Archive for the ‘Musings’ Category
Friday, April 4th, 2008 |
Various news outlets this morning are reporting on San Fran’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that Roommates.com can’t ask if you’re straight or gay when you fill out their profile page on the site:
To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business, the panel said in an 8-3 ruling that partly overturns a lower federal court decision.
“If such screening is prohibited when practiced in person or by telephone, we see no reason why Congress would have wanted to make it lawful to profit from it online,” 9th Circuit chief judge Alex Kozinski wrote. “Not only does Roommate ask these questions, Roommate makes answering the discriminatory questions a condition of doing business.”
Since when did “homosexual” become a race? Have homosexuals, on the whole, ever been denied the right to vote? Have they been forced to the back of the bus? Do suicide bombers attack them in the market place? Did Hitler exterminate 6 million of them?
Secondly, some liberals are so racist and bigoted that they can’t see straight (no pun intended). They say that homosexuality is no big deal, but then absolutely freak out—we’re talking take it through the courts freak out—when someone asks if they’re homosexual.
What I mean is that homosexuals will often say that they’re proud — they’ll go to a gay pride event, they’ll hang a multi-color lei from rear view mirror, etc — but when you ask them outright their orientation they suddenly become angry and view it as discrimination.
I don’t think it’s an unfair question to ask if your potential roommate may or may not be attracted to your gender. You can ask male and female, and this pertinent question exists because of sex. It is called your “sex” after all. In simpler times I would know it was inappropriate, as a man, to consider a woman as a roommate for sexual reasons. Today, that’s simply not enough information to make the decision. Is it unreasonable to want to know this? Is it any more discriminatory than asking your gender these days?
I’m expanding on this because I received a call from a friend of mine who was confused by the tone of the message, so let me say two things: 1.) ALL liberals are not anything, any more than ALL conservatives are anything. I don’t want to insinuate that all liberals are racist bigots just as I don’t want anyone to insinuate that all conservatives are racist bigots, and I don’t want to fall into the name-calling trap that many of my conservative friends do; 2.) I’m not ant-homosexual. I think homosexuality is a sin, but I also think fornication, envy, and drunkenness are sins, too. I’m not rejecting the person or that person’s rights as defined by the laws of this country. What I DO reject is special consideration and special treatment and special laws.
The bottom line for me is that giving homosexuality the same protection and classification as race is a consideration that isn’t merited by the evidence.
Posted in Musings | No Comments »
Friday, March 21st, 2008 |
I just came across this article as I went through my daily reads regarding the “science” of the Bible’s advice that it’s better to give than to receive:
The researchers started by asking a sample of 632 Americans, 55 percent of whom were women, to rate their happiness on a scale of 1 to 5, the higher the number the happier.
Then they asked the participants to report their annual income and estimate how much they spent on paying bills, buying gifts for themselves, buying gifts for others and giving to charity.
The first two were considered personal spending and averaged $1,714-a-month, the second two were termed “prosocial” spending and averaged $146-a-month.
“Personal spending was unrelated to happiness,” said the researchers. “But higher prosocial spending was associated with significantly greater happiness,” they found.
Not content with that, they then studied 16 employees of a company in Boston, asking about their happiness one month before and six to eight weeks after each received a profit-sharing bonus from their employer.
In the second interview they also asked about personal and prosocial spending and once again those who spent more on others were happier.
“The manner in which they spent that bonus was a more important predictor of their happiness than the amount of the bonus itself,” the researchers found.
Finally, 46 Canadian students were asked to rate their happiness and then each was given a random envelope containing money, ranging from $5 to $20. Some were instructed to spend it on themselves, others were told to buy a gift for someone else.
At 5 p.m. that day, they were called together again and asked to rate their happiness.
The amount of money had no impact on happiness, but those assigned to buy something for another person reported greater happiness than those told to get something for themselves, the researchers said.
It struck me as I read this that I am definitely happier when I give. It also struck me, quite profoundly, how much I’ve received. Not only do I have a wonderful, beautiful wife, three healthy children, and work that I enjoy, I’ve been granted the opportunity for salvation. If anyone ever exemplified what it means to give it was Jesus. John 15:13 puts it this way:
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
My giving, whether it’s to my church or to another charity, has very little to do with my inherent goodness. But I recognize how much I’ve been given—I’m not talking money here—and feel that the only way to truly be happy is to try and live my life the same way that Jesus lived His.
Don’t get me wrong. I fall short many times, and I wouldn’t dare say that I’ve accomplished the task. And I know that this article is talking about money, but I can’t escape the fact that Jesus was always giving. He gave of His time to the children. He gave of His wisdom to Nicodemus. He gave of his resources to the crowds that followed Him. He gave healing to the sick. He gave forgiveness to the sinner. And He ultimately gave His life to those who required it of Him—you and me.
Maybe you believe, and maybe you don’t. That’s a decision that you’ll have to make on your own. To believe that there was a man, God robed in flesh, who lived, died for you, and rose again takes some faith. But can I challenge you today that maybe, just maybe, it doesn’t take as much faith as you think? We live in a nation governed by people we never see, can never talk to, and who make decisions we don’t understand. Yet we have faith that the roads will still be there tomorrow, that the mail will run, that we’ll be safe … in short, we have faith that the unseen will do their jobs.
Today is Good Friday, the day we mark the crucifixion and death of Jesus. What better day to ask yourself about what you believe? About where you put your hope and faith? The only thing you have to give is some room in your life. Room for God to deal with you about His plans for you. Room for Him to change your mind about some things that maybe you misunderstand. And room for Him to give you the greatest gift you’ll ever receive. You have to give, but today is a good Friday for it.
Posted in Musings, Religion | No Comments »
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008 |
I love Apple products. They just work, and that’s awesome to me. Steve Jobs just wrapped up his keynote address from MacWorld 2008 where he introduced a whole new slew of products including iTunes movie rentals, Apple TV v2, iPhone upgrades, and the world’s thinnest laptop (3/4″ at its thickest point, just over 1/4″ at its thinnest).
So who’s the worm? Randy Newman was this year’s closing entertainment. He joked about writing a song for Toy Story (he’s Pixar’s go-to-guy for cute kiddie music) for a love scene between Buzz and Woody before comparing America and President Bush to Hitler and Stalin, cursing about the fact that the Supreme Court would outlive him, and general going bat guano on the United States.
Yikes, Apple. Be careful not to offend all those fine, hardworking Americans that are buying your products.
Posted in Musings | No Comments »
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007 |
The last place I look for morality from is Hollywood. I expect the depraved, the sadistic, the dark, the immoral, and the sinful to be glamorized and served to us as entertainment. It’s been that way for a long, long time. However, even coming from Hollywood I have to say that I’ve been taken aback by the upcoming release of The Golden Compass, a movie based on the trilogy of books His Dark Materials by atheist Phillip Pullman. It is an obvious bit of propaganda that is meant to entice children into the world of atheism and moral relativism (at best).
The first five minutes of the movie have been posted here. For those of you who don’t care to watch, here’s the opening narration from the film:
There are many universes, and many earths — parallel to each other. Worlds like yours, where people’s souls live inside their bodies. And worlds like mine, where they walk beside us as animal spirits we call daemons (pronounced “demons”).
So many worlds, but connecting them all is Dust. Dust was here before the witches of the air, the gyptians of the water, and the bears of the ice.
In my world, scholars invented an alethiometer—The Golden Compass, and it showed them all that was hidden. But the ruling power, fearing any truth but their own, destroyed these devices, and forbade the very mention of Dust.
That’s the setup that you get in the first two minutes of the film. In the first two minutes our children are told that there are other universes, that there is a world where your spirit and guiding conscience is a demon (spell it how you wish), that scholars know all truth, and that religion destroys scholarship and truth, forbidding debate and discussion. (If you watch the video, the line “But the ruling power, fearing any truth but their own” is accompanied by imagery of a building very similar to the Vatican.)
Now, this movie is based on the first book in a trilogy. What I’ve read to you is mild compared to the other books. The author, Pullman, has expressed his desire that the watered down film version of the first book will entice parents to buy the much less innocent book trilogy, and win children over to atheism. He said flatly in a 2003 interview, “My books are about killing God.”
The second and third books in the series see the heroine, Lyra, and the hero, Will, becoming the new Adam & Eve. They find themselves on a mission to destroy the Kingdom of Heaven, where God rules mankind, and establish a Republic of Heaven, where each person rules themselves. This mission involves castration, female circumcision, sexual experimentation (as a means of child enlightenment) and in the third installment a pair of homosexual angels, lovers, guiding the young children on their mission to kill God.
One of the angels, Balthamos, tells Will (the young boy lead character) that God was not the creator of the universe. He was simply an angel who came to power above the others and started telling the other angels that he created everything. A woman angel discovered the truth, so he cast her out of heaven along with her followers. God is actually old now, and feeble. He is kept in a glass box and another angel actually runs Heaven because God is too old to do so.
Think I’m making this up? Think I’m exaggerating for effect or using hyperbole for drama? Read for yourself. The books are available at any bookstore, especially now. Or you can head over to SparkNotes and read the synopsis of each book (Overview: His Dark Materials, Book One: The Golden Compass, Book Two: The Subtle Knife, and Book Three: The Amber Spyglass).
Again, I’m not looking to Hollywood for guidance or Christian entertainment. What I resent, however, is someone who is, as Pullman himself said in a 2001 interview, “trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief”. If you don’t want to be a Christian, fine. Don’t be. Choose atheism, or agnosticism. Choose Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, Shiva, Vishnu…whoever you want to choose, choose. But you show your weakness, your ignorance, and your fear of real Truth when you feel that you must lie about or rewrite someone else’s beliefs to validate your own. It’s absolutely predatory that someone who cannot convince another of his beliefs because of strong argument to the contrary, would then turn to a child, who has not the vocabulary, wisdom, or scholarship to be able to articulate anything to counter, and force his beliefs on them.
What an irony that Pullman’s film and books are all about the great lies the church has forced on children, when he himself is guilty of the very same.
Posted in Musings | 6 Comments »
Saturday, October 20th, 2007 |
J.K. Rowling, author of the insanely popular Harry Potter series, just made a surprise announcement on her visit to the U.S.:
In front of a full house of hardcore Potter fans at Carnegie Hall in New York, Rowling, sitting on the stage on a red velvet and carved wood throne, read from her seventh and final book, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” then took questions. One fan asked whether Albus Dumbledore, the head of the famed Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, had ever loved anyone. Rowling smiled. “Dumbledore is gay, actually,” replied Rowling as the audience errupted in surprise. She added that, in her mind, Dumbledore had an unrequited love affair with Gellert Grindelwald, Voldemort’s predecessor who appears in the seventh book. After several minutes of prolonged shouting and clapping from astonshed fans, Rowling added. “I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy.”
It opens up so many questions. Isn’t it interesting that she waited until after the lion’s share of the last book in the series had been sold before making that announcement? Isn’t it interesting that she made this announcement not in her home country of Britain, but in the U.S.? What about all that “private coaching” time that Harry spends with Dumbledore alone in his office? And last but not least, do they sell Harry Potter books in Iran?
Posted in Musings | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, September 18th, 2007 |
That quote comes from a concerned parent regarding a video shown in a New Jersey school about diversity:
The film, “That’s a Family!”, looks at diversity through the eyes of children who talk about their own families. One child talks about having mixed-race parents. Another talks about living with a divorced parent. Others talk about single parents, traditional parents, adoptive parents.
And then there’s the child who says, “This is my mom. Her name is Betty. And this is my other mom. Her name is Kim.”
As one parent told NBC’s Ron Allen, “I’m losing my tolerance for the amount of tolerance I’m supposed to tolerate.”
The film was shown last December to a third-grade class in Evesham’s J. Harold Van Zant School. When parents heard from their children about the film, some objected…
…At an Aug. 30 meeting the board heard the recommendation of the committee and then voted to ban the video altogether. The state-mandated diversity program would be addressed through discussion, it decided, not a film.
The problem this presents, however, and the reason that the school probably decided to go this route, is that teachers addressing the problem through “discussion” is unfiltered and, more importantly, unable to be reviewed. I would certainly be more concerned about a teacher addressing the issue behind closed doors in a conversation that I’m not privy to than the video itself — after all, at least I would know what was said. But in this day and age of teachers telling children not to tell parents what they’ve been told at school I’m a little anxious about teachers trying to usurp the role of moral authority in children’s lives.
Which brings me to the overall point — liberalism is really a mentally crippled concept. It’s a beast with two left feet and two heads. Liberalism cries, “You can’t legislate morality!” and then forces its morals onto our children through school videos such as this. It screams to the top of its lungs, “You must be accepting of all lifestyles, faiths, and backgrounds!” but refuses to accept those lifestyles, faiths, and backgrounds that are contrary to its own twisted beliefs. Liberalism is a merchant of death that scoffs at those who try to preserve life. It sells poison labeled as freedom and mocks the ones who try to get those who taste it to drink Water.
I know this is a heavy thought, but honestly we need to look at the core values here and determine on which side “right” and “truth” lies. Just to lighten things up a bit, here’s a video that I think perfectly illustrates my point:
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/FsNLbK8_rBY" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Liberalism can try to justify its beliefs all day long, but at the end of the day it’s still the side with skulls on their caps.
Posted in Musings | No Comments »
Thursday, September 13th, 2007 |
I don’t quite know what to do with this, but I think there are some interesting points being made in the following interview with Ja Rule regarding upcoming congressional hearings on lyrics and music content:
“They got my man Doug Morris under fire and ****, they got him going down to go speak to Congress about hip-hop lyrics, are you ****ing serious?” Ja said. “There’s a ****ing black kid right now about to get 25 years for having a fight with some white kids over hanging the nooses over the white tree, let’s get to that. Let’s get into **** like that, because that’s what’s tearing up America, not me calling a woman a ***** or a *** on my rap songs.”
“And if it is, then we need to go step to Paramount, and ****ing MGM, and all of these other ************* that’s making all of these movies and we need to go step to MTV and Viacom, and lets talk about all these ****ing shows that they have on MTV that is promoting homosexuality, that my kids can’t watch this ****,” he continued. “Dating shows that’s showing two guys or two girls in mid-afternoon. Let’s talk about **** like that! If that’s not ****ing up America, I don’t know what is.”
“There’s a lot of issues we can address besides hip-hop, but they want to put everything on us like we’re the problem,” Ja added. “This is going to be a shameless ****ing plug, but I said, ‘when everyone wants to point the finger, and ask why there’s so much corruption, they only need to look in the mirror.’ It starts with themselves.”
What do you think? Is he making a good, solid point, or is he just struggling to justify his hardcore, misogynistic and destructive lyrics?
Note: This is the single largest group of asterisks I’ve ever seen in one spot.
Posted in Musings | 1 Comment »
Monday, September 10th, 2007 |
This quote comes, today, from one of President Bush’s National Security advisers, Frances Fragos Townsend:
“This is about the best he can do,” Townsend said of bin Laden. “This is a man on a run, from a cave, who’s virtually impotent other than these tapes.”
Of course it was only .03 seconds after he said that when Matt Drudge headlined the following on his site:
Even if this is somewhat true, it’s definitely poor timing. And if it’s not poor timing it at least opens up the White House to be asked:
“Are you saying, ma’am, that President Bush can’t catch an impotent terrorist with a camcorder?”
I don’t know — am I being too critical? Maybe it’s just too much to ask that the Republican Party not spend the anniversary of 9/11 talking about how we’ve neutralized the threats we face and make a little more time to help people understand that we’re still at war, we still have an enemy, and there’s still a reason to support the safety of conservatism.
Posted in Musings | No Comments »
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007 |
From the AP:
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) A Belgian prosecutor on Tuesday recommended that the U.S.-based Church of Scientology stand trial for fraud and extortion, following a 10-year investigation that concluded the group should be labeled a criminal organization.
Scientology said it would fight the criminal charges recommended by investigating prosecutor Jean-Claude Van Espen, who said that up to 12 unidentified people should face charges.
Van Espen’s probe also concluded that Scientology’s Brussels-based Europe office and its Belgian missions conducted unlawful practices in medicine, violated privacy laws and used illegal business contracts, said Lieve Pellens, a spokeswoman at the Federal Prosecutors Office.
“They also face charges of being … a criminal organization,” Pellens said in a telephone interview.
Posted in Musings | No Comments »
Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 |
Dear Mr. Buffett:
I recently read an article where you claimed that the United States Tax Code is designed to benefit the super wealthy and not the “earning” class. You said, “This is what Congress in its wisdom did: the 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter.”
I believe, in all sincerity, that you’re an extremely intelligent man who should be commended for your success and for your generosity. So you can imagine my shock when I read such stupid words being attributed to you.
My fear is that perhaps you’ve forgotten how you made your money.
You realized at a young age that there were loopholes that any ordinary American could use to their advantage you wrote-off your bicycle purchase of $35 when you were just 13 years old on your first tax return. Were you wealthy then? Or were you simply an intelligent young man?
My problem with your statement is that it invalidates your entire life. Either you are the “Oracle of Omaha” or you’re nothing more than the story of a lucky break given to a rich kid. Your statement goes beyond entitlement and into the realm of fostering stupidity and ignorance. You assume that the average American is too stupid to understand the loopholes that you understood when you were 13.
The issue is not that we’re stupid, but that people like you have allowed us to become lazy. “Are you paying too much in taxes? Well don’t worry about learning how to save money when you file we’ll just change the law so that you won’t have to pay.”
So here’s an idea: instead of fostering those ideas of insignificance, laziness, and entitlement among those poorest among us, why not use some of that $30 billion you’re giving to the Gates Foundation over in Africa to set up schools or education programs here in the States that would teach the poor how to save money on their taxes?
Don’t give up on us and say we’re too stupid to understand. That’s the lazy way out, and you, Mr. Buffett, are anything but lazy.
Thanks for listening,
Wes Comer
Posted in Musings, US Politics | No Comments »
Monday, August 27th, 2007 |
The administration is either really smart or really, really not so much.
Gonzales has resigned. Fine. Saw this one coming. But what is it with the Bush administration having absolutely no clue when it comes to timing on announcements like this? I hate being spun, but when it comes to media it works. You have some options here to save face or to use the magnitude of the situation to detract from other less-than-favorable information.
Let’s say you’re having a big election and everyone’s calling for the resignation of, I don’t know, your Secretary of Defense. He’s going to resign anyway, so why not release that information the week before the election and make sure that you get some brownie points with voters? You know, like what the administration did with Rumsfield.
Oh wait, that’s right.
Posted in Musings | 1 Comment »
Sunday, August 19th, 2007 |
Above: Roger Perlsen of Verified Identity Pass’ Clear program gets the irises of his eyes scanned at one of the company’s enrollment centers in the lobby of Little Rock National Airport in Little Rock, Ark.
From MSNBC:
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Travelers at the Little Rock National Airport will soon be able to go to the head of the line when filing through security — if they’re willing to pay.
New York-based Verified Identity Pass began enrolling travelers earlier this week in its Clear program, which provides a card they can use to get through the line faster.
For the privilege, cardholders must provide two forms of government identification, their fingerprints and iris prints, pass a federal security check and pay $99.95.
….
To obtain a card, applicants can begin the process online at the company’s Web site. Next, they must bring two forms of government identification, including one with a photo, to a Clear enrollment center at an airport or major business that has a Clear kiosk.
At the enrollment center, applicants receive an account number and get their fingerprints and iris prints taken. The company sends the information to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, which conducts the background check. If the applicant passes, the card arrives to them in the mail. The process takes two to four weeks.
At the airport, the cardholder still has to go through check in, baggage and security checks. But cardholders pass through a special lane operated by Clear employees who give them the OK to go to the front of the airport security line.
Gotta’ tell you — I’m happy to wait in line and take off my shoes every time if it means that my fingerprints and my retinal pattern stays with me. I don’t want to be paranoid, but yikes. There’s a certain point where we need to stop and say, “how, again, does this make us safer?” Too often we’re willing to trade freedom for convenience when it’s altogether unnecessary. But hey, it’s the American way, right?
Posted in Musings | 1 Comment »
Saturday, July 21st, 2007 |
STOP CHANGING THE SITE. Pick a format and stay with it. It’s annoying.
Now if you’ll excuse me I need to go work on the new template for this site…
Posted in Musings | No Comments »
Saturday, July 14th, 2007 |
So I went to Starbucks and got my coffee and was reading the little “The Way I See It” on the back:
“Fearlessness is not the absence of fear. It’s the mastery of fear. It’s about getting up one more time than we fall down.”
— Arianna Huffington
Author of On Becoming Fearless…
And this really bothered me for two reasons that have nothing to do with her being a raging liberal. Well, maybe it does.
Annoyance #1: Words mean something
This is a mantra of mine. She says that “fearlessness is not the absence of fear” but the definition of the word is “without fear”. Without is the absence of. So actually the definition is exactly the absence of fear. Now, this might be nitpicky, but to me this is just another example of liberals taking the freedom to redefine words. Just because she gets this sappy, ethereal feeling about what it means to be fearless does not give her the right to say, “Fearlessness is NOT what you think/know/factually-determine it is. It is what I think it is…”
Annoyance #2: Killing multiple words with one stone
In trying to redefine “fearlessness” she actually kills multiple words. Her new definition is “It’s about getting up one more time than we fall down.” Actually, sweetie, that would be a great definition for persistant, tenacious, determination… take your pick, but it’s not the definition of fearlessness. As a minister I face, occasionally, those who try to water down the Word of God by obeying only the feeling of the Word and not the Word itself. “Well, if it says “thou shalt not covet” it doesn’t mean that I can’t ever look at what someone else has and wish it was mine.” Actually, that’s exactly what it means. And liberals do the same thing. If they can take language and law and turn it into emotional drivel, then eventually no words have their meaning, and everything is up for grabs.
I know it seems like something small to focus on, but really this is a great picture of the bigger problem of those who try to redefine words, rewrite history, and emotionalize/trivialize that which is most important.
Posted in Musings | 1 Comment »
Friday, June 29th, 2007 |
= Meh.
Posted in Musings | No Comments »
