Bill Clinton gets all touchy-feely about the old ball-&-chain:
"I don't know if she'll run or not," he told the network, but added, "She would make an excellent president, and I would always try to help her."
They obviously spend lots of time together. He doesn't know if she'll run? Maybe he'll help her, like he helped the Chinese.
"If she did run and she was able to win, she'd make a very, very good president," Clinton said Sunday. "I think now she's at least as good as I was."
She would've made an excellent Soviet prime minister, but a good president? Please. The woman's a snake in a pantsuit.
His last remark really says a lot. How "good" would she have to be, to fit that description? What a joke.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Leavin' On a Jet Plane
From AOL News:
Those targeted for deportation represent a small fraction of the estimated 8 million illegal immigrants in the USA. Most illegal immigrants are unknown to U.S. immigration officials. Only those who are caught trying to enter the USA or who otherwise reveal themselves — such as by committing crimes, applying for asylum or seeking government benefits — become targets for deportation.
Despite the rising number of deportations, U.S. agents have struggled to reduce the number of illegal immigrants who have disobeyed orders to leave the country or who have failed to appear at deportation hearings. That number has remained at an estimated 400,000 because immigrants continue to flow into the USA — particularly along the Southwest border — and illegal immigrants continue to defy orders to appear at deportation hearings.
I believe the above assumption of the number of illegal aliens within the United States probably is an erroneous estimate. I've read numbers in the ten to twelve million range, in many different publications. With such a weak grasp of border control, useful deportation procedures become useless, or nearly so.
What interested me in this article was its largely sympathetic view of illegal immigrants. And yet, in a sidebar located on the right-hand side of the page, AOL asks its readers to vote on an issue facing an illegal alien profiled in the article. She is in trouble for playing a small role in a drug-smuggling operation, in addition to her extralegal status. Here are the voting results:
Should Ana Ortega be allowed to return to the United States?
No--82%
Yes--18%
These percentages were derived from 124,913 votes.
Yep, just like Asa Hutchinson informed us, Americans obviously "don't have the will" to deport illegal aliens--or "invaders", as I like to call them.
Those targeted for deportation represent a small fraction of the estimated 8 million illegal immigrants in the USA. Most illegal immigrants are unknown to U.S. immigration officials. Only those who are caught trying to enter the USA or who otherwise reveal themselves — such as by committing crimes, applying for asylum or seeking government benefits — become targets for deportation.
Despite the rising number of deportations, U.S. agents have struggled to reduce the number of illegal immigrants who have disobeyed orders to leave the country or who have failed to appear at deportation hearings. That number has remained at an estimated 400,000 because immigrants continue to flow into the USA — particularly along the Southwest border — and illegal immigrants continue to defy orders to appear at deportation hearings.
I believe the above assumption of the number of illegal aliens within the United States probably is an erroneous estimate. I've read numbers in the ten to twelve million range, in many different publications. With such a weak grasp of border control, useful deportation procedures become useless, or nearly so.
What interested me in this article was its largely sympathetic view of illegal immigrants. And yet, in a sidebar located on the right-hand side of the page, AOL asks its readers to vote on an issue facing an illegal alien profiled in the article. She is in trouble for playing a small role in a drug-smuggling operation, in addition to her extralegal status. Here are the voting results:
Should Ana Ortega be allowed to return to the United States?
No--82%
Yes--18%
These percentages were derived from 124,913 votes.
Yep, just like Asa Hutchinson informed us, Americans obviously "don't have the will" to deport illegal aliens--or "invaders", as I like to call them.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Effects of Evolutionary Thinking
From a testimony of an Answers in Genesis staff member:
“I grew up in a church that taught me to believe in God and that He used evolution to make everything. Sadly, this had a devastating effect on my life. By the time I graduated from high school, I realized that we were products of chance and there probably wasn’t a God at all.
“A couple of years later, while in college, I came to the realization that all there was to life was working till you retired, grew old and died. And for what? I just really didn’t want to go through all of that. So I planned my own suicide.
“But God intervened and used another person to lead me to the Creator of the universe—Jesus Christ. I found out that life with Christ had a purpose and I no longer wanted to die.”
“I grew up in a church that taught me to believe in God and that He used evolution to make everything. Sadly, this had a devastating effect on my life. By the time I graduated from high school, I realized that we were products of chance and there probably wasn’t a God at all.
“A couple of years later, while in college, I came to the realization that all there was to life was working till you retired, grew old and died. And for what? I just really didn’t want to go through all of that. So I planned my own suicide.
“But God intervened and used another person to lead me to the Creator of the universe—Jesus Christ. I found out that life with Christ had a purpose and I no longer wanted to die.”
Friday, February 25, 2005
Prayer Request
From reading his comments in various places, I've noticed that Gregg is having to tackle some serious obstacles in his path, lately. I'd just like to ask everyone to remember him in their prayers.
God bless, buddy.
God bless, buddy.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
George Soros, Nation-Builder
"Iraq would be the last place I would choose for an experiment in introducing democracy." --George Soros
Based on your politics and philisophical beliefs, George, I'd say you'd pretty much rule out a democracy anywhere.
Actually, he does have a point. The Middle East has a long history of despotic government, under Sharia law. I don't believe the Bush administration is trying to install a "democracy," in the first place. But for Muslims, a representative form of government is just a tool for ushering in Islamic domination, in all likelihood. Time will tell.
Based on your politics and philisophical beliefs, George, I'd say you'd pretty much rule out a democracy anywhere.
Actually, he does have a point. The Middle East has a long history of despotic government, under Sharia law. I don't believe the Bush administration is trying to install a "democracy," in the first place. But for Muslims, a representative form of government is just a tool for ushering in Islamic domination, in all likelihood. Time will tell.
Self-Deification
Here's a telling quote from an evolutionist:
“We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever.”– Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, Viking Press, New York, p. 244, 1983.
Setting aside the delusive quality of this pronouncement, notice the reek of arrogance. This is elitism run amok. It is just this sort of mentality that leads to mass murder on an epic scale: An attempt at forcing God's abdication, and setting up oneself as the new sovereign, with lawlessness for a queen. History is littered with the corpses of victims of such an ideology.
“We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever.”– Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, Viking Press, New York, p. 244, 1983.
Setting aside the delusive quality of this pronouncement, notice the reek of arrogance. This is elitism run amok. It is just this sort of mentality that leads to mass murder on an epic scale: An attempt at forcing God's abdication, and setting up oneself as the new sovereign, with lawlessness for a queen. History is littered with the corpses of victims of such an ideology.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Religion: A Neurological Disorder
Good old Bill Maher is at it, again. He loves nothing better than looking down his long elitist nose at Christians, specifically--and religion, in general.
Television personality Bill Maher. . .says Christians and others who are religious suffer from a neurological disorder that "stops people from thinking."
Wow, that's brilliant. I bet he makes most evolutionists proud, since this is the same argument they use.
"We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies.
Where to begin? This assertion belies well-known historical facts. Most of the men who dreamed up the Constitution and drafted the initial laws of this great nation were practicing Christians. I contend that a country extending unprecedented freedoms is pretty darned enlightened, by my definition of the word. Since most of the Founders shared a Christian worldview, how does he explain the idea that "all men are created equal" was the most enlightened idea of its time? Furthermore, if Christianity stifles thought, how does he account for the biblical basis for modern science, or the notion that most of the truly great scientists of yesteryear were Christians?
I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative.
He's actually correct on this one minor point. Yes, their religious beliefs guided the 9-11 killers down that putrid path. But his point is less than stellar, since it's only relevant if every religion shares the same values, doctrines, and stated goals.
If you look at it logically, it's something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child. It certainly was drilled into mine at that age.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous stereotype I've ever read. So now all Christians are products of childhood indoctrination? That's silly, and demonstrably false. Mr. Maher's bad prepubescent tribulations aside, his personal anecdote does not speak to the experiences of the entire human race, or for all of the Church.
"When you look at beliefs in such things as, do you go to heaven, is there a devil, we have more in common with Turkey and Iran and Syria than we do with European nations and Canada and nations that, yes, I would consider more enlightened than us."
How does one even respond to such unmitigated arrogance? Mr. Maher would do well to remember that atheism has never been a boon to humanity. In fact, it led to the worst series of mass murders the world has ever witnessed, in the 20th Century. Nor do I buy into his addlepated contention that we have more in common with Syria, Iran, and Turkey than with Canada and Europe. And are Canada and Europe models to which we should aspire?
He claims religion is a neurological disorder. How about self-loathing, Bill. Does that epitomize mental health?
Maher explained that he was not singling out evangelicals, but was targeting all "religious" people.
Whew, that makes me feel so much better!
"I think the vote in Missouri [rejecting same-sex marriage] and a lot of other states is because people are religious," Maher said. "They don't have to be evangelical, but they're religious. They believe in religion, which as – I think it was Jesse Ventura who had that quote about religion is a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."
Extrapolate from Billy-boy's opinion, folks: 1. Religion is a neurological disorder. 2. Rejecting same-sex marriage stems from religion. 3. Therefore, rejecting homosexual marriage is the product of a neurological disorder. This is a bizarre assertion, considering that homosexuality is probably the most dangerous, self-destructive lifestyle imaginable, even leaving the moral side of the equation out of it.
I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality.
Ah, here we go. A more fully-realized jab from an evolutionary standpoint. I love this. Anyone who harbors the slightest religious inclination scoffs at science and denounces rationality. How original. I wonder if he caused himself a neurological disorder thinking that one up.
"When you were a kid and they were telling you whatever you believe in religion, do you think if they had switched the fairy tales that they read to you in bed with the Bible, you would know the difference?
Preposterous. Speaking for myself, since I was a kid, once, I'd say yes. I most certainly would know the difference. Fairy tales do not have the moral dimension, the ring of truth, or the historical context that biblical stories have. Nor do fairy tales contend that they are the work of almighty God.
"Do you think if it was the fairy tale about a man who lived inside of a whale and it was religion that Jack built a beanstalk today, you would know the difference? Why do you believe in one fairy tale and not the other? Just because adults told you it was true and they scared you into believing it, at pain of death, at pain of burning in hell."
Sticking with Bill's examples, yep, I'd definitely know the difference. Jonah was swallowed by a whale as a punishment from God for ignoring His commands. It was a disciplinary action that achieved results. Jonah finally saw the errors of his ways, obeyed the Lord, and preached unto the people of Nineveh. They converted almost to a man. Contrast this with the story of Jack. Jack had a magic bean that grew into a beanstalk. Up the beanstalk lived a giant. Why did the bean grow into a gigantic beanstalk? Why did a giant live up at the top? How did the bean become magic, and what was its purpose? We don't know the answers to any of these questions, because the story doesn't tell us. Nor did the authors of this tale ever lay claim to its historical authenticity. So in truth, I see quite a huge difference between the two stories.
Bill comes across as someone who hates religion, but Christianity, in particular. Perhaps a nun pinched his ear a little too hard, when he was a kid. Perhaps the smell of brimstone during a sermon offended his olfactory senses. Perhaps the unleavened bread during the Lord's Supper was a little too bland for his exotic tastebuds. Maybe he just hates behavioral expectations. Who knows his reasons?
It's interesting--and also sad--that the Christianity Bill Maher hates is entirely a product of his imagination.
A fairy tale, if you will.
Television personality Bill Maher. . .says Christians and others who are religious suffer from a neurological disorder that "stops people from thinking."
Wow, that's brilliant. I bet he makes most evolutionists proud, since this is the same argument they use.
"We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies.
Where to begin? This assertion belies well-known historical facts. Most of the men who dreamed up the Constitution and drafted the initial laws of this great nation were practicing Christians. I contend that a country extending unprecedented freedoms is pretty darned enlightened, by my definition of the word. Since most of the Founders shared a Christian worldview, how does he explain the idea that "all men are created equal" was the most enlightened idea of its time? Furthermore, if Christianity stifles thought, how does he account for the biblical basis for modern science, or the notion that most of the truly great scientists of yesteryear were Christians?
I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative.
He's actually correct on this one minor point. Yes, their religious beliefs guided the 9-11 killers down that putrid path. But his point is less than stellar, since it's only relevant if every religion shares the same values, doctrines, and stated goals.
If you look at it logically, it's something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child. It certainly was drilled into mine at that age.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous stereotype I've ever read. So now all Christians are products of childhood indoctrination? That's silly, and demonstrably false. Mr. Maher's bad prepubescent tribulations aside, his personal anecdote does not speak to the experiences of the entire human race, or for all of the Church.
"When you look at beliefs in such things as, do you go to heaven, is there a devil, we have more in common with Turkey and Iran and Syria than we do with European nations and Canada and nations that, yes, I would consider more enlightened than us."
How does one even respond to such unmitigated arrogance? Mr. Maher would do well to remember that atheism has never been a boon to humanity. In fact, it led to the worst series of mass murders the world has ever witnessed, in the 20th Century. Nor do I buy into his addlepated contention that we have more in common with Syria, Iran, and Turkey than with Canada and Europe. And are Canada and Europe models to which we should aspire?
He claims religion is a neurological disorder. How about self-loathing, Bill. Does that epitomize mental health?
Maher explained that he was not singling out evangelicals, but was targeting all "religious" people.
Whew, that makes me feel so much better!
"I think the vote in Missouri [rejecting same-sex marriage] and a lot of other states is because people are religious," Maher said. "They don't have to be evangelical, but they're religious. They believe in religion, which as – I think it was Jesse Ventura who had that quote about religion is a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."
Extrapolate from Billy-boy's opinion, folks: 1. Religion is a neurological disorder. 2. Rejecting same-sex marriage stems from religion. 3. Therefore, rejecting homosexual marriage is the product of a neurological disorder. This is a bizarre assertion, considering that homosexuality is probably the most dangerous, self-destructive lifestyle imaginable, even leaving the moral side of the equation out of it.
I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality.
Ah, here we go. A more fully-realized jab from an evolutionary standpoint. I love this. Anyone who harbors the slightest religious inclination scoffs at science and denounces rationality. How original. I wonder if he caused himself a neurological disorder thinking that one up.
"When you were a kid and they were telling you whatever you believe in religion, do you think if they had switched the fairy tales that they read to you in bed with the Bible, you would know the difference?
Preposterous. Speaking for myself, since I was a kid, once, I'd say yes. I most certainly would know the difference. Fairy tales do not have the moral dimension, the ring of truth, or the historical context that biblical stories have. Nor do fairy tales contend that they are the work of almighty God.
"Do you think if it was the fairy tale about a man who lived inside of a whale and it was religion that Jack built a beanstalk today, you would know the difference? Why do you believe in one fairy tale and not the other? Just because adults told you it was true and they scared you into believing it, at pain of death, at pain of burning in hell."
Sticking with Bill's examples, yep, I'd definitely know the difference. Jonah was swallowed by a whale as a punishment from God for ignoring His commands. It was a disciplinary action that achieved results. Jonah finally saw the errors of his ways, obeyed the Lord, and preached unto the people of Nineveh. They converted almost to a man. Contrast this with the story of Jack. Jack had a magic bean that grew into a beanstalk. Up the beanstalk lived a giant. Why did the bean grow into a gigantic beanstalk? Why did a giant live up at the top? How did the bean become magic, and what was its purpose? We don't know the answers to any of these questions, because the story doesn't tell us. Nor did the authors of this tale ever lay claim to its historical authenticity. So in truth, I see quite a huge difference between the two stories.
Bill comes across as someone who hates religion, but Christianity, in particular. Perhaps a nun pinched his ear a little too hard, when he was a kid. Perhaps the smell of brimstone during a sermon offended his olfactory senses. Perhaps the unleavened bread during the Lord's Supper was a little too bland for his exotic tastebuds. Maybe he just hates behavioral expectations. Who knows his reasons?
It's interesting--and also sad--that the Christianity Bill Maher hates is entirely a product of his imagination.
A fairy tale, if you will.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Banning Family Values
A federal court ruled the city of Oakland had a right to bar two employees from posting a flier promoting traditional family values on an office bulletin board.
Employees Regina Rederford and Robin Christy posted the flier in response to an e-mail to city employees announcing formation of a gay and lesbian employee association. The two responded with a promotion of their own -- the start of an informal group that respects "the natural family, marriage and family values."
But supervisors Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered removal of the flier, stating it contained "statements of a homophobic nature" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment," even though it made no mention of homosexuality.
Titled, "Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity," the entire text said:
Good News Employee Associations is a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values.
If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford @xxx-xxxx or Robin Christy @xxx-xxxx
The flyer was removed the same day, however, by order of Hicks.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: Open endorsement of homosexuality is good. Open endorsement of family values is bad. Family values are biased and discriminatory. Homosexual values are not. Additionally, any worldview not enthusiastically in favor of homosexuality is "homophobic."
The assault on the bulwarks of religious freedom continues, in the public square. Now they're scaling the battlements and raining arrows into the inner courtyard. How long before they break into the keep and raze it to the ground?
Employees Regina Rederford and Robin Christy posted the flier in response to an e-mail to city employees announcing formation of a gay and lesbian employee association. The two responded with a promotion of their own -- the start of an informal group that respects "the natural family, marriage and family values."
But supervisors Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered removal of the flier, stating it contained "statements of a homophobic nature" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment," even though it made no mention of homosexuality.
Titled, "Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity," the entire text said:
Good News Employee Associations is a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values.
If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford @xxx-xxxx or Robin Christy @xxx-xxxx
The flyer was removed the same day, however, by order of Hicks.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: Open endorsement of homosexuality is good. Open endorsement of family values is bad. Family values are biased and discriminatory. Homosexual values are not. Additionally, any worldview not enthusiastically in favor of homosexuality is "homophobic."
The assault on the bulwarks of religious freedom continues, in the public square. Now they're scaling the battlements and raining arrows into the inner courtyard. How long before they break into the keep and raze it to the ground?
Christians Acquitted
Remember the group of Christians arrested in Philidelphia for protesting a homosexual event? Well, as of today, all charges against them have been dropped.
Judge Pamela Dembe of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the charges, saying that she found no basis whatsoever for any of them.
"We are one of the very few countries that protects unpopular speech," Dembe said after viewing a videotape of the arrests. "And that means that Nazis can March in Skokie, Ill. ... That means that the Ku Klux Klan can march where they wish to. We cannot stifle speech because we don't want to hear it, or we don't want to hear it now."
As WorldNetDaily reported, on Oct. 10, a group of 11 Christians was "preaching God's Word" to a crowd of people attending the Philadelphia "OutFest" event and displaying banners with biblical messages.
After a confrontation with a group called the Pink Angels, described by protesters as "a militant mob of homosexuals," the Christians were arrested and spent a night in jail.
Eight charges were filed: criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways.
None of the Pink Angels was cited or arrested.
After a preliminary hearing in December, Judge William Austin Meehan ordered four of the Christians to stand trial on three felony and five misdemeanor charges. If convicted, each could have received a maximum of 47 years in prison. One female teenage protester faces charges in the juvenile justice system, but those charges likely will be dropped tomorrow.
"What took place here was a government crackdown on disfavored speech. The OutFest participants staged a national coming-out day on a public street using public funds, and then they tried to say it's a private event. That didn't make any sense, and neither did the actions of the police. …"--Joe Infranco, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund
Whereas I admire and respect the good judge's commitment to free speech, does anyone else find it vexing that she mentioned this case in the same context as Nazi marches and Ku Klux Klan gatherings? This is an unjust and patently absurd association.
Mixed feelings aside, I'm very happy this despicable example of injustice was rectified. Would that all such persecutions had a happy ending.
Judge Pamela Dembe of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the charges, saying that she found no basis whatsoever for any of them.
"We are one of the very few countries that protects unpopular speech," Dembe said after viewing a videotape of the arrests. "And that means that Nazis can March in Skokie, Ill. ... That means that the Ku Klux Klan can march where they wish to. We cannot stifle speech because we don't want to hear it, or we don't want to hear it now."
As WorldNetDaily reported, on Oct. 10, a group of 11 Christians was "preaching God's Word" to a crowd of people attending the Philadelphia "OutFest" event and displaying banners with biblical messages.
After a confrontation with a group called the Pink Angels, described by protesters as "a militant mob of homosexuals," the Christians were arrested and spent a night in jail.
Eight charges were filed: criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways.
None of the Pink Angels was cited or arrested.
After a preliminary hearing in December, Judge William Austin Meehan ordered four of the Christians to stand trial on three felony and five misdemeanor charges. If convicted, each could have received a maximum of 47 years in prison. One female teenage protester faces charges in the juvenile justice system, but those charges likely will be dropped tomorrow.
"What took place here was a government crackdown on disfavored speech. The OutFest participants staged a national coming-out day on a public street using public funds, and then they tried to say it's a private event. That didn't make any sense, and neither did the actions of the police. …"--Joe Infranco, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund
Whereas I admire and respect the good judge's commitment to free speech, does anyone else find it vexing that she mentioned this case in the same context as Nazi marches and Ku Klux Klan gatherings? This is an unjust and patently absurd association.
Mixed feelings aside, I'm very happy this despicable example of injustice was rectified. Would that all such persecutions had a happy ending.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Repost: Sincere Belief
This post--far and away--has generated more attention than any previous post. It's a record, folks, with 170 comments, and counting. I'm tickled pink, though, since I consider this one of my better ones. So without further ado, I'm reposting it for those who maybe missed it the first time around. Feel free to comment as you see fit. Here's the original, for anyone curious enough to wade into the prior comments.
Sincere Belief
Ever heard the old argument, "It doesn't matter what religion you have faith in, so long as you believe in something."? Boy, I sure have--many times, on the internet and within other print media. I realize this view exhibits the quintessence of ecumenism, i.e., the idea that all religious beliefs should be in harmony.
Allow me to demonstrate the absurdity of such an outlook. Sincerity does not equal correctness. For example: Suppose that you and I board a small plane and ascend to 25,000 feet. Snug in our seats, I look over at you and say: "
I sincerely believe that, if I jump out of this plane and flap my arms hard enough, I'll be able to achieve flight." Of course, you'd probably roll your eyes and denounce me as an idiot; or even more likely, you'd assume I'm joking. But a few minutes later, while your attention is averted, I slip out of my retraints, rip open the cabin door, and leap out of the plane. Slicing through mid-air and plummeting to the earth, I begin flapping my arms just as hard as I can.I sincerely believe I can fly. . .and in just a couple of minutes, I'll be sincerely dead. The point of this ridiculous story is that a person may be sincere in his beliefs, and be sincerely wrong.
The sinister idea lurking behind this notion is that there is no absolute truth, no distinct right and wrong. The key to understanding the problem is in recognizing that truth is not dependent upon belief. For example, the law of gravity is real--demonstrable, in fact. If every human being alive stops believing in gravity and its effects tomorrow, will that make its reality less true, its effects less real? Of course not.
Belief, however, is dependent upon truth. In other words, belief is important, yes, but only if what you believe is true.
Look at the contest between the prophets of Baal and God, in the Old Testament. Pieces of a dead ox were placed on an altar. The god who responded to his worshippers' petitions would burn up the sacrifice with fire. The prophets of Baal prayed, pled, danced, mutilated themselves, and performed other foolish, fruitless rituals all day.
Nothing happened. But were these men insincere in their beliefs? Quite to the contrary. They believed in their god so strongly that making fools of themselves in public was an acceptable risk.
Later, when the Lord God of Israel was invoked, He rained fire down out of Heaven, consumed the sacrifice, and even incinerated the very altar upon which it lay.
Baal's false prophets were slain for their evils. So if belief is all that matters, why were these men not spared?
Because faith's value depends on the object of that faith.
Sincere Belief
Ever heard the old argument, "It doesn't matter what religion you have faith in, so long as you believe in something."? Boy, I sure have--many times, on the internet and within other print media. I realize this view exhibits the quintessence of ecumenism, i.e., the idea that all religious beliefs should be in harmony.
Allow me to demonstrate the absurdity of such an outlook. Sincerity does not equal correctness. For example: Suppose that you and I board a small plane and ascend to 25,000 feet. Snug in our seats, I look over at you and say: "
I sincerely believe that, if I jump out of this plane and flap my arms hard enough, I'll be able to achieve flight." Of course, you'd probably roll your eyes and denounce me as an idiot; or even more likely, you'd assume I'm joking. But a few minutes later, while your attention is averted, I slip out of my retraints, rip open the cabin door, and leap out of the plane. Slicing through mid-air and plummeting to the earth, I begin flapping my arms just as hard as I can.I sincerely believe I can fly. . .and in just a couple of minutes, I'll be sincerely dead. The point of this ridiculous story is that a person may be sincere in his beliefs, and be sincerely wrong.
The sinister idea lurking behind this notion is that there is no absolute truth, no distinct right and wrong. The key to understanding the problem is in recognizing that truth is not dependent upon belief. For example, the law of gravity is real--demonstrable, in fact. If every human being alive stops believing in gravity and its effects tomorrow, will that make its reality less true, its effects less real? Of course not.
Belief, however, is dependent upon truth. In other words, belief is important, yes, but only if what you believe is true.
Look at the contest between the prophets of Baal and God, in the Old Testament. Pieces of a dead ox were placed on an altar. The god who responded to his worshippers' petitions would burn up the sacrifice with fire. The prophets of Baal prayed, pled, danced, mutilated themselves, and performed other foolish, fruitless rituals all day.
Nothing happened. But were these men insincere in their beliefs? Quite to the contrary. They believed in their god so strongly that making fools of themselves in public was an acceptable risk.
Later, when the Lord God of Israel was invoked, He rained fire down out of Heaven, consumed the sacrifice, and even incinerated the very altar upon which it lay.
Baal's false prophets were slain for their evils. So if belief is all that matters, why were these men not spared?
Because faith's value depends on the object of that faith.
The Worldly Church
If the world grows too worldly, it can be rebuked by the Church; but if the Church grows too worldly, it cannot be adequately rebuked for worldliness by the world.--G.K. Chesterton
Monday, February 14, 2005
The Early Pro-Life Movement
Many people think the anti-abortion movement only began about the time of Roe v. Wade, or perhaps a little earlier. This is far from accurate, though. Below is a list of quotes taken from the writings or speeches of early Church leaders and workers, on the horror and ungodliness of abortion. I gleaned these from the pages of a marvelous book, entitled Third Time Around: A History of the Pro-Life Movement from the First Century to the Present, by George Grant.
These words were backed by deeds--many great and remarkable deeds of selflessness--for the sake of the unborn.
She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus must bear the penalty for murder. Moreover those who aid her, who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons.--Basil of Caesarea, 4th Century
There are two ways: the way of life and the way of death, and the difference between these two ways is great. Therefore, do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant.--Didache, a collection of Apostolic moral teachings, end of the 1st Century
You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated.--Epistle of Barnabas, early 2nd Century
We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God's care.--Athenagoras, in a letter to Marcus Aurelius, 2nd Century.
Our whole life can proceed according to God's perfect plan only if we gain dominion over our desires, practicing continence from the beginning instead of destroying through perverse and pernicious arts human offspring, who are given birth by Divine Providence. Those who use abortifacient medicines to hide their fornication cause not only the outright murder of the fetus but of the whole human race as well.--Clement of Alexandria, 3rd Century
Our faith declares life out of death. Therefore, murder is forbidden once and for all. We may not destroy even the fetus in the womb. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man killing. Thus it does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, destruction is murder.--Tertullian, 3rd Century
They deny in their very womb their own progeny. By use of parricidal mixtures they snuff out the fruit of their wombs. In this way life is taken before it is given. Who except man himself has taught us ways of repudiating our own children.--Ambrose, 4th Century
They who drink potions to ensure sterility are guilty of rebuffing God's own blessings. Some, when they learn that the potions have failed and thus are with child through sin, practice abortion by use of still other potions. They are then guilty of three crimes: self-mutilation, adultery, and the murder of an unborn child.--Jerome, 4th & 5th Century
They provoke women to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to murder the unborn child.--Augustine of Hippo, 4th & 5th Century
Many other examples exist, including the Bible's strong pro-child stance.
Notice a pattern in the above quotes? Each of these supposed primitives held crystal clarity in several key areas, in which many today find only ambiguity:
1. The unborn are living beings, not blobs of refuse in the womb.
2. The unborn are children.
3. Killing the unborn is synonymous with murdering a child.
Abortion and even infanticide were perfectly legal in many contemporary societies during the lives of the men I quoted, including that of much-vaunted Rome. Islands of compassion and godliness in seas of barbaric paganism, what drove these men (and in some cases, women) to reach these conclusions?
The love of Christ, and Christianity's subsequent outreach.
Is it possible to be a pagan or atheist and still be pro-life?
Sure.
Is it likely? Is it a historical norm? Will atheism or paganism lead one to crusade for the temporal--and eternal--salvation of the unborn, or for that of small children?
No. Any historical example would be an exception, rather than the rule.
These words were backed by deeds--many great and remarkable deeds of selflessness--for the sake of the unborn.
She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus must bear the penalty for murder. Moreover those who aid her, who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons.--Basil of Caesarea, 4th Century
There are two ways: the way of life and the way of death, and the difference between these two ways is great. Therefore, do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant.--Didache, a collection of Apostolic moral teachings, end of the 1st Century
You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated.--Epistle of Barnabas, early 2nd Century
We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God's care.--Athenagoras, in a letter to Marcus Aurelius, 2nd Century.
Our whole life can proceed according to God's perfect plan only if we gain dominion over our desires, practicing continence from the beginning instead of destroying through perverse and pernicious arts human offspring, who are given birth by Divine Providence. Those who use abortifacient medicines to hide their fornication cause not only the outright murder of the fetus but of the whole human race as well.--Clement of Alexandria, 3rd Century
Our faith declares life out of death. Therefore, murder is forbidden once and for all. We may not destroy even the fetus in the womb. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man killing. Thus it does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, destruction is murder.--Tertullian, 3rd Century
They deny in their very womb their own progeny. By use of parricidal mixtures they snuff out the fruit of their wombs. In this way life is taken before it is given. Who except man himself has taught us ways of repudiating our own children.--Ambrose, 4th Century
They who drink potions to ensure sterility are guilty of rebuffing God's own blessings. Some, when they learn that the potions have failed and thus are with child through sin, practice abortion by use of still other potions. They are then guilty of three crimes: self-mutilation, adultery, and the murder of an unborn child.--Jerome, 4th & 5th Century
They provoke women to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to murder the unborn child.--Augustine of Hippo, 4th & 5th Century
Many other examples exist, including the Bible's strong pro-child stance.
Notice a pattern in the above quotes? Each of these supposed primitives held crystal clarity in several key areas, in which many today find only ambiguity:
1. The unborn are living beings, not blobs of refuse in the womb.
2. The unborn are children.
3. Killing the unborn is synonymous with murdering a child.
Abortion and even infanticide were perfectly legal in many contemporary societies during the lives of the men I quoted, including that of much-vaunted Rome. Islands of compassion and godliness in seas of barbaric paganism, what drove these men (and in some cases, women) to reach these conclusions?
The love of Christ, and Christianity's subsequent outreach.
Is it possible to be a pagan or atheist and still be pro-life?
Sure.
Is it likely? Is it a historical norm? Will atheism or paganism lead one to crusade for the temporal--and eternal--salvation of the unborn, or for that of small children?
No. Any historical example would be an exception, rather than the rule.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Literature For Boys
Ok, here's a list of books I read as a kid. Each was written in the last fifty years. I also recommend any of the classics, particularly the science fiction novels of H.G. Wells and Charles Dickens' stuff. Most of these should appeal to boys between the ages of eight and sixteen. Of course, this is just an estimate. It all depends upon your child's reading level. Heck, adults like these, as well.
1. The Call of the Wild and White Fang, by Jack London: Both tell stories of adventure in the Arctic from the viewpoints of dogs.
2. Island of the Blue Dolphins, by Scott O'Dell: The story of a young Indian girl fighting for survival on an island, all alone. Similar in some ways to Robinson Crusoe.
3. Call it Courage, by Armstrong Sperry: A boy enters a rite of passage in a game of life and death on the sea.
4. Sounder and its sequel, Sour Land, by William H. Armstrong: The first book tells of a black sharecropper's son and his relationship with his dog, during the Great Depression. The second book deals with the boy as an old man who is a positive influence on a white family.
5. The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien: Most folks are familiar with this book, about Bilbo Baggins, a magic ring, and Middle-Earth. A prequel to The Lord of the Rings.
6. The Tripods Series, consisting of When the Tripods Came, The White Mountains, The Pool of Fire, and The City of Gold and Lead, by John Christopher: A story of alien invasion, and several children and adults facing its aftermath.
7. The Incredible Journey, by Sheila Burnford: Two dogs and a cat travel a long distance for a reunion with their owners.
8. The Prydain Chronicles, consisting of The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron, The Castle of Llyr, Taran Wanderer, and The High King, by Lloyd Alexander: Assistant pig-keeper Taran's road to manhood, set in the mythical world of Prydain. Fans of Narnia and Middle-Earth will love this one.
9. The Chronicles of Narnia, consisting of The Magician's Nephew, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Horse and His Boy, Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the "Dawn Treader", The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle, by C.S. Lewis: The amazing adventures of a group of children in the land of Narnia. A Christian allegory.
10. Down the Long Hills, by Louis L'Amour: A western about a young boy, his sister, and their horse, lost in the wilderness after a wagon train massacre. I defy anyone to not be touched by this book. In fact, almost any novel by this author is an excellent read.
I could write a book listing nothing but great fiction for boys, but I'll stop, here. I believe this list makes an excellent starting point.
1. The Call of the Wild and White Fang, by Jack London: Both tell stories of adventure in the Arctic from the viewpoints of dogs.
2. Island of the Blue Dolphins, by Scott O'Dell: The story of a young Indian girl fighting for survival on an island, all alone. Similar in some ways to Robinson Crusoe.
3. Call it Courage, by Armstrong Sperry: A boy enters a rite of passage in a game of life and death on the sea.
4. Sounder and its sequel, Sour Land, by William H. Armstrong: The first book tells of a black sharecropper's son and his relationship with his dog, during the Great Depression. The second book deals with the boy as an old man who is a positive influence on a white family.
5. The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien: Most folks are familiar with this book, about Bilbo Baggins, a magic ring, and Middle-Earth. A prequel to The Lord of the Rings.
6. The Tripods Series, consisting of When the Tripods Came, The White Mountains, The Pool of Fire, and The City of Gold and Lead, by John Christopher: A story of alien invasion, and several children and adults facing its aftermath.
7. The Incredible Journey, by Sheila Burnford: Two dogs and a cat travel a long distance for a reunion with their owners.
8. The Prydain Chronicles, consisting of The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron, The Castle of Llyr, Taran Wanderer, and The High King, by Lloyd Alexander: Assistant pig-keeper Taran's road to manhood, set in the mythical world of Prydain. Fans of Narnia and Middle-Earth will love this one.
9. The Chronicles of Narnia, consisting of The Magician's Nephew, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Horse and His Boy, Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the "Dawn Treader", The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle, by C.S. Lewis: The amazing adventures of a group of children in the land of Narnia. A Christian allegory.
10. Down the Long Hills, by Louis L'Amour: A western about a young boy, his sister, and their horse, lost in the wilderness after a wagon train massacre. I defy anyone to not be touched by this book. In fact, almost any novel by this author is an excellent read.
I could write a book listing nothing but great fiction for boys, but I'll stop, here. I believe this list makes an excellent starting point.
Tuesday, February 8, 2005
Ted Hates America
From The Federalist Patriot:
"The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation." --Sen. Ted Kennedy
Ok, this is beyond stupid, regardless of your particular take on the Iraq war. If Kennedy would only hoist himself out of the bottle for a little sunshine and fresh air, he'd realize the asinine nature of his words.
A little history: The Ottoman Turks were brutal oppressors, bent on dominating anyone--and everyone--in their path. They waged a long and bloody war against Europe, in the name of Islamic expansion, and ultimately lost. This defeat culminated at the end of the First World War. Ted "Pour Me Another" Kennedy's remark demonstrates two specific points: 1. His contempt for the United States is about as subtle as Fat Albert's weight problem; and 2. His ignorance of Islamic history is quite profound.
Worse, he implies that other Middle Eastern countries are free. Perhaps they don't have more powerful nations lording over them--but free? Tell that to the women who are beaten senseless or shot for stepping outside their houses without chaperones. Tell that to the young girls experiencing clitorectomies as a birthday gift from their parents. Tell that to those who are murdered, imprisoned, or deported for teaching the validity of any religion besides Islam. The list goes on and on, ad nauseum. Some of the most oppressed people on earth live in the Middle East, and the U.S. has nothing to do with it. If such evils continue in Iraq--and I'm sure they do--it is not as a result of the American presence, but in spite of it. Kennedy and others of his America-loathing ilk would do well to remember that.
"The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation." --Sen. Ted Kennedy
Ok, this is beyond stupid, regardless of your particular take on the Iraq war. If Kennedy would only hoist himself out of the bottle for a little sunshine and fresh air, he'd realize the asinine nature of his words.
A little history: The Ottoman Turks were brutal oppressors, bent on dominating anyone--and everyone--in their path. They waged a long and bloody war against Europe, in the name of Islamic expansion, and ultimately lost. This defeat culminated at the end of the First World War. Ted "Pour Me Another" Kennedy's remark demonstrates two specific points: 1. His contempt for the United States is about as subtle as Fat Albert's weight problem; and 2. His ignorance of Islamic history is quite profound.
Worse, he implies that other Middle Eastern countries are free. Perhaps they don't have more powerful nations lording over them--but free? Tell that to the women who are beaten senseless or shot for stepping outside their houses without chaperones. Tell that to the young girls experiencing clitorectomies as a birthday gift from their parents. Tell that to those who are murdered, imprisoned, or deported for teaching the validity of any religion besides Islam. The list goes on and on, ad nauseum. Some of the most oppressed people on earth live in the Middle East, and the U.S. has nothing to do with it. If such evils continue in Iraq--and I'm sure they do--it is not as a result of the American presence, but in spite of it. Kennedy and others of his America-loathing ilk would do well to remember that.
Ancient Common Sense
"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." --Plutarch
Reading about how the ancients were such primitive brutes makes me laugh. This tactic is used by those who would dismiss their words on a particular subject, with the wave of a hand. And yet finding numerous examples of their understanding of human nature--and just plain common sense--is quite easy. It's funny how so many people in modern times sneer at wisdom from the past, yet they prove daily their complete and utter lack of comprehension of this simple truth cited above.
Sunday, February 6, 2005
The Old Rugged Cross
Only one of many hymns that brought me through my childhood, and I still love its powerful simplicity. Here are the lyrics:
The Old Rugged Cross
1. On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
the emblem of suffering and shame;
and I love that old cross where the dearest and best
for a world of lost sinners was slain.
(Refrain):
So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,
till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
and exchange it some day for a crown.
2. O that old rugged cross, so despised by the world,
has a wondrous attraction for me;
for the dear Lamb of God left his glory above
to bear it to dark Calvary.
(Refrain)
3. In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,
a wondrous beauty I see,
for 'twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,
to pardon and sanctify me.
(Refrain)
4. To that old rugged cross I will ever be true,
its shame and reproach gladly bear;
then he'll call me some day to my home far away,
where his glory forever I'll share.
(Refrain)
Words and music written in 1913 by George Bennard (1873-1958)
The Old Rugged Cross
1. On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
the emblem of suffering and shame;
and I love that old cross where the dearest and best
for a world of lost sinners was slain.
(Refrain):
So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,
till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
and exchange it some day for a crown.
2. O that old rugged cross, so despised by the world,
has a wondrous attraction for me;
for the dear Lamb of God left his glory above
to bear it to dark Calvary.
(Refrain)
3. In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,
a wondrous beauty I see,
for 'twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,
to pardon and sanctify me.
(Refrain)
4. To that old rugged cross I will ever be true,
its shame and reproach gladly bear;
then he'll call me some day to my home far away,
where his glory forever I'll share.
(Refrain)
Words and music written in 1913 by George Bennard (1873-1958)
Thursday, February 3, 2005
Now That Yowza Arafat's Gone. . .
President Bush plans in his State of the Union address on Wednesday to pledge greater assistance for the Palestinians, including a financial aid package that could total nearly $350 million to bolster development and security, sources familiar with the plan said.
What a capital idea! These poor, deprived people are in dire need of more bomb-making materiel, backpacks for their transportation, rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, and other assorted goodies. Yes, by all means, finance their every whim. Viva la Palestine!
Seriously, let's think about this. This is a blatant violation of the Constitution's specifically enumerated powers of the government. Indeed, all such taxpayer funded "foreign aid" is stepping well beyond the line of the federal government's rights.
This minor inconvenience aside, where is the tiniest iota of logic in this? How foolish must one be to give away hundreds of millions of dollars to a group of people governed by a terrorist organization? Does Bush seriously believe such monies will go toward "the greater good" of the "Palestinians." Apparently, Bush is a true believer in the phony depiction of the "Palestinians" foisted upon the world by propagandists.
Goebbels is clapping from the bowels of Hell over this one.
The announcement would highlight Bush's support for Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, elected last month to replace Yasser Arafat, whom Bush shunned as an obstacle to peace until his death.
According to my limited research on the man, here's what I know about Abbas:
1. He opposes the idea of using force to stop terrorism.
2. In a doctoral thesis, he claimed that far fewer than 6 million Jews dies in the Holocaust.
3. He accused the Jews of conspiring with Hitler to exterminate European Jews--a truly unique perspective only fully appreciated in strait-jacketed asylum wards.
4. He denied the use of gas chambers on Jewish victims by the Germans.
5. He was one of the primary planners of the Munich Olympics terrorist attack.
6. He has been quoted as saying: The "intifada must continue."
Sounds like a classy guy, huh? Why are we giving these murderers money, and why is Bush supporting this wolf in sheep's clothing?
The man's treachery and connivance has all the subtlety of a hammerblow to the forehead.
What a capital idea! These poor, deprived people are in dire need of more bomb-making materiel, backpacks for their transportation, rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, and other assorted goodies. Yes, by all means, finance their every whim. Viva la Palestine!
Seriously, let's think about this. This is a blatant violation of the Constitution's specifically enumerated powers of the government. Indeed, all such taxpayer funded "foreign aid" is stepping well beyond the line of the federal government's rights.
This minor inconvenience aside, where is the tiniest iota of logic in this? How foolish must one be to give away hundreds of millions of dollars to a group of people governed by a terrorist organization? Does Bush seriously believe such monies will go toward "the greater good" of the "Palestinians." Apparently, Bush is a true believer in the phony depiction of the "Palestinians" foisted upon the world by propagandists.
Goebbels is clapping from the bowels of Hell over this one.
The announcement would highlight Bush's support for Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, elected last month to replace Yasser Arafat, whom Bush shunned as an obstacle to peace until his death.
According to my limited research on the man, here's what I know about Abbas:
1. He opposes the idea of using force to stop terrorism.
2. In a doctoral thesis, he claimed that far fewer than 6 million Jews dies in the Holocaust.
3. He accused the Jews of conspiring with Hitler to exterminate European Jews--a truly unique perspective only fully appreciated in strait-jacketed asylum wards.
4. He denied the use of gas chambers on Jewish victims by the Germans.
5. He was one of the primary planners of the Munich Olympics terrorist attack.
6. He has been quoted as saying: The "intifada must continue."
Sounds like a classy guy, huh? Why are we giving these murderers money, and why is Bush supporting this wolf in sheep's clothing?
The man's treachery and connivance has all the subtlety of a hammerblow to the forehead.
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
Old Age A-Creepin' Up
I filched this from the internet. Like George Washington, I cannot tell a lie. I didn't write it, but I wish I had.
How To Know When You're Growing Older:
Everything hurts, and what doesn't hurt, doesn't work anyway.
The gleam in your eyes is from the sun hitting your bifocals.
You feel like you really hung one the night before, and you were in bed asleep by eight.
You get winded playing chess.
Your children begin to look middle-aged.
You join a health club and don't go.
You begin to outlive enthusiasm.
Your mind makes contracts your body can't meet.
You know all the answers, but nobody asks the questions.
You look forward to a dull evening.
Your favorite part of the newspaper is "25 years ago today!"
You sit in a rocking chair and can't get it going.
Your knees buckle and your belt won't.
You're 17 around the neck and 42 around the waist.
You stop looking forward to your next birthday.
Dialing long distance wears you out.
Your back goes out more than you do.
A fortune teller offers to read your face.
You turn out the lights for economic reasons rather than romantic ones.
You remember this week that last week was your wedding anniversary.
You are startled the first time you are addressed as "Old Timer".
You answer automatically when someone addresses you "Old Timer."
You burn your midnight oil after 9:00 p.m.
You sink your teeth into a steak and they stay there.
Your pacemaker makes the garage door go up when you see a pretty girl walk by.
You get your exercise acting as a pallbearer for your friend who exercised.
You have too much room in the house and not enough in the medicine cabinet.
The best part of your day is over when your alarm goes off.
The thought of getting out of bed never occurs to you.
Haha, and I thought getting old would be awful!
How To Know When You're Growing Older:
Everything hurts, and what doesn't hurt, doesn't work anyway.
The gleam in your eyes is from the sun hitting your bifocals.
You feel like you really hung one the night before, and you were in bed asleep by eight.
You get winded playing chess.
Your children begin to look middle-aged.
You join a health club and don't go.
You begin to outlive enthusiasm.
Your mind makes contracts your body can't meet.
You know all the answers, but nobody asks the questions.
You look forward to a dull evening.
Your favorite part of the newspaper is "25 years ago today!"
You sit in a rocking chair and can't get it going.
Your knees buckle and your belt won't.
You're 17 around the neck and 42 around the waist.
You stop looking forward to your next birthday.
Dialing long distance wears you out.
Your back goes out more than you do.
A fortune teller offers to read your face.
You turn out the lights for economic reasons rather than romantic ones.
You remember this week that last week was your wedding anniversary.
You are startled the first time you are addressed as "Old Timer".
You answer automatically when someone addresses you "Old Timer."
You burn your midnight oil after 9:00 p.m.
You sink your teeth into a steak and they stay there.
Your pacemaker makes the garage door go up when you see a pretty girl walk by.
You get your exercise acting as a pallbearer for your friend who exercised.
You have too much room in the house and not enough in the medicine cabinet.
The best part of your day is over when your alarm goes off.
The thought of getting out of bed never occurs to you.
Haha, and I thought getting old would be awful!
Tuesday, February 1, 2005
Mini Movie Reviews I
Open Water--
With a low budget and unknown actors, this movie still manages genuine terror. Two or three scenes absolutely are horrifying, making this one of the best horror films I've seen. Worse, nothing in the events portrayed is beyond the realm of possibility. The scenes of the divers bobbing endlessly in the ocean almost made me seasick on dry land. There were some flaws, such as snippets of political correctness, a little too much profanity, and the film was too short; but overall, a great, suspenseful movie. Go. Rent. And wear a lifevest.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow--
This takes place in a 1930s decade that never was, filled w/ the hustle and bustle of big cities, juxtaposed w/ technology ahead of its time. If you like larger-than-life characters, dizzying action sequences, giant robots, and genetically altered animals, this movie's for you. It reminded me of the old Superman cartoons, made in the 30s, as well as the Indiana Jones series. Check your brain at the door for this one, though. Awesome special effects can't hide some of the silly dialogue, unanswered questions, unrealistic character reactions to specific dangers, and logical inconsistancies. But despite its imperfections, I loved this movie. It took me back to my childhood. In fact, if such a film had appeared on the scene, when I was a kid, I would've flipped my lid. Don't let the flaws scare you away. I've never seen another movie filmed quite like this one. It's worth watching just for the spectacle. Highly recommended.
Hero--
Very strange movie, reminiscent of the old kung-fu movies from the old days. The dubbed voices are a bit grating, but not too bad. But the dvd allows the option of watching it in Chinese, w/ English subtitles. Some of the character names are corny, and many of the plot points are bizarre and unlikely. But the fight scenes are a beauty to behold, breathtaking in their near-perfect choreography. The special effects are amazing. I heard somewhere that this is the most expensive movie ever made by the Chinese. After having seen it, I have no doubt that its true. Odd and convoluted, you won't likely forget this film. Well worthwhile.
The Stepford Wives (remake)--
Here's a conundrum. What happens when Hollywood has a great idea, but executes it w/ all the grace of an elephant on roller skates?? You get The Stepford Wives. First the good: competent acting, great fx, good musical score, and an interesting premise. Now the bad: everything else. This is one of the most pc, anti-male movies I've ever seen. This is particularly inexplicable in light of the director's maleness (Frank Oz). Of course, I admit the possibility that hanging w/ muppets and Yoda all the time has the potential for skewing one's perspective. Almost every element of this film was absurd--particularly the end. If you haven't seen it, count yourself lucky. Better yet, go find the original--and far superior--version. Made in the 1970s, this is a great horror movie, w/ an impending sense of doom that'll have you squirming in your seat. It was not a facile attack on males like its current incarnation. A must-miss.
With a low budget and unknown actors, this movie still manages genuine terror. Two or three scenes absolutely are horrifying, making this one of the best horror films I've seen. Worse, nothing in the events portrayed is beyond the realm of possibility. The scenes of the divers bobbing endlessly in the ocean almost made me seasick on dry land. There were some flaws, such as snippets of political correctness, a little too much profanity, and the film was too short; but overall, a great, suspenseful movie. Go. Rent. And wear a lifevest.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow--
This takes place in a 1930s decade that never was, filled w/ the hustle and bustle of big cities, juxtaposed w/ technology ahead of its time. If you like larger-than-life characters, dizzying action sequences, giant robots, and genetically altered animals, this movie's for you. It reminded me of the old Superman cartoons, made in the 30s, as well as the Indiana Jones series. Check your brain at the door for this one, though. Awesome special effects can't hide some of the silly dialogue, unanswered questions, unrealistic character reactions to specific dangers, and logical inconsistancies. But despite its imperfections, I loved this movie. It took me back to my childhood. In fact, if such a film had appeared on the scene, when I was a kid, I would've flipped my lid. Don't let the flaws scare you away. I've never seen another movie filmed quite like this one. It's worth watching just for the spectacle. Highly recommended.
Hero--
Very strange movie, reminiscent of the old kung-fu movies from the old days. The dubbed voices are a bit grating, but not too bad. But the dvd allows the option of watching it in Chinese, w/ English subtitles. Some of the character names are corny, and many of the plot points are bizarre and unlikely. But the fight scenes are a beauty to behold, breathtaking in their near-perfect choreography. The special effects are amazing. I heard somewhere that this is the most expensive movie ever made by the Chinese. After having seen it, I have no doubt that its true. Odd and convoluted, you won't likely forget this film. Well worthwhile.
The Stepford Wives (remake)--
Here's a conundrum. What happens when Hollywood has a great idea, but executes it w/ all the grace of an elephant on roller skates?? You get The Stepford Wives. First the good: competent acting, great fx, good musical score, and an interesting premise. Now the bad: everything else. This is one of the most pc, anti-male movies I've ever seen. This is particularly inexplicable in light of the director's maleness (Frank Oz). Of course, I admit the possibility that hanging w/ muppets and Yoda all the time has the potential for skewing one's perspective. Almost every element of this film was absurd--particularly the end. If you haven't seen it, count yourself lucky. Better yet, go find the original--and far superior--version. Made in the 1970s, this is a great horror movie, w/ an impending sense of doom that'll have you squirming in your seat. It was not a facile attack on males like its current incarnation. A must-miss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)