The Right Spin

Rosemary made a short post responding to in inquiry about the extent of God's control.

Allow me to chime in. The inquiring mind was quoted as asking:

"If God is all powerful then, in theory, everything that happens, happens because either He caused it or allowed it to happen. On can make the arguement that for Christanity to be true, every single atom is under God's control."

The sentence is absolutely correct. Every single atom is under God's control. And all things that happen are not necessarily caused by God but they are allowed by God to occur. Thus begging the question, "If God allows evil to occur is He not evil." The answer being - no. God allows evil to do what it does so that He may demonstrate His power over it to those who trust and accept Him. But this doesn't mean that bad things won't happen to good Christians. In fact the Bible makes it clear that bad things will occur with greater frequency to Christian because the lord of this world hates them. And it's this friction that makes Christians even better. "Iron sharpens iron" couldn't be a better analogy. The greatest irony that the more evil Satan brings upon Christians the closer to God those Christians become! God uses evil to bring people under His divine protection.

But the bottom line is that God must allow evil to occur in the world so that we have a clear choice. For Him not to would make Him a tyrant.

In this second part of two I will address AngelLover's inquiry about the border.

We need run a 30 feet high 10 feet thick wall of concrete across our southern border. Anti-personnel turret emplacements atop that wall spaced every 15 feet (we need that interlaced field of fire). A mine field extending 30 yards into Mexican territory (what are they gonna do about it, huh?) with punji sticks to mix things up a bit. Ummm, let's see... oh! Dubya in a ten-gallon hat with shotgun in hand on a mighty throne 50 feet in the air. With a bullhorn at his side he shall decree his word as Scripture. So shall it be done.

That would rule.

But to be serious, I'm all for immigration. No problem with it whatsoever. But, this is my country and my home and when people want to enter my home I'd rather they knock first and not climb in through the window. Not doing so dramatically increases their odds of getting shot.

It's also a sign of respect from those who want to partake of the American dream and not those who seek to steal it. If you want to come into my home I need it to be done in a certain way. If you respect me and my home you'll respect they way I ask you to enter it. I have no tolerance for those who break the law and then expect a list of rights once they're in. No, I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want the rights of an American citizen you start by obeying the laws of the land from the moment you're looking to enter.

As for the illegals already here - send them back. It's that simple. I don't care if they're "willing to work jobs no one else does" because that is total crap. First, I'm pretty sure we have natural born citizens of this nation who are homeless, on welfare or destitute in any way who'd be perfect for that job. Secondly, I'm damn sure there are people who immigrated to America legally who'd like that job.

If they're sick patch them up and send them back. Last I looked Mexico was a democracy. You want changes vote them in. That's the way we do things here. We organize and we vote. America does not exist to give a handout to people who are unwilling to lift themselves up. America, not God, helps those who help themselves. America became great because a lot of people broke their backs to make us great. To expect it any easier is to spit on the legacy of those who worked too hard to make a life for themselves and their families.

If this is too harsh for some people - too bad. I'm all for helping our fellow man but not when that man enters my home without my permission and expects a handout. Especially when there are plenty of people already here who are more than happy to do things in my home the way I require them to be done.

Pants. Where would we be without them?

(Brought to you by the Council of People Wishing To Avoid Something Serious So Don't Screw It Up)

Why is it whenever someone tries to support a pro-life stance using the Bible someone counters with, "There's nowhere in the Bible where it's stated that abortion is wrong." While true, it's not implicitly stated (nor would I expect it to be as the procedure didn't exist until a few decades ago) how the heck can you look at the Bible a come away feeling it is supported? Does it make sense that the Bible would support abortion? Come on, if you buy that I hear a guy in Brooklyn has got a bridge he wants you to look at. I almost have more respect (and that's not saying much) for someone who feels that the Bible is mute on the subject!

And don't go giving me that "separation of church and state" bunk. All politics is is the legislation of morality. Two opposing moral views fight it out until one is made law. So, until Congress tries to pass the "Jesus Is The Only God" bill you can give the 1st Amendment indignation a rest. My moral code happens to be written down somewhere. Why does that make it less valid than one that isn't?

Anyway, abortion is clearly opposed by the Bible and just because a "Thou Shalt Not..." isn't attached to it doesn't make it any less clear.

AngelLover asked a few posts back for Lusipher's view on two subjects, then kindly noted that I could speak up as well. I've decided to do just that.

If memory serves she wanted thoughts on Bush appointing conservative judges to the Supreme Court and what affects that might have on women's rights and Roe vs. Wade.

Well, I don't think Bush is going to get such an opportunity. Even Chief Justice Rehnquist is no longer able to fill his post on the bench he's a conservative judge. Nothing would change by a appointment by Bush.

With that said, I think the tide is turning against Roe vs. Wade. Women's rights group laud it as a great victory for their cause. In reality it only objectifies them and turns a defining characteristic of what it is to be a woman into nothing more than a mild inconvenience. Is it really so praiseworthy to have the right to kill an innocent on demand? Frankly, when a woman becomes pregnant, her wellbeing isn't the priority - it's the child's. Under no circumstance should abortion be allowed - none.

So, if some women feel it's uplifting to mock the greatest gift in all nature, the gift to create life, I weep for them. In trying to seek equality with men they chose to sacrifice the very thing that made them a woman.

Now it's a little less sad. And that makes everyone happy. Anyway, the blog is called "The Right Spin". Yeah, no joke. We're like Microsoft or something. But in all seriousness from what I've read so far I'm diggin' it. Which means my more left leaning readers (all 3 of you) will probably dislike it. So, feel free to spread the love over there!

In the near future (when I'm being less lazy) I'll start getting the word back out that I'm around again. My old blog had decent readership and I miss that. Dean ain't throwin' me the bone like before.

Plunge seems to have come to a conclusion I've long ago since realized - though they seemed to have done a lot more research (10 years worth) than I. Truman dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved many more lives than it ever took. While some people in the U.S. seem to have a problem with this (violence saving lives) Japanese historians have long since acknowledged the reality of this solution. The Empire would never have surrendered to the U.S. and for us to subdue them (as we would eventually have) would have cost countless more lives on each side.

Thankfully Plunge is working on a long series of posts that should prove quite interesting to read!

So, what is EPIC 2014? Well, it's a mockumentary telling the tale of the fall of the modern news services to internet news and, apparently, Google (and to a lesser extent Amazon) has a key role to play in this.

EPIC is an acronym for "Evolving Personalized Information Construct" and in 2014:

“Everyone contrtibutes now—from blog entries to phone-cam images, to video reports, to full investigations..."

You can read a solid analysis of it here as well getting a link to the mockumentary itself.

In short I agree with the author's analysis of the possible future of the news services - most of it anyway. The author seems to feel that with the demise of the news services as we know it (print and otherwise) real news will decline because:

"Without gatekeepers, no one stands ready to verify reports as accurate so there is no difference between real news and agreed-upon gossip or low-level fluff."

I don't entirely agree with this. While it's certainly possible that so-called news could swing that far I don't see it realistically happening. Blogs have flourished because many people were growing tired of being told what was news and what wasn't, what was important and what wasn't and, most importantly, what the agenda was to be. And for nearly all television news services and most print services that was a liberal agenda. I believe that the spectacular success of Fox News and blogs shows us that America is thirsting for a new kind of news. Is it a more conservative news service? Perhaps, but perhaps not. But the trends clearly show that Americans want a change from the status quo and it's plain to see the current news services are loathe to do this. Some even going so far as to attack bloggers and services like Fox News for leading the way.

But with all that said I believe that the way we traditionally get news now will not change. People desire news they can trust and just as blogs often fact check mainstream news I believe that should blogs get out of control and unreliable people will have no problem going back to television and print. The press has often felt that is was the fourth branch of our government. It checks everyone. Well, as the saying goes, "Who watches the watchers?" Blogs will and do. And if blogs get out of line themselves you can bet mainstream news will be more than happy to pick up the slack. So, overall, I don't think how we get news will change all that much. But I firmly believe the quality of the news we do receive will improve across the board. The Old Guard has got serious competition and that is a breath of fresh air.

La La Land Records is going to release the soundtrack for first season of the new Battlestar Galactica. Those who pre-order now will get an autographed copy completely free! I've ordered two CD's from them in the past, both pre-ordered therefore autographed, and have had no problems. So, if you watch the series and like the music do yourself a favor and pre-order this thing!

I've never been big into Angelia Jolie one way or the other. Sometimes I think she's attractive but that coes and goes. I do think it's great that she's using her fame to give aid to humanitarian causes. But with that said, I don't see how he talking with the President of Pakistan about Afghan refugees in his country will do anything.

I mean, it's not like he's not aware that they are there. And what's to make us think that her talking with the guy is going to bring about any change of heart? In some ways, and feel free to call me pessimistic here, I find it almost arrogant that she'd do such a thing. She's an actress. That's it. She's has no political, military or even financial clout behind her. It seems she could do about as much for change as I could sending a sternly worded letter to the bloke.

I'm not trying to down Angelina Jolie or her work at all. But it just seems to me to smack of typical Hollywood liberal arrogance. That, somehow, if only actors ran things we'd live in a utopian paradise.

But, maybe, just maybe I'm being too hard on her.

Joe Gandelman mentions briefly a piece talking about Clintonism and the way our system of government should swing. Not so much that left, right or center is the best, but that it does swing.

The centrist method of Clinton doesn't work for me. I prefer it swing either right or left and it seems the author of the piece would agree with me.

Our political system is set up to balance not though governance by centrists, but by alternating extremes, who produce a seesaw motion that keeps things in balance...

I believe that by government swinging one way or the other helps make decisions black-and-white rather than the gray centrism tends to produce. Either you agree with something or you don't. From there it's quite easy to launch a debate. Not so much when you're dealing with muddled terms and positions.

So, while I often disagree with the left at least they're clear on where they stand and why. I can deal with that and even respect it.

For me. Just me.

Yeah, so, I never watched Family Guy when it first aired on Fox because, well, I didn't watch much on Fox. But, I grew to like it once it began to air on Adult Swim. Eventually I purchased both DVD boxed sets containing all three seasons. Then... I listened to the commentary. Seth MacFarlane is so liberal and foul I couldn't stand to listen to more than a handful of his commentaries. What I find hilarious is that during one of the commentaries Alex Borstein tells him to back off a bit on it.


So, now, Fox has brought Family Guy back and while I thought Seth MacFarlane was a complete tool I generally still liked the show. After watching this first new episode I'm done. Is Seth MacFarlane so petty that the first episode of this new run makes fun of a movie that came out over a year ago? Did The Passion of The Christ offend his liberal sensibilities so that he held onto this feeling for over a year only to let it out long after the event passed? Talk about holding a grudge. And really, really bad timing.

I'm not trying to bash anyone who had a problem with that film even thought I felt it was brilliant. Heck, I think South Park was dumb for doing the "Passion of The Jew" episode. But at least that episode came out shortly after the movie did. Not a 14 frickin' months later!

It just proves to me that some people simply cannot tolerate an opposing point of view and will keep that chip on their shoulder long after the time to speak up has passed. So, I congratulate Seth MacFarlane for providing further proof that Hollywood despises conservative Christians.

So sayeth this completely scientific quiz!

Take the quiz at dicepool.com

You are a four-sided die, a d4. Otherwise known as a tetrahedron, a "Caltrop", or (to a lesser degree) "Ol' Pointy". This crap bores you, so I'll get to the point. Others tend to see you as petty, conniving, manipulative, argumentative, defensive, greedy, and needlessly antagonistic. You see yourself as focused, effective, efficient, influencing, shrewd, tactical, and direct. Both points of view are in fact correct. You always know the best way to get things done, a fact that never wins sympathy with others. Whenever you manage to gain control of a situation, your solutions are swift and brutal. Unfortunately everyone else is convinced that granting you such power is, "a bad thing" and often conspire to keep it out of your hands. Such short-sighted fools!

Hattip to John.

So, Ridley Scott's got this new film coming out starring Legolas and Qui-Gon Jinn set during the Crusades (I'm not sure which of the 10 it is). I'm honestly excited to see it. But I'm also a bit... apprehensive. All too often the Crusades are painted as "Christians vs. Jews & Muslims" and it's left at that. Never mind the fact the Crusades began as a defensive move against Muslim expansion. But even that does little to shed light on a series of very complicated event - so complicated that I'm not going to comment much more on them just now until I'm fully comfortable with my knowledge of the subject. I suppose I simply object to the label above being slapped on the whole complicated mess with little thought more given to it. And it still happens! From President Clinton stating it as a reason for 9/11 to terrorists throwing it about in their propaganda. The fact of the matter is, as I know it to be, looking across the whole of the Crusades there was very little "Christian aggression". By that I mean the raping and pillaging of Muslims and Jews. Did that happen? Yes. Was it the norm? Very, very far from it! And I think it's safe to say that those who participated and endorsed such things were not practicing the religion of the Messiah of Israel.

And I think that is something that needs to be shouted from the mountaintops in this post-9/11 world. Everyday we hear that suicide bombers and terrorists are not practicing the true religion of Muhammad. That Islam is a religion of peace. Okay, I say, I'll give you that. But in return you must grant me that the atrocities committed during the Crusades were not the actions of true Christians. I think it only fair.

Hopefully, in a short time, I'll have some more stuff up on the Crusades and how it relates to this film. Full links will be provided.