Throw All The Women Out Of Congress!
Dude, I so didn't say that. It was this lady. So what if I can see her point?
"No" To Blog Regulation
I make the following pledge:
If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.
Inspired by this post.
If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.
Inspired by this post.
Suck On That PETA!
Looks like we're going to start drilling in Alaska, something Bush has wanted to do since his first term. The fact that it makes all the sense in the world seems to be lost on many environmentalists. The depth of their delusions about the environment, I think, is best summed up with:
Pristine? What does that mean? Do they think the environment is forever trapped in some kind of mythical perfection like one sees looking into a snow globe? This isn't the mean hunter-man shooting Bambi's mother or some other Disney-like fantasy. The very fact that these environmentalists live in large cities attests to the fact that they cannot survive in the wilderness with their cute fuzzy bunnies and huggable bears swapping stories about gum drops and lollipops. This pristine wilderness they want so much to maintain is anything but. It's violent and destructive and often only by the death of something can other things survive. And like it or not man is part of that equation. The environment is in constant upheaval and trying to keep it trapped in some sort of fantastic "pristine" state will only ensure its demise. Just look at the early history of Yellowstone.
So, until I see these hypocrites abandoning their environmentally destructive 1960’s VW busses, globetrotting in their private jets and, I don’t know, actually start practicing what they preach, I could give a flip what they think about anything.
Environmentalists said while the vote was disappointing, they haven't given up the fight. "It only strengthens our resolve to protect America's most pristine national wildlife refuge for our children's future," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation.
Pristine? What does that mean? Do they think the environment is forever trapped in some kind of mythical perfection like one sees looking into a snow globe? This isn't the mean hunter-man shooting Bambi's mother or some other Disney-like fantasy. The very fact that these environmentalists live in large cities attests to the fact that they cannot survive in the wilderness with their cute fuzzy bunnies and huggable bears swapping stories about gum drops and lollipops. This pristine wilderness they want so much to maintain is anything but. It's violent and destructive and often only by the death of something can other things survive. And like it or not man is part of that equation. The environment is in constant upheaval and trying to keep it trapped in some sort of fantastic "pristine" state will only ensure its demise. Just look at the early history of Yellowstone.
So, until I see these hypocrites abandoning their environmentally destructive 1960’s VW busses, globetrotting in their private jets and, I don’t know, actually start practicing what they preach, I could give a flip what they think about anything.
Iraq National Assembly Swears in Lawmakers
Yeah, I totally stole the headline to this story but it pretty much says it all. Woohoo! Unfortunately the event was marked with some terrorist (not militant and not insurgent) violence but that's becoming par for the course nowadays. A good step in a good direction. Things are shaping up quite nicely over there and I hope the best for them.
Now, I'm curious about something. How come this was mentioned twice?
And again:
Why couldn't this be condensed into one statement. And, in my opinion, the first statement seemingly came out of nowhere. It was like, "Hey, good things are happening but, look, a U.S. soldier died!" What I find interesting is that they attach no date to the death. Did it happen that day or some other day? I suppose one can assume it did but the wording doesn't confirm it. That makes me suspicious. And, of course, they couldn't leave without giving a full U.S. death toll:
Not to be a heartless bastard but who cares? What does this have to do with the story itself? It just seems petty to me. Now, I'm not trying to demean American deaths in Iraq, not at all! It's just that I'm tired of having a death toll tagged onto the end over every bit of good news we hear. Am I the only one?
Now, I'm curious about something. How come this was mentioned twice?
A U.S. soldier died in a roadside bomb blast south of Baghdad, the military said, while a car bomb northeast of the capital killed four Iraqis and injured 15.
And again:
The U.S. soldier who died south of the Iraqi capital was killed by a roadside bomb, the military said in a statement.
Why couldn't this be condensed into one statement. And, in my opinion, the first statement seemingly came out of nowhere. It was like, "Hey, good things are happening but, look, a U.S. soldier died!" What I find interesting is that they attach no date to the death. Did it happen that day or some other day? I suppose one can assume it did but the wording doesn't confirm it. That makes me suspicious. And, of course, they couldn't leave without giving a full U.S. death toll:
As of Wednesday, at least 1,517 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Not to be a heartless bastard but who cares? What does this have to do with the story itself? It just seems petty to me. Now, I'm not trying to demean American deaths in Iraq, not at all! It's just that I'm tired of having a death toll tagged onto the end over every bit of good news we hear. Am I the only one?
It Burns Like The Heat Of A Thousand Suns!!!
Of course, I'm talking about Hell. The fiery abode of those who reject Jesus as their Lord and Savior for all of eternity. But then, we all knew that already. Didn't we? I've already covered this topic in length at my old blog. But, since there are no original ideas under the sun, I've decided to talk about it once more. Albeit much more briefly than my previous talk.
Something an atheist friend of mine said about hell stuck with me to this day. Indeed he states that it is this very doctrine that plays a major role in leading him away from the faith. "God is evil," he said, "if He allows hell to exist." His logic was along the lines of that the punishment is disproportionate to the crime. An infinite punishment for a finite transgression. His point had merit and, indeed, Christian philosophers have grappled with this subject for many, many years.
He seemed to think that those sentenced to hell should be given a second chance once getting there. On the surface that seemed to make sense. So much so that I too began to probe the issue. I believe that this particular objection was covered in my old blog but I'll retreat it again here because it's this particular objection I see the most merit for.
Now, what struck me the most was not what my friend had said, exactly, but how he said it. If fact, how most people I've heard say it. They say it with boiling anger. Unfortunately, it's at that most I remove myself from discussions. As soon as that button is pressed there is no advancing. So, I left it alone before it really began. Anger came up to the surface that fast!
Why do I feel that how the objection was emoted is more interesting than what verbiage was used? Simple. It tells me where the objection is rooted. It tells me that the objection is closely tied to a guttural reaction so strong that the two become intertwined. They feed off of one another thus reinforcing the legitimacy of one another. The anger response tells the logical objection its right and the logical objection gives the anger response a foundation on which to stand. And the cycle never ends.
So, preposition I find interesting is this: That a person with such an adverse guttural reaction to a location they don't even acknowledge exists will suddenly have a change of heart when exposed to the reality of it.
I mean, we're not debating whether or not there are places called Wagga Wagga or Wollongong in Australia (there are) but rather a very real negative, and eternal, consequence to a series of life choices. I'm sure a number of pretty metaphors could be drawn to support the opposing argument but none of them are drastic enough - so let me draw an appropriate one. You have a child. You tell the child in black-and-white terms that they should not play in the street. The child doesn't believe you that there's a danger and even gets upset at the fact that you're not allowing them to play wherever they want. So, what do you, as a parent do? Do you let them get a "taste" of getting clipped by a car? It's the same thing with hell. There is no "getting a taste" of it. Indeed your entire life has led you to this point. Why does God need to let you get your feet singed before you finally listen? Perhaps, as the Bible suggests, that those who are sentenced to hell don't want to be released. Quite simply the anger and prideful indignation those this side of hell feel will only be amplified once they finally reach their final destination. So incensed will they be that leaving will never occur to them. Much as a child who is angry at a parent for what they feel is an unjust punishment. They're so busy being mad at the parent they give no thought to the transgression itself because, as they see it, it was so minor. So, they want nothing to do with the parent. But, luckily, in this finite existence, the rage cools and what was once so intolerable becomes a distant memory that one may look back on and laugh at their childish overreaction.
Unfortunately, with hell, there is no such release, no such fading with time. And so the cycle of rage never cools and never asides. I feel, in most ways, it's just that simple. Those condemned to hell never realize the magnitude of their transgression because they don't want to realize it. They're to busy feeling they themselves have been wronged to even expend the energy to look at the other side of the picture. So, when those who object, "The punishment doesn't fit the crime," what makes them think that a taste of hell will change their mind? Rationally, what changes? If hell does exist you've already decided that God is evil, for whatever reason, and then, I suppose, you can take you licks for all eternity having won a moral victory, of some twisted kind. You proved to yourself that God is evil because he punished you for spitting in His face. If that doesn't sound like a childish defense I don't know what does.
Finally, I wish to talk very briefly on the origin of the doctrine of hell. Most people believe it's uniquely Christian and they're right to a point. It's in the New Testament that it gets the most air time. A lot of doctrines get serious air time. Heaven, hell, angels, demons and a bunch of others. However, what's interesting to note is that these thoughts are all rooted in Judaism. That is to say, Jews of the time were talking, thinking and writing about these issues. Jesus didn't all of a sudden start talking about them on His own. These things were well known to the people of His time. These aren't startling revelations or any such thing. Theological advancement had been occurring in the 400 years since the Hebrew Bible stopped and the life of Jesus began. So, no, the doctrine of hell is quite Jewish.
So, why isn't it touched upon much in the Hebrew Bible? Well, the best explanation I read was one put forth by C.S. Lewis. He notes that many people focus on heaven and hell to the exclusion of much else. It becomes a near obsession. They must get to heaven and in obsession over it they must then obsess about avoiding hell. But, in reality, their obsession should be God. He felt that the doctrines of heaven and hell shouldn't be touched on much during the early development stages of a believer. To do so will only distract them from what is most important - Jesus. Once they are solid in the relationship with Him then they are ready for the deeper issues. With this thinking he postulates that it was much the same for the early Jews and their walk with God. Thoughts of heaven and hell would only serve to distract them from a relationship they were already having problems with. A one-on-one relationship with God. Once they could perfect that then they were ready for doctrines inconsequential to their salvation. Then they could fiddle with the concepts of spiritual warfare and of heaven and hell.
As a Christian I think this explanation works on, as far as I can tell, all levels.
Something an atheist friend of mine said about hell stuck with me to this day. Indeed he states that it is this very doctrine that plays a major role in leading him away from the faith. "God is evil," he said, "if He allows hell to exist." His logic was along the lines of that the punishment is disproportionate to the crime. An infinite punishment for a finite transgression. His point had merit and, indeed, Christian philosophers have grappled with this subject for many, many years.
He seemed to think that those sentenced to hell should be given a second chance once getting there. On the surface that seemed to make sense. So much so that I too began to probe the issue. I believe that this particular objection was covered in my old blog but I'll retreat it again here because it's this particular objection I see the most merit for.
Now, what struck me the most was not what my friend had said, exactly, but how he said it. If fact, how most people I've heard say it. They say it with boiling anger. Unfortunately, it's at that most I remove myself from discussions. As soon as that button is pressed there is no advancing. So, I left it alone before it really began. Anger came up to the surface that fast!
Why do I feel that how the objection was emoted is more interesting than what verbiage was used? Simple. It tells me where the objection is rooted. It tells me that the objection is closely tied to a guttural reaction so strong that the two become intertwined. They feed off of one another thus reinforcing the legitimacy of one another. The anger response tells the logical objection its right and the logical objection gives the anger response a foundation on which to stand. And the cycle never ends.
So, preposition I find interesting is this: That a person with such an adverse guttural reaction to a location they don't even acknowledge exists will suddenly have a change of heart when exposed to the reality of it.
I mean, we're not debating whether or not there are places called Wagga Wagga or Wollongong in Australia (there are) but rather a very real negative, and eternal, consequence to a series of life choices. I'm sure a number of pretty metaphors could be drawn to support the opposing argument but none of them are drastic enough - so let me draw an appropriate one. You have a child. You tell the child in black-and-white terms that they should not play in the street. The child doesn't believe you that there's a danger and even gets upset at the fact that you're not allowing them to play wherever they want. So, what do you, as a parent do? Do you let them get a "taste" of getting clipped by a car? It's the same thing with hell. There is no "getting a taste" of it. Indeed your entire life has led you to this point. Why does God need to let you get your feet singed before you finally listen? Perhaps, as the Bible suggests, that those who are sentenced to hell don't want to be released. Quite simply the anger and prideful indignation those this side of hell feel will only be amplified once they finally reach their final destination. So incensed will they be that leaving will never occur to them. Much as a child who is angry at a parent for what they feel is an unjust punishment. They're so busy being mad at the parent they give no thought to the transgression itself because, as they see it, it was so minor. So, they want nothing to do with the parent. But, luckily, in this finite existence, the rage cools and what was once so intolerable becomes a distant memory that one may look back on and laugh at their childish overreaction.
Unfortunately, with hell, there is no such release, no such fading with time. And so the cycle of rage never cools and never asides. I feel, in most ways, it's just that simple. Those condemned to hell never realize the magnitude of their transgression because they don't want to realize it. They're to busy feeling they themselves have been wronged to even expend the energy to look at the other side of the picture. So, when those who object, "The punishment doesn't fit the crime," what makes them think that a taste of hell will change their mind? Rationally, what changes? If hell does exist you've already decided that God is evil, for whatever reason, and then, I suppose, you can take you licks for all eternity having won a moral victory, of some twisted kind. You proved to yourself that God is evil because he punished you for spitting in His face. If that doesn't sound like a childish defense I don't know what does.
Finally, I wish to talk very briefly on the origin of the doctrine of hell. Most people believe it's uniquely Christian and they're right to a point. It's in the New Testament that it gets the most air time. A lot of doctrines get serious air time. Heaven, hell, angels, demons and a bunch of others. However, what's interesting to note is that these thoughts are all rooted in Judaism. That is to say, Jews of the time were talking, thinking and writing about these issues. Jesus didn't all of a sudden start talking about them on His own. These things were well known to the people of His time. These aren't startling revelations or any such thing. Theological advancement had been occurring in the 400 years since the Hebrew Bible stopped and the life of Jesus began. So, no, the doctrine of hell is quite Jewish.
So, why isn't it touched upon much in the Hebrew Bible? Well, the best explanation I read was one put forth by C.S. Lewis. He notes that many people focus on heaven and hell to the exclusion of much else. It becomes a near obsession. They must get to heaven and in obsession over it they must then obsess about avoiding hell. But, in reality, their obsession should be God. He felt that the doctrines of heaven and hell shouldn't be touched on much during the early development stages of a believer. To do so will only distract them from what is most important - Jesus. Once they are solid in the relationship with Him then they are ready for the deeper issues. With this thinking he postulates that it was much the same for the early Jews and their walk with God. Thoughts of heaven and hell would only serve to distract them from a relationship they were already having problems with. A one-on-one relationship with God. Once they could perfect that then they were ready for doctrines inconsequential to their salvation. Then they could fiddle with the concepts of spiritual warfare and of heaven and hell.
As a Christian I think this explanation works on, as far as I can tell, all levels.
The PSP
So, I'm readin' the March 2005 issue of the Official PlayStation Magazine (let it be known I prefer PSM... at least when they had a ton of artwork by Ryan Kinnaird) and they were talking about the PSP, Sony's upcoming video game handheld. In short, they want to kick the living crap out of Nintendo. If you know anything about Nintendo it's held a nigh monopoly on the handheld market. It's because of any nefarious marketing on its part (I'm lookin' at you Microsoft) but because no one else has really bothered to try. Sure, there was the Atari Lynx and Sega's Gamegear but Nintendo dominated with the Game Boy. Everyone knows this. Heck, you can think the Game Boy stinks and still you have to admit that it dominated the marketshare. Want proof? Where's the Lynx, Gamegear or whoever else? That's right. So, no one has really tried to compete. Now, enter the PSP. Sony wants to dominate bad. I think it's looking to do with handhelds what it did with with the consoles (it beat the crap out of Nintendo and Sega).
What I recently learned is that the PSP may retail for $150 (what the Game Boy DS retails for) instead of the widely accepted $200. Even the $200 price tag was pretty damn cheap. The PSP isgoing to be a powerful device. Sony would like it to be a portalable digital media center. Movies, MP3, wireless internet - the works. And boy is it slick looking to boot!
So, the PSP is suppose to hit U.S. retail outlets the end of this month and it's got a decent game lineup. And that's what sells hardware - period. I'm geeked to see what is to come. I'm not really interested in the Nintendo DS. I have a Game Boy Advance SP and it's merely okay. I have great expectations for the PSP and competetion only helps create superior products (games). What I'm dying to see is a game that will sell the PSP to me. When the PS1 first came out I was still looking hard at the Sega Dreamcast. Final Fantasy 7 sold me on the original PlayStation. So, it's going to be an RPG that will sell me on the PSP. Game Boy Advance RPG's have been fairly weak. I don't think there's a must-own RPG for it like FF7 was for the PS1. If Sony pulls something off like that... man... I may just have a reason to spend less time with my PC.
What I recently learned is that the PSP may retail for $150 (what the Game Boy DS retails for) instead of the widely accepted $200. Even the $200 price tag was pretty damn cheap. The PSP isgoing to be a powerful device. Sony would like it to be a portalable digital media center. Movies, MP3, wireless internet - the works. And boy is it slick looking to boot!
So, the PSP is suppose to hit U.S. retail outlets the end of this month and it's got a decent game lineup. And that's what sells hardware - period. I'm geeked to see what is to come. I'm not really interested in the Nintendo DS. I have a Game Boy Advance SP and it's merely okay. I have great expectations for the PSP and competetion only helps create superior products (games). What I'm dying to see is a game that will sell the PSP to me. When the PS1 first came out I was still looking hard at the Sega Dreamcast. Final Fantasy 7 sold me on the original PlayStation. So, it's going to be an RPG that will sell me on the PSP. Game Boy Advance RPG's have been fairly weak. I don't think there's a must-own RPG for it like FF7 was for the PS1. If Sony pulls something off like that... man... I may just have a reason to spend less time with my PC.
