Tuesday, August 30, 2005


Some great essays

Jennifer Roback Morse has written an excellent article at Townhall on so-called "reproductive rights."

Dennis Prager, possibly the most eloquent advocate of moral clarity in the present day, has a question to pose to those who would oppose the war.

Monday, August 22, 2005


Beatitudes: Part 1 of 8

Over the course of the next eight weeks I'll be writing a few observations on the "Beatitudes" portion of the "Sermon on the Mount." Much of what follows is derived from the teachings of Pastor Derald Skinner, Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel Pearl Harbor.

Matt 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

What does it mean to be "poor in spirit"? The phrase is not used anywhere else in scripture. Henry's commentary defines the poor in spirit thus,
"They are humble and lowly in their own eyes. They see their want, bewail their guilt, and thirst after a Redeemer."
I believe that the key word here is "humble". Humility is the foundation for salvation. This is because, if you are prideful in all things, you will not recognize your need for a savior. If you don't recognize your need for a savior on a deep level that goes beyond the mere intellectual, how can you truly repent? How can you submit to the lordship of Christ? Only a man who knows his weaknesses can surrender to Christ. And only one who has surrendered to Christ can inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Also see:
Matthew 18:1-5

Philippians 2:3-4

Wednesday, August 17, 2005


Grief and Validity

One of the most observed fallacies in liberal logic today is that of ad hominem attack, or more specifically "ad hominem circumstantial". Cindy Sheehan is a perfect example of this. She and her supporters purport that anybody who disagrees with her should be dismissed out of hand because they have not lost a child in the war and she has. While this may be true, it has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of either Mrs. Sheehans argument or the argument of he/she who would oppose her. Likewise this applies to Sarah Brady, the fact that her husband was tragically wounded by a madman with a gun does not lend any credance at all to her arguments in favor of gun control. Furthermore, the fact that I have not had a loved one killed or injured by gun violence does not invalidate my arguments against it. There was a politician in Kalifornia a while ago (her name eludes me) who had been shot by a so-called "assault rifle". Whenever anybody attempted to then debate her on the issue she would reflexivly ask them "Have you been shot by an assault rifle?" implying that they had not and therefore were not qualified to debate her on the issue and should just shut up. Of course this is utter tripe, any first year philosophy student can tell you that an argument stands or falls based on its premises and conclusion being sound, the circumstances of the person who presents the argument are completely irrelevent.


Quote of the Day

"Mr. Bush's attempt at spending discipline has been especially limp. Back in 1987, when Mr. Reagan applied his veto to what was generally known at the time as the highway and mass transit bill, he was offended by the 152 earmarks for pet projects favored by members of Congress. But on Wednesday Mr. Bush signed a transportation bill containing no fewer than 6,371 earmarks. Each one of these, as Mr. Reagan understood but Mr. Bush apparently doesn't, amounts to a conscious decision to waste taxpayers' dollars. One point of an earmark is to direct money to a project that would not receive money as a result of rational judgments based on cost-benefit analyses." --The Washington Post

President Bush is by no means perfect, and I have disagreed with him on many an occasion, but never as much as I disagree with his lack of frugality with our money. On this issue he is indistinguishable from the anybody on the left. He fights the good fight on Social Security (spit) but passes thru a bill packed with enough pork to supply all of Africa with bacon for life. I believe that this issue, coupled with immagration will be the achilles heel of the stupid party.

Saturday, August 13, 2005


The Politics of Cows

Yeah, this is an e-mail somebody forwarded to me, but I thought it was funny enough to post here.

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.

You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature' private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.

You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks she's French, other times she's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.

You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one
best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best looking cow.

You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegals.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005


A Peek Into Somebodies Private Life

If you really want to see how people live, you need to get a job that entails entering other peoples homes. Some of the observations I made when I was a plumber in SoCal:

1. Most dirt poor, illeagal aliens keep very neat and tidy homes. Their children tend to be well behaved, but not their dogs. Also, most mexican women can cook food that smells so good that I considered waving my fee if they would let me stay for dinner, of course they weren't the ones paying us, their landlord was.

2. Some people live in filth that would make a hog blush. I have seen filth that the average person can't imagine. Garbage (including rotting food) all over the floor , clothes as far as the eye can see (I assume there was a floor only because the clothes/trash had to be resting on something, I couldn't actually see it), kids running around looking like refugees from a "Feed the Children" commercial. I could not imagine living like that at all, let alone of my own accord.

3. There is no stench quite like the stench of a house that is home to ten or more cats, especially when those cats belong to an elderly person who is too infirm to properly care for them. Litter boxes overflow, cats find new "litter boxs", and sometimes a cat will crawl behind a piece of furniture and die, its corpse remaining untouched for God only knows how long. I guarantee that nothing short of a sulfer factory even comes close, an open sewer is like a fresh spring breeze by comparison.

4. Many housewives can be very .....uhh.....friendly. I was always professional and never took advantage of the situation, but I could have.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005


My Biggest Pet Peeve

Well, it may not be my biggest, but it's the biggest one I'm thinking of right at this moment. People who don't use turn signals!!!! If there is a better way to tell the world that you are a self absorbed butt munch, I'm not aware of it. Turn signals aren't for you, they are for everybody else. They are there for no other reason other than to inform your fellow driver of your intentions and allow them to plan accordingly. Now, I know for a fact that every car made for at least the last 35 years came equipped from the factory with turn signals, and I also know that their use isn't a difficult skill to master. Yet for some reason (cough, arrogent, self absorbed, inconsideration, cough) many people can't seem to muster the requisite arm strength required to flip that little lever on their steering column before they change lanes on the freeway. What's even worse is when said person is going 20 mph over the limit and weaving thru traffic like Mario Andretti on crack. Let me make this clear, if you want to speed, whatever, I don't care as long as you don't a)talk on your cell phone b)tailgate c)cut people off. I don't consider speeding (within reason) in and of itself to be overtly dangerous, but tailgating, cutting people off, driving distracted, and not using your turn signals are overtly dangerous. As a motorcyclist who witnesses the carnival of horror and stupidity that is the average American freeway on a daily basis, it occurs to me that most unsafe acts that occur on our interstates are indeed driven by selfishness, lack of awareness, and a general sense that "I am the only person in the world, or at least the only one that matters." And my fellow motorcyclist, don't think I'm letting you off the hook, we can be just as bad (or worse) than the cagers. We are just less likely to cause death on a large scale.

Monday, August 08, 2005


RIP Peter Jennings

I wonder if Tobey Keith is going to sing at the funeral?


I Hate Spending Money!!!!!

Had to spend almost $400 this weekend on my bike. 8000 mile service, new front tire, and a saftey inspection. I really like the new tire though. It's a Dunlap Sportmaxx and it dives in really well. I just nudge the bike and it turns like it's on rails, great feeling.

Friday, August 05, 2005


Witnessing vs. Debating

What do you do when your discourse becomes an argument? Often when we attempt to share our faith we let our zeal get the better of us, and since I'm argumentative by nature this has happened to me quite often and generally speaking it's my fault. It usually happens when talking with a so-called atheist. I believe the problem lies with the approach that I have used in the past. Instead of sharing the love of Christ I have tried to use logic. I now realize that logic only works with somebody who is open to the Word. Somebody who is looking for a savior can be nudged toward Christ by using reason, but a dogmatic "atheist", not a chance. They must first realize their fallen nature, their need for redemption, and their helplessness. The bible gives a great example of what happens when we try to reach a hostile person or group through logic, behold Acts 9:22-23,28-29

22But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus is the Christ.

And how do you think this turned out for our zealous young convert?

23Now after many days were past, the Jews plotted to kill him. 24But their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the gates day and night, to kill him. 25Then the disciples took him by night and let him down through the wall in a large basket.

Hmmmm, not quite the reaction he expected. Maybe the folks in Damascus were an aberration and a change of venue was in order, Jerusalem perhaps?

28So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out. 29And he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him.

Errr, maybe not. Now I suppose you could argue that Paul wasn't having any success in Jerusalem and Damascus because these were Jews and he was called to preach to the gentiles, but I reject that argument because it is akin to saying "I'm called to be a missionary in Africa therefore witnessing to anybody here in the states would be useless and would bare no fruit." Besides, the Hellanists were not Jews, they were Greek.

My point is, save the debate for your political discussions and use the love of Christ as your primary witnessing tool.

Thursday, August 04, 2005


Education Debate

On the foolishness that is the debate over teaching intelligent design in schools, what a bunch of crap. If our intent is to provide our children with the best education possible, if our intention is to give them a wide array of facts, and if our intention is to be intellectually honest, then intelligent design must be taught in school. That does not mean that it has to be taught from an explicitly Judeo-Christian POV, only that the concept of intelligent design, which can be presented in a manner which is religiously neutral, should be taught if for no other reason than because there are many, many respectable scientists who believe it to be a viable theory. The fact of the matter is, despite the numerous gaping holes in the evolutionary world view (lack of transitional forms, circular reasoning in the fossil record, and inconsistencies in radio-carbon dating just for starters), evolution is taught exclusively in schools because the intelligensia find the concept of intelligent design, with all that it implies, repulsive. I do not fear evolutionary theory, I welcome open debate about the origins of life and the universe, opponents of teaching intelligent design in public school do not share this feeling. That alone should tell you something.

Monday, August 01, 2005


Highly Reccomended

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Federalist Patriot, I would highly recommend that you check them out. They have some great stuff.


Spending Millions to Tell You Something You Already Know

I hope you're sitting down because what I'm about to say is going to shock you. Are you ready? SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU!!! Real shocker huh? What's that you say? You already knew that? Then why in the name of all that is holy do I have to see a barrage of anti-smoking commercials everytime I sit down to watch something on the tube. Not only do the tobacco companies have to fund these moronic commercials, but they have gone beyond telling us smoking is bad to telling us how the tobacco companies are full of maniacal billionairs who meet in dark conference rooms in the middle of the night to worship Beealzebub and plot to get second graders hooked on their products. And while we're on the subject of the anti-smoking crusaders, let me point out just a bit of hypocracy. It has been my experience that most of the vehement do-gooders are either young liberals or soccer moms. So I have a hard time buying the "People shouldn't smoke because they get sick and cost the rest of us money" arguement when it comes from two groups with a solid record of backing tax dollar draining, social engineering programs. All this and I don't even smoke.


More Campus Free Speech Follies

WAYNE, N.J., July 20, 2005—William Paterson University in New Jersey has convicted student employee Jihad Daniel of “discrimination” and “harassment”—without due process—for describing homosexuality as a “perversion” in a private response to a professor’s unsolicited announcement of a university event that promoted a positive view of lesbian relationships.

Daniel’s “offense” took place on March 8, 2005, when he responded to an unsolicited e-mail from Professor Arlene Holpp Scala, chair of the department of women’s studies, about a viewing and discussion of a film described as “a lesbian relationship story.” Daniel privately replied to Professor Scala, requesting that he not be sent “any mail about ‘Connie and Sally’ and ‘Adam and Steve.’” Daniel went on, “These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned.”

On March 10, Professor Scala filed a complaint with the university’s Office of Employment Equity and Diversity, accusing Daniel of violating university nondiscrimination policy because his message “sound[ed] threatening” and because she didn’t want to “feel threatened at [her] place of work when [she] send[s] out announcements about events that address lesbian issues.”

Director of Employment Equity and Diversity John I. Sims subsequently proceeded to “investigate” Scala’s complaint. On June 15, William Paterson President Arnold Speert wrote Daniel a letter of reprimand, stating that “the investigator concluded that since the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of ‘perversion’…is clearly a ‘derogatory or demeaning’ term,” Daniel therefore was guilty of violating state discrimination and harassment regulations. The president also wrote that the letter of reprimand would be placed in Daniel’s permanent employee file.

Full Article

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?