of us would have wound up. Without the support we found around us I don't know if I would be sitting here now, years and countless circumstances later, interested enough in things to write my thoughts out to a blog for everyone to see.
You could trust someone back then, even if you barely knew them. At least until they gave you a reason not to trust them... which was so scarce in happening that no single occurrence comes to mind. In retrospect I must lament this observation: Those were the last days of that time when a man's word was his bond.
Farmers - and especially small family farmers - are at once the most critical and the least appreciated segment of any society. Ever stopped to think about the vast influence of the average American farmer? If it weren't for the toil and sacrifice of their long hours, this country would not possibly be able to not only be the only nation in human history capable of feeding itself, but also a good fraction of the rest of the world's population. They get nowhere near the thanks that they deserve, yet they keep doing the work they know and love best... because deep down, they have the satisfaction of knowing that they do the work that the rest of us don't desire but couldn't live without. They've found contentment in their place because they understand its importance. If you want to know a man who is sincerely humbled by his sense of power, talk to a farmer.
All of the above and more applies to farmers around the world, not just here. They might vary in technologies and procedures, but they share a common appreciation of the role that they play and the humbleness in which they accept it. Wherever they may be found, farmers are an honorable lot... which should lead us to be honorable toward them. It should compel us to appreciate them and give them all the honor that's due them.
Except that isn't happening in some places. In fact the United States government - under the direction of President Bush - is not only failing to honor one group of farmers: it's actively insulting them and destroying one of their chief means of livelihood.
I've never met an Iraqi farmer and doubt that I ever will... but I hope all the above has made it clear that growing up on a farm tends to attune one to the demands of being a farmer anywhere. Like farmers elsewhere, our Iraqi brethren have long practiced seed-saving: using the seeds from one season's crop toward the planting of the next. It saves money and it lends itself toward making the farm more self-sufficient. It also has the unintended effect of creating quality assurance: strains of vegetables are inclined to be consistent across several seasons, with the occasional mixing of strains keeping a crop from becoming genetically "stale" across several generations. Turns out that Iraqi farmers are pretty good at seed-saving, and if anyone among that country's population should be given free reign to manage their own affairs as they see fit, it should be their farmers.
Except the Iraqi farmers aren't going to be allowed to cultivate their crops as they believe they should be, thanks to George W. Bush. Turns out that Bush directed his man Paul Bremer to institute a wazoo-load of crazy laws for Iraq's new government when the U.S. handed over sovereignty a few months back. One of 'em makes it illegal for Iraqi farmers to practice seed-saving! Check this out from Grain.org:
Now, why the hell is Bush purposely mangling the livelihood of farmers in Iraq? Read this and if you still think that profit wasn't a driving motive for sending our soldiers over there, I got some ocean-front property in Nevada to sell you:
Take a wild guess whose ear a lot of those companies had a long time already before the first troops crossed the Iraqi border?
Here's a hint: he's the same guy who wants to enforce mandatory mental screenings for all Americans so that his buddies in big pharmaceutical companies can make billions from the compulsive medications that will result.
I defy anyone to tell me that forcing the farmers of Iraq to do this - for benefit of companies here - is anywhere close to being an act of humanitarian assistance and goodwill.
It's not. But if you want another term for this, a powerful government bent on controlling everything allying itself with big corporate interests, I'll give it to ya: "national socialism".
Wasn't anything Christian about it when the Germans practiced it back in the 1930s and 40s either.
We were a farm family surrounded by other farm families and that sense of community left an indelible mark on my life. I grew up learning about things like honor and trust from men like my Dad and other men that tilled fields and milked cows. No one around us lacked for the friendly hand of a neighbor.
And no one suffered the agony of being alone when consolation was needed most. My Dad is the strongest man that I've ever known, and I never knew him to shed a tear. Until the day came that a 19-year old kid working on our farm - a young man that Dad had practically watched grow up - was killed in a freak tractor accident. In the short time that he was there Mike became like the older brother that I never had. And Dad, who was a close friend with Mike's father before he died, had taken Mike in under his wing as a protege' and apprentice... and even as a second son.
Every farmer within a five-mile radius of our place descended on our farm that day, as the emergency workers and others worked to recover Mike's body from beneath the tractor. If unable to do anything else they were there for our family, offering words of comfort and prayers. Just letting us know that we weren't alone. If it hadn't been for that kind of sense of common sympathy, I don't know where any of us would have wound up. Without the support we found around us I don't know if I would be sitting here now, years and countless circumstances later, interested enough in things to write my thoughts out to a blog for everyone to see.
You could trust someone back then, even if you barely knew them. At least until they gave you a reason not to trust them... which was so scarce in happening that no single occurrence comes to mind. In retrospect I must lament this observation: Those were the last days of that time when a man's word was his bond.
Farmers - and especially small family farmers - are at once the most critical and the least appreciated segment of any society. Ever stopped to think about the vast influence of the average American farmer? If it weren't for the toil and sacrifice of their long hours, this country would not possibly be able to not only be the only nation in human history capable of feeding itself, but also a good fraction of the rest of the world's population. They get nowhere near the thanks that they deserve, yet they keep doing the work they know and love best... because deep down, they have the satisfaction of knowing that they do the work that the rest of us don't desire but couldn't live without. They've found contentment in their place because they understand its importance. If you want to know a man who is sincerely humbled by his sense of power, talk to a farmer.
All of the above and more applies to farmers around the world, not just here. They might vary in technologies and procedures, but they share a common appreciation of the role that they play and the humbleness in which they accept it. Wherever they may be found, farmers are an honorable lot... which should lead us to be honorable toward them. It should compel us to appreciate them and give them all the honor that's due them.
Except that isn't happening in some places. In fact the United States government - under the direction of President Bush - is not only failing to honor one group of farmers: it's actively insulting them and destroying one of their chief means of livelihood.
I've never met an Iraqi farmer and doubt that I ever will... but I hope all the above has made it clear that growing up on a farm tends to attune one to the demands of being a farmer anywhere. Like farmers elsewhere, our Iraqi brethren have long practiced seed-saving: using the seeds from one season's crop toward the planting of the next. It saves money and it lends itself toward making the farm more self-sufficient. It also has the unintended effect of creating quality assurance: strains of vegetables are inclined to be consistent across several seasons, with the occasional mixing of strains keeping a crop from becoming genetically "stale" across several generations. Turns out that Iraqi farmers are pretty good at seed-saving, and if anyone among that country's population should be given free reign to manage their own affairs as they see fit, it should be their farmers.
Except the Iraqi farmers aren't going to be allowed to cultivate their crops as they believe they should be, thanks to George W. Bush. Turns out that Bush directed his man Paul Bremer to institute a wazoo-load of crazy laws for Iraq's new government when the U.S. handed over sovereignty a few months back. One of 'em makes it illegal for Iraqi farmers to practice seed-saving! Check this out from Grain.org:
Iraq's new patent law: A declaration of war against farmers
by Focus on the Global South and GRAIN
October 2004
When former Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) administrator L. Paul Bremer III left Baghdad after the so-called "transfer of sovereignty" in June 2004, he left behind the 100 orders he enacted as chief of the occupation authority in Iraq. Among them is Order 81 on "Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety." [1] This order amends Iraq's original patent law of 1970 and unless and until it is revised or repealed by a new Iraqi government, it now has the status and force of a binding law. [2] With important implications for farmers and the future of agriculture in Iraq, this order is yet another important component in the United States' attempts to radically transform Iraq's economy.
Now, why the hell is Bush purposely mangling the livelihood of farmers in Iraq? Read this and if you still think that profit wasn't a driving motive for sending our soldiers over there, I got some ocean-front property in Nevada to sell you:
For generations, small farmers in Iraq operated in an essentially unregulated, informal seed supply system. Farm-saved seed and the free innovation with and exchange of planting materials among farming communities has long been the basis of agricultural practice. This has been made illegal under the new law. The seeds farmers are now allowed to plant - "protected" crop varieties brought into Iraq by transnational corporations in the name of agricultural reconstruction - will be the property of the corporations. While historically the Iraqi constitution prohibited private ownership of biological resources, the new US-imposed patent law introduces a system of monopoly rights over seeds. Inserted into Iraq's previous patent law is a whole new chapter on Plant Variety Protection (PVP) that provides for the "protection of new varieties of plants." PVP is an intellectual property right (IPR) or a kind of patent for plant varieties which gives an exclusive monopoly right on planting material to a plant breeder who claims to have discovered or developed a new variety. So the "protection" in PVP has nothing to do with conservation, but refers to safeguarding of the commercial interests of private breeders (usually large corporations) claiming to have created the new plants.In other words, Bush used the power of the United States government - as it was "nation-building" in Iraq - to force Iraqi farmers to abandon their ages-old practice of seed-saving. It's now a criminal act in Iraq to use the seeds that you harvested from one season's harvest and use it in the next! Iraqi farmers are thus compelled to purchase outright only the seeds - genetically-engineered seeds that have expensive patents all over 'em, mind ya - that are being brought into the country by giant corporations like Monsanto and Dow. They stand to make a staggering fortune from the spoils of this war and its reconstruction.
Take a wild guess whose ear a lot of those companies had a long time already before the first troops crossed the Iraqi border?
Here's a hint: he's the same guy who wants to enforce mandatory mental screenings for all Americans so that his buddies in big pharmaceutical companies can make billions from the compulsive medications that will result.
I defy anyone to tell me that forcing the farmers of Iraq to do this - for benefit of companies here - is anywhere close to being an act of humanitarian assistance and goodwill.
It's not. But if you want another term for this, a powerful government bent on controlling everything allying itself with big corporate interests, I'll give it to ya: "national socialism".
Wasn't anything Christian about it when the Germans practiced it back in the 1930s and 40s either.
San Jose school to gymnast: "You vill NOT turn cartwheels undt you vill LUFF it!!"
A few months ago I published "People who should be shot when the revolution comes", a handy guide on who to hunt down like rabid dogs when the breaking-point is reached. It was all tongue-in-cheek, 'course, although there was an ulterior good that it served: when the revolution gets unleashed I want this to help keep the civilian casualty figures low.
Anyway, the second group of people on the list that we should be gunning for are "'Zero tolerance'-happy public school principals" and this next story should make it clear why some of them should be booted down to the pariah caste on... no, beneath the totem pole:
Let's see, students can now be suspended or expelled for: bringing 2-inch long action-figure guns to school, drawing pictures of guns, accidentally leaving a butterknife in the back-seat of a car, kissing a first-grade classmate on the playground, wearing a t-shirt that offends a faculty member while off-campus, Heaven knows what else, and now turning cartwheels because other kids might hurt themselves copying the tumbler. Sheesh, aren't kids allowed to have a little fun anymore?
One or both of two motives are at work here I think: Deirdre is obviously a very talented young lass... too talented for her own good. She's smart, and she's an excellent gymnast (I found where she trains at: turns out it's the same team that's produced a couple of Olympic athletes). Plus her dad obviously is showing her how to think for herself: double-plus ungood that is citizen. Sad to say but ours is a culture that frowns upon individuality and achievement. The school policy wonks probably look at Deirdre the same way that the Matrix's Agents see Neo: someone who threatens to show everybody how to question the system. They couldn't stand to see her showing off her talent so they slammed the hammer down on her.
Either that, and/or because I've come to believe that for the most part our schools - and our entire current system of government - is hellbent on making the American people into a race of children that will look to the Big Daddy state for all their needs. Think that's worth defying and revolting against? Yer damned right it is. And I'll tell y'all this: any state trooper or police officer in North Carolina that someday tells me that my future six-year old daughter has to be in a baby seat is going to calmly, and quite confidently, told to stick it where the sun don't shine. Why should any of us give a flying rat's butt about these penny-ante tin-plated autocrats?
As ticked-off as I'm coming to be at how screwed-up things are, don't be surprised if y'all read about me getting arrested for taking a ball-peen hammer to one of those red-light cameras someday. Don't think that thought hasn't crossed my mind anyways...
Anyway, the second group of people on the list that we should be gunning for are "'Zero tolerance'-happy public school principals" and this next story should make it clear why some of them should be booted down to the pariah caste on... no, beneath the totem pole:
Student Of The Month Suspended After Warning (about turning cartwheels)Mash here for the full story. The principal elaborates further that the REAL reason little Deirdre was suspended was because other students might see what she was doing and try to imitate her stunts.
WEST COVINA — Doing cartwheels and handstands got an 11-year-old West Covina girl bounced out of school.
Deirdre Faegre, a sixth-grader at San Jose-Edison Academy in West Covina, was suspended Tuesday when she disobeyed school officials who had repeatedly told her not to do gymnastic stunts during lunchtime, ABC7 Eyewitness News has learned
"They told me I can't do it anymore because I can hurt other people or myself," Deirdre told a local newspaper. "There's other kids that do ... but it's obviously only been told to me and I don't know why."
San Jose-Edison Academy Principal Denise Patton said she's warned Deirdre numerous times, talked to her parents and given her lunch detention, but the 90-pound gymnast won't stay on the ground, so she had to suspend her.
"Our first concern is the safety of all of our children," Patton said in the newspaper report. Her acrobatics have "created an unsafe situation for herself and others."
She could accidentally strike another student or hurt herself, Patton asserted.
Let's see, students can now be suspended or expelled for: bringing 2-inch long action-figure guns to school, drawing pictures of guns, accidentally leaving a butterknife in the back-seat of a car, kissing a first-grade classmate on the playground, wearing a t-shirt that offends a faculty member while off-campus, Heaven knows what else, and now turning cartwheels because other kids might hurt themselves copying the tumbler. Sheesh, aren't kids allowed to have a little fun anymore?
One or both of two motives are at work here I think: Deirdre is obviously a very talented young lass... too talented for her own good. She's smart, and she's an excellent gymnast (I found where she trains at: turns out it's the same team that's produced a couple of Olympic athletes). Plus her dad obviously is showing her how to think for herself: double-plus ungood that is citizen. Sad to say but ours is a culture that frowns upon individuality and achievement. The school policy wonks probably look at Deirdre the same way that the Matrix's Agents see Neo: someone who threatens to show everybody how to question the system. They couldn't stand to see her showing off her talent so they slammed the hammer down on her.
Either that, and/or because I've come to believe that for the most part our schools - and our entire current system of government - is hellbent on making the American people into a race of children that will look to the Big Daddy state for all their needs. Think that's worth defying and revolting against? Yer damned right it is. And I'll tell y'all this: any state trooper or police officer in North Carolina that someday tells me that my future six-year old daughter has to be in a baby seat is going to calmly, and quite confidently, told to stick it where the sun don't shine. Why should any of us give a flying rat's butt about these penny-ante tin-plated autocrats?
As ticked-off as I'm coming to be at how screwed-up things are, don't be surprised if y'all read about me getting arrested for taking a ball-peen hammer to one of those red-light cameras someday. Don't think that thought hasn't crossed my mind anyways...
It's from the same college that wildly celebrated the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr...
...parse that as you will.
Bob Jones University president Bob Jones III has sent a congratulatory letter to George W. Bush on his re-election(?). I'm not going to post it here: you can find it at that link or - in case it ever goes down - I found it on Google archived here. But I'll note this: that Jones claims that God is using Bush to grant America "a reprieve from the agenda of paganism," that Bush owes "the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you." That he is eager to follow Bush because "you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly."
Somebody inform Bob Jones III that so far as anyone can tell, Bush has never gone to church - in regular worship with other Christians anyway - since coming to Washington. That's something that's not just encouraged: it's a necessity of the Christian life, that we might hold each other accountable. But I guess when you're hand-picked by the Almighty and somewhat considered God's Second Begotten Son you don't have to be held accountable by anyone, right?
By the way, that bit about the college and Martin Luther King's death is an all-too-true story: when Jones' father, Bob Jones Jr. announced that King had been killed, the assembled students applauded and cheered... especially as Jones declared that King was "an apostate". Jones' daddy didn't get it then and Jones doesn't get it now: that Christians are supposed to rescue lost people from a dying world, and not rescue a dying world for lost people.
That's all that "Christians" like Jones and Falwell and Robertson and Bush and Ashcroft and too many others are concerned with. That's all they see: a world split by factionalism. Where it's practically considered a justifiable biblical mandate to hate one another because those other people are "liberals". It saves them the hassle of having to consider the lives of individuals.
They want to save America... but they don't give a damn about even one person who's hurting for not knowing about God's love for them.
And it's because he really DOESN'T give a damn about other people that Jones is bragging about in this letter.
Bob Jones University president Bob Jones III has sent a congratulatory letter to George W. Bush on his re-election(?). I'm not going to post it here: you can find it at that link or - in case it ever goes down - I found it on Google archived here. But I'll note this: that Jones claims that God is using Bush to grant America "a reprieve from the agenda of paganism," that Bush owes "the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you." That he is eager to follow Bush because "you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly."
Somebody inform Bob Jones III that so far as anyone can tell, Bush has never gone to church - in regular worship with other Christians anyway - since coming to Washington. That's something that's not just encouraged: it's a necessity of the Christian life, that we might hold each other accountable. But I guess when you're hand-picked by the Almighty and somewhat considered God's Second Begotten Son you don't have to be held accountable by anyone, right?
By the way, that bit about the college and Martin Luther King's death is an all-too-true story: when Jones' father, Bob Jones Jr. announced that King had been killed, the assembled students applauded and cheered... especially as Jones declared that King was "an apostate". Jones' daddy didn't get it then and Jones doesn't get it now: that Christians are supposed to rescue lost people from a dying world, and not rescue a dying world for lost people.
That's all that "Christians" like Jones and Falwell and Robertson and Bush and Ashcroft and too many others are concerned with. That's all they see: a world split by factionalism. Where it's practically considered a justifiable biblical mandate to hate one another because those other people are "liberals". It saves them the hassle of having to consider the lives of individuals.
They want to save America... but they don't give a damn about even one person who's hurting for not knowing about God's love for them.
And it's because he really DOESN'T give a damn about other people that Jones is bragging about in this letter.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
"Jesus speaks through the Republicans" or: how some Christians use politics to self-destruct their own religion
Nope, this ain't from The Onion and don't think that I didn't mistake it for parody either 'cuz at first I did. Boyz and goylz, this is legit... unless this was some disgruntled anti-Bush person who took this route to make Bush supporters look ridiculous. After THIS election I'll concede that ANYTHING is possible, that the bar is now so low that there's nothing that people on either side won't do to destroy the other. Anyway, this is from The Morning Call newspaper out of Allentown, Pennsylvania. Here's the direct link if you be so lacking in faith that this is legit. But just in case that link goes down I'm gonna cut-'n-paste the full letter right here:
Ummmm... no Earl, it wasn't God's will that George W. Bush was elected and if you believe that it was, then you are destroying a bedrock foundation of your own faith because by stating that the outcome of this election was God's choice then it logically follows that there is no free will or choice at all on the part of the individual. And if the individual has no free will then it follows that a person cannot choose whether or not to turn away from sin. Therefore, it logically follows that there was no reason for Jesus Christ to have come... or worse, that He did come but His sufering and death were ultimately meaningless and served no purpose at all. Which lends itself toward only four possible conclusions that can possibly come from what Earl is suggesting here: (1) Jesus Christ was not the Son of God but was a lying ordinary human being, (2) Jesus Christ was not the Son of God because He was terminally insane, (3) God exists and He is insane, or (4) there is no God.
GOD DID NOT DIRECT THE OUTCOME OF THIS ELECTION TO SUIT THE REPUBLICANS. And anyone who suggests that He did had better accept that God made the German people vote in Adolf Hitler or (some will shudder at this) that God decreed that Bill Clinton would be the American President from 1993 to 2001. No doubt that God could have done so, given that He's all-powerful, but He couldn't do that in this situation without violating everything that is in accordance with His nature. Just as He gives each person the choice of whether they will serve Him or not, God gave we the people of the United States the free and clear choice to govern ourselves... which more often than not directly correlates to how much we allow Him to govern our own hearts. But we still have the final choice of determining how this plays out. That does NOT mean that we can make God's plans go awry though: as my best friend beautifully put it to me a few years ago, "you can't mess up with God no matter how bad you do something." Whichever way we screwed this election up - and we're going to screw up regardless of outcome so long as we remain good little slaves to the two-party kleptocracy - God's plans are going to win out in the end. And without anyone, much less a political party, playing a role in it "lest it should boast."
Did God know the outcome of this election (whatever outcome that may turn out to be) beforehand? Given that He's omnipotent, of course He did. But if anything, He allowed it to happen... meaning that He's letting us live with the consequences of our own choices and actions... instead of directly intervening to tilt things one way or another. I mean, c'mon: does anyone not a few cans short of a six-pack seriously believe that Almighty God, Creator of the Universe, Architect of the Heavens, Delver of the Depths, Maker of All Things Great and Small, Sovereign of the Visible and Invisible, Final Arbiter Between Good and Evil, Perfect and Righteous Judge of the Living and the Dead, the Authority From Which All Authority Derives, the Glory Defying Comprehension, the Peace Beyond Understanding, the Wisdom Surpassing All Human Foolishness, the Justice Without Question and yet the Love Without Bounds, the Lord of All That Is Or Ever Will Be... what need or interest could God possibly have with the Republican Party?
But if some people would rather that we wait for a puff of white smoke to come out of the chimney of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to indicate that God has chosen a new President, I guess we can change the Constitution to allow for that too, huh?
Jesus speaks through the Republicans
I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.
It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.
The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.
Earl Balboa
Washington Township
Ummmm... no Earl, it wasn't God's will that George W. Bush was elected and if you believe that it was, then you are destroying a bedrock foundation of your own faith because by stating that the outcome of this election was God's choice then it logically follows that there is no free will or choice at all on the part of the individual. And if the individual has no free will then it follows that a person cannot choose whether or not to turn away from sin. Therefore, it logically follows that there was no reason for Jesus Christ to have come... or worse, that He did come but His sufering and death were ultimately meaningless and served no purpose at all. Which lends itself toward only four possible conclusions that can possibly come from what Earl is suggesting here: (1) Jesus Christ was not the Son of God but was a lying ordinary human being, (2) Jesus Christ was not the Son of God because He was terminally insane, (3) God exists and He is insane, or (4) there is no God.
GOD DID NOT DIRECT THE OUTCOME OF THIS ELECTION TO SUIT THE REPUBLICANS. And anyone who suggests that He did had better accept that God made the German people vote in Adolf Hitler or (some will shudder at this) that God decreed that Bill Clinton would be the American President from 1993 to 2001. No doubt that God could have done so, given that He's all-powerful, but He couldn't do that in this situation without violating everything that is in accordance with His nature. Just as He gives each person the choice of whether they will serve Him or not, God gave we the people of the United States the free and clear choice to govern ourselves... which more often than not directly correlates to how much we allow Him to govern our own hearts. But we still have the final choice of determining how this plays out. That does NOT mean that we can make God's plans go awry though: as my best friend beautifully put it to me a few years ago, "you can't mess up with God no matter how bad you do something." Whichever way we screwed this election up - and we're going to screw up regardless of outcome so long as we remain good little slaves to the two-party kleptocracy - God's plans are going to win out in the end. And without anyone, much less a political party, playing a role in it "lest it should boast."
Did God know the outcome of this election (whatever outcome that may turn out to be) beforehand? Given that He's omnipotent, of course He did. But if anything, He allowed it to happen... meaning that He's letting us live with the consequences of our own choices and actions... instead of directly intervening to tilt things one way or another. I mean, c'mon: does anyone not a few cans short of a six-pack seriously believe that Almighty God, Creator of the Universe, Architect of the Heavens, Delver of the Depths, Maker of All Things Great and Small, Sovereign of the Visible and Invisible, Final Arbiter Between Good and Evil, Perfect and Righteous Judge of the Living and the Dead, the Authority From Which All Authority Derives, the Glory Defying Comprehension, the Peace Beyond Understanding, the Wisdom Surpassing All Human Foolishness, the Justice Without Question and yet the Love Without Bounds, the Lord of All That Is Or Ever Will Be... what need or interest could God possibly have with the Republican Party?
But if some people would rather that we wait for a puff of white smoke to come out of the chimney of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to indicate that God has chosen a new President, I guess we can change the Constitution to allow for that too, huh?
The only thing I intend to say about the death of Yasser Arafat
All I'll say is that Yasser Arafat was by admission a very devoted disciple of his "uncle" and that those beliefs are what no doubt played the central guiding role throughout most of the decades of his life. Understanding that, it became very difficult for me to judge the man without the harshest subjectivity.
A Google search for the "grand mufti of jerusalem" string should readily provide everything that you need to know, if you want to know what I meant by all that.
(And for any other historians/students of the occult out there: what Dietrich Eckhardt was to Adolf Hitler, so Hajj Amin Al Husseini became to his close relative Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini... better known as the late Yasser Arafat.)
A Google search for the "grand mufti of jerusalem" string should readily provide everything that you need to know, if you want to know what I meant by all that.
(And for any other historians/students of the occult out there: what Dietrich Eckhardt was to Adolf Hitler, so Hajj Amin Al Husseini became to his close relative Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini... better known as the late Yasser Arafat.)
Iris Chang - author of "The Rape of Nanking" - dead at age 36
Hardly anyone in the western world had ever heard of Nanking, or cared about what transpired there during 1937-1938 when the Japanese invaded the city. Then came 1997 and the release of The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang. Suddenly it seemed like everybody was talking about it. The Rape of Nanking became to those of us in our college's history department what Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil was to the residents of Savannah: if you asked one of us "have you read it?" they would instantly know what "it" was referring to.
In a lot of ways Chang's book evoked the same time-delayed reaction that started happening about twenty-five or thirty years after the Holocaust in Europe: it wasn't until people were confronted with the fact that, yes, this REALLY DID HAPPEN that the full brunt of the horror was felt. That's not to suggest that the Nanking occupation was intentionally ignored by those of us in America and Europe, but the sheer weight of firsthand accounts on our own soil about the Nazis' atrocities simply overwhelmed - and unfortunately so - those of the other horrors of World War II. And it took a pretty long while for even all those eyewitnesses to open up and start confronting the rest of us with what happened.
What literally millions did in bringing the Holocaust to the fore of western conscience, a mere handful of scholars did the same to make people aware of what happened at Nanking. And it must be said with very little argument that none did so much to accomplish that as did Iris Chang. She was young - only 29 when The Rape of Nanking was published - but already a dedicated researcher and model historian. In pulling together the story of Nanking she revealed herself to be a master of the narrative. Stephen Ambrose - author of Band of Brothers and other WWII books - described Chang as "maybe the best young historian we've got." And if I might add with all due and sincerest honesty, Iris Chang was a very beautiful woman.
I didn't hear until a little while ago that Tuesday she was found dead - by self-inflicted gunshot to the head - inside a car along a California highway.
Here's the full story that got sent to me with the details. I know that there's a zillion other things in the news right now that are gobbling up everyone's attention, but I felt really compelled to make a note of her passing, and lament the loss of one of the very few of my own generation's greatest historical minds. Thoughts and prayers going out to her family today.
In a lot of ways Chang's book evoked the same time-delayed reaction that started happening about twenty-five or thirty years after the Holocaust in Europe: it wasn't until people were confronted with the fact that, yes, this REALLY DID HAPPEN that the full brunt of the horror was felt. That's not to suggest that the Nanking occupation was intentionally ignored by those of us in America and Europe, but the sheer weight of firsthand accounts on our own soil about the Nazis' atrocities simply overwhelmed - and unfortunately so - those of the other horrors of World War II. And it took a pretty long while for even all those eyewitnesses to open up and start confronting the rest of us with what happened.
What literally millions did in bringing the Holocaust to the fore of western conscience, a mere handful of scholars did the same to make people aware of what happened at Nanking. And it must be said with very little argument that none did so much to accomplish that as did Iris Chang. She was young - only 29 when The Rape of Nanking was published - but already a dedicated researcher and model historian. In pulling together the story of Nanking she revealed herself to be a master of the narrative. Stephen Ambrose - author of Band of Brothers and other WWII books - described Chang as "maybe the best young historian we've got." And if I might add with all due and sincerest honesty, Iris Chang was a very beautiful woman.
I didn't hear until a little while ago that Tuesday she was found dead - by self-inflicted gunshot to the head - inside a car along a California highway.
Here's the full story that got sent to me with the details. I know that there's a zillion other things in the news right now that are gobbling up everyone's attention, but I felt really compelled to make a note of her passing, and lament the loss of one of the very few of my own generation's greatest historical minds. Thoughts and prayers going out to her family today.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
A hearty hello to all the good folks making their way to this blog from Democratic Underground
I just hope this doesn't put the brakes on any of the friendships I still have with a lot of the good folks at Free Republic.
It ain't easy being me, I'm tellings ya...
Hey guys, please remember that I'm like Michael Corleone in The Godfather before he pulls the gun out of the toilet and shoots Sollozzo and that scumbucket police captain: I'm "a civilian". The whole war for power is something I don't want a piece of action in. And I'm gonna be friendly with anyone no matter their affiliation. Just don't want either side gunning for me is all :-)
It ain't easy being me, I'm tellings ya...
Hey guys, please remember that I'm like Michael Corleone in The Godfather before he pulls the gun out of the toilet and shoots Sollozzo and that scumbucket police captain: I'm "a civilian". The whole war for power is something I don't want a piece of action in. And I'm gonna be friendly with anyone no matter their affiliation. Just don't want either side gunning for me is all :-)
