Saturday, February 28, 2004
Over on the Forum, we were having a little chat about the representation of Jesus as white, and what his true color, if you will, was. Let me say again, that this in no way affects the truth of Christ or any such blasphemous thing. I only mean to criticize the ethnocentrism that seems to be intrinsic in Western Christianity. At any rate, while reading a few articles on the subject of culture and Christ and ethnicity, I came across this beautiful article written by a missionary. It concerns his experiences witnessing to other countries and cultures. If any of you are at all interested in this stuff, I urge you to read it.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Most of you who read my Blog who live around here listen to 98.1 at least a bit. Have you heard lately the nut pastor who's bought time on the station? Everyday on my way to or from school I hear "A Spiritual Moment with Brother so and so". He may be religious, but he's about as spiritual as a disco poster. I've not the patience to list all his foibles, but I will mention today's.
Pastor what's-his-name has this great skill of rambling on and randomly quoting scripture and saying nothing. Today he was speaking about Jesus meeting the woman at the well. This is from John chapter 4:
15 The woman said to Him, "Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw." 16 Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." 17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have well said, 'I have no husband,' 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly." 19 The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet."
Then this fellow says, out of nowhere, “There is one way to distinguish a false prophet from a true prophet, and that is the true prophet will address then sin in the sinner and not just the sinner. Too few people today will address the sin in the world”
There are 2 GLARING problems with this moron's "spiritual moment" today. First, he turns this passage of love and forgiveness into a condemnation of all sinners in the world. Second, and more importantly, he completely corrupts the scriptures by proclaiming how to determine the true from the false prophet.
This is from Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology:
The Criteria for Testing False Prophecy: what he says must come to pass, the most proximate fulfillments being the validators of the more distant predictions (Deut 18:21-22).
So, the real way to determine a true from a false prophet is WHETHER HIS/HER PROPHECY IS TRUE.
To paraphrase from the words of the Christ, no rotten tree shall bear good fruit and vice versa.
Before I get to my point here, let me say that all this "anti-Semitic" talk is so ignorant. First, people who hate Jews will hate Jews regardless of any movie. People with a bit of sense will not hate Jews, again, regardless of any movie.
Second, the movie is NOT anti-Semitic. Some of you may recall that JESUS, MARY, JOSEPH, AND ALL THE DISCIPLES WERE JEWS. Just thought I'd point that out.
My problems lie with the many historical inaccuracies of the film. There are many, but the most glaring example is the one I'll get into now. The casting. What's with all the white people already? Have you ever been to the Middle East, or perhaps SEEN pictures of natives from the region? They ain't white baby. Also, didn't Mary and Joseph go to Egypt to hide from Herod's killing spree? Egypt's the first place I'D hide a white baby, yesiree.
Why is it that no one wants to admit that Jesus was Arabic looking? Or even, quite possibly, black? Would this make him any less our Savior? Of course not.
Once again, I believe we can thank the Roman Catholic Church for this one, or at least Michelangelo who, five centuries ago, used his white cousin as the model for the savior. Yay white supremacy!
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Teresa Heinz Kerry:
"Another thing that drives me crazy, and I hope I don't offend anyone here, is WAL-MART...They destroy communities."
Teresa Heinz Reality:
H.J. Heinz III Marital Trust
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Assets: Over $1,000,000
Dividends, Income: $2,501 - $5,000
04/04/02: Purchase: $500,001 - $1,000,000
04/05/02: Purchase: $500,001 - $1,000,000
06/04/02: Purchase: $15,001 - $50,000
06/06/02: Purchase: $50,001 - $100,000
11/13/02: Purchase: $50,001 - $100,000
11/14/02: Purchase: $15,001 - $50,000
11/14/02: Purchase: $15,001 - $50,000
^Cribbed from Drudge^
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A burglary suspect was shot to death by police after a car chase that ended when he backed his vehicle into their patrol cars, a sequence of events broadcast live on local TV stations.
Police and the district attorney's office are investigating the actions of three officers who fired into the suspect's car.
I love police
Somehow I got asked to come to this rich guy’s place up near Jackson. Turns out, he wanted me to join his team of 20 something guys that race indy-car like things. I would say they were 7/8 scale models of indy cars. I remember mine was built funny. There was a piece of the rollcage, just a small bar, that jutted between the gas and the brake pedals. I had no capability then for heel-and-toeing. You can imagine this greatly retarded my lap times. This guy was rich, he offered the good drivers (including me, apparently) all kinds of free stuff just to stay and get payed to race. That’s the first really good dream I’ve had in a while. I was so happy.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Yeah, somewhere along the way I screwed up my template so that my blog wouldn't update when I updated it. So instead of weeding through code replacing lost metatags, I just decided to steal a new template and go with that. I'm probably gonna chance some colors or something, but this is the new look. Until I change it again...
Wow...we knew about some of the 911 guys before hand? Shocking.... check out the story from the NY Times.
Monday, February 23, 2004
"You look beutiful! Incidently, my favorite artist is Picasso"
I think that's gonna be my new pick up line.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Looking to fellow Southerners to help keep his presidential campaign afloat, John Edwards challenged front-runner John Kerry Thursday to debate him in Georgia, saying the stakes are too important for Georgia voters not to hear their views.
The North Carolina senator, who despite his Dixie roots has carried only one of three Southern states so far, avoided calling Georgia a "must-win" state on March 2 in the "Super Tuesday" round of primaries when bigger states like New York and California also vote............
I'm just curious who they're going to get to play the roles of the men in the Man-To-Man debate.....
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Lookie, over on the left. I added a guestbook for you all to sign, and a forum where we can talk politics and music and Holley 450's and such. I haven't finished setting them up yet, but when I do, I ask you all to use them. I'd love some nice fiery battles and general feedback on the site. Even if you're as lazy as me, at least sign the guestbook. Sweet dreams fellas, i'm out.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Well guys and gals, as you may have noticed, i was WAY off on this Democratic nominee thing. And I apologize. I usually hit this stuff pretty close. Now I don't claim some preternatural psychic ability; I just understand how this stuff works. As I said, I screwed this one up. But I realize now, why I screwed up.
You see friends, candidates are chosen buy anointing, not voting. That’s the just the way it works. That’s why I was able to call the election so early in 2000. I could read when GW was anointed, and it was obvious that he would win. I knew he would win the nom, and the Presidency. Now, granted it was a lot closer in the Presidential race than even I expected, but he won. Here’s where I missed the boat this year. In the 2000 race, I called the results in mid 1999. That was when the winner was chosen. However, this time, I waited until nearly the end of 03 to make my pick.
As it is, the anointing process happened much earlier, just like in 99. But I wasn’t paying attention. Kerry was THE man back in mid 03, before the maverick candidate, Dean, came in. Kerry was picked, he was the darling, he was the candidate. Then the time came to make it look real.
This follows almost the exact pattern of the 00 race. Bush was the EARLY pick. Then enter the maverick. In this case of course, it was John McCain. It was already decided that Bush was the winner, but the media flocked to McCain, just like they did with Dean, to make it all appear legit. The only real difference between 00 and 04 is that McCain actually competed in the primaries, where as Dean, well, you know.
At any rate, again, I apologize for my mistake and I’ll try not to let it happen again. Kerry will of course be the nominee, though I’m quite unclear who the VP pick will be. I’m guessing on Edwards, but there are many options, and no clear direction. Not that it matters. Bush will win in a close but substantial victory, setting up the Hillary for 08 campaign. Which, I believe, she will win.
Monday, February 16, 2004
I used to be a great fan of Ann Coulter. Beutiful, smart, articulate. But in the last couple of years, she has been slipping farther and farther to insanity. Her vile language toward anyone who disagrees with her started to annoy me. Her book praising Senator McCarthy, that pretty much sent me over the land. And now, an excerpt from one of her latest columns:
Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine non-combat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman - or what Cleland sneeringly calls 'weekend warriors.' Luckily, for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam."
But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard - which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification.
Besides being patently false, these statements are horribly insulting and out of line. As for their veracity, this is from the Washington Post.
"On April 8, 1968, during the siege of Khe Sanh, he stepped off a helicopter and saw a grenade at his feet. He thought he'd dropped it. He was wrong. When he reached down to pick it up, it exploded, ripping off both legs and his right hand. He was 25."
He returned home to Georgia in December 1969. "I had no job, no girlfriend, no car, no hope," he says. "I figured this is a good time to run for the state Senate. And politics became my therapy, forcing me to get out of the house and be seen."
In 1970, at 28, he became the youngest person ever elected to the Georgia Senate. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed him to head the Veterans Administration. In 1982, he was elected as Georgia's secretary of state. In 1996 he was elected to the U.S. Senate, defeating businessman Guy Millner in a very close race."
Coulter went on in the column to demand that people "should stop allowing [Cleland to be] portrayed as a war hero"
Ok, the grenade thing was perhaps not terribly heroic, but he wasn't drunk and screwing around. He was there (you weren't Ann) and he took the risks. As to Clelan not being heroit, four days before the grenade incident, Cleland made some actions which would later earn him the Silver Star, one of the highest honors for bravery. The congressional citation which came with the medal specifically said that during a "heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack Captain Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions." The citation concluded, "Cleland's gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army."
Now that sounds heroic.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
From the Harvard Crimson, Wednesday, February 18, 1970:
"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
Kerry wants "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care."
He also favors a negative income tax and keeping unemployment at a very low level, "even if it means selective economic controls."
Interesting, no? So apparently he's a socialist. For redistribution of wealth and economic controls. Lovely. I'll sure vote for this guy.
Oh, and lest ye say "but that was 30 years ago! Surely he has changed!" I ask you to check out his voting record in congress. He's to the left of Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy. Also, he voted for basically all of the authouritarian measures from Clinton on to Ashcroft. Glorious combination.
Sunday, February 08, 2004
Read this pitiful story. We are now spending in the range (in percentage of GDP and adjusted for inflation)of what we spent on defense during the Cold War. Our military spending is nearly three times that of all our potential adversaries combined. Now I'm not, nor have I ever been, a person calling for huge defense spending cuts. But the story above about GI's and their families spending OUT OF POCKET FOR THEIR MILITARY NECCESITIES sickens me. We're spending these hundreds of billions of dollars. Please tell me where those dollars are going. They're not going to pay raises for troops. Their not going to equipment for our troops. So, praytell, where are my taxes going?
This is copied ver batim from Joshua Claybourn's site. The article concerns statements made by the Prez today on "Meet the Press" about spending. Our wonderfully conservative administration... Anyway Mr. Claybourn makes some wonderful points that I don't believe I could articulate better, so I borrow his words. Please check out his site here
Meet the Numbers
In a much-hyped television appearance on Meet the Press, President Bush discussed everything from the Iraq war to the looming 2004 election battle. Here's a subject that I thought stood out (surprise!):
If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.
This is deceptive and false. Discretionary spending has not declined, and most definitely not "steadily" declined. Discretionary spending has increased by 15% during Bush's first two years in office, more than it did during Clinton's first four years. Total outlays fell under Mr. Clinton, from 22.2 percent of the GDP to 18.4 percent of the GDP in 2000. By 2002, the budget consumed 19.5 percent of the GDP. Here're the numbers presented graphically.
So not only has spending increased in a sheer dollar amount, but the rate of increase and the percentage of the GDP has increased as well. But then comes the standard excuse for all this spending, which one should get used to hearing from partisans, if you haven't gotten used to it already.
And the other thing that I think it's important for people who watch the expenditures side of the equation is to understand we are at war, Tim, and any time you commit your troops into harm's way, they must have the best equipment, the best training, and the best possible pay. That's where we owe it to their loved ones.
So is Bush suggesting that all of this spending is due to necessary military expenditures? If so, that's another false statement. Spending for education, job training, unemployment assistance, Medicare, Social Security, veterans benefits, food stamps and other "human resources" has risen from 11.5 percent of GDP to 12.7 percent. Indeed, most of the largest increases having nothing to do with national security. Here's another graphic.
Data is from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, and the White House Office of Management and Budget. Graphs, which use those numbers, are provided by the Cato institute.
Update: These numbers account for inflation according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Update 2: I had this excuse sent to me just recently:
What the President meant to say that President Clinton's last budget *grew* (key word, that) discretionary spending at 15%. Bush's first budget *grew* discretionary spending at 6%. His proposed budget this year *grows* discretionary spending at .55%.
Perhaps he "meant" to say that, but then what he meant to say is still not true. Clinton's last budget increased discretionary spending by 4.56%. Bush's first budget increased discretionary spending by 7.06%. His second budget increased discretionary spending by 10.1%. So Bush has actually steadily increased discretionary spending since Clinton.
Besides, all of this ignores the very important point that just because Clinton spent at a certain rate, it does not mean that Bush can justly do the same, especially when Bush is actually doing worse.
Thanks for the good work Josh, keep it up.
"Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons. He was a dangerous man in the dangerous part of the world." George W. Bush
This is exactly the way the Federal Govment should work. We've gotta crack down on those tofu eatin hippies who don't like killin folk. Drop em like at Kent State, that'd show em.
Check out the story from the SacBee sacbee.com -- 24-Hour News: National News -- Federal government wins right to war protesters' records
Please stop telling me that our civil liberties are being protected.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
All the Right side pundits are always whining about how much all the left and Dems hate Bush. And the exit polls from today support that. Something like 80% of voters listed anger at the administration as their 1st voting issue. I find this sad. However, those numbers seem shockingly familiar to the numbers from the RIGHT in 96. I really don’t think the Left hate’s Bush anymore than the Right hated (and still hates) Clinton. What a short memory span these people have, they don’t remember the politics of hate from the 90’s. But it is still in their voices each time they say the C word, which is way to often. Hannity is the worst. No matter what the issue, he ALWAYS finds a way to compare it to the Clinton administration. Also sad.
Monday, February 02, 2004
Bush OK's Independent Probe of Prewar Intelligence
Well, ole GW has decided to say "ok" to the independent probe. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the tremendous pressure coming from all sides for him to do so. It's about time.
Also, according to the Washington Post, the Justice Department has given semi autonomy to an inquiry into who in the administration leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, criticized the administration's assertion that Iraq had sought nuclear material in Africa. This seems like a complete revenge move on the side of the administration.
Anyway, with two outside probes going, and mounting evidence of deceit, November is looking much less like the sure thing for Bush that I thought it would be.