The BBC has posted an article on this subject here. This is the first time I can recall citing a BBC article, but the fact that one of the most liberal news media outlets on the planet is questioning the merits of global warming - well that is news.
My thoughts: whatever your politics, it seems undeniable that we are in a period of "global cooling." What that means, is up for debate. To me, I find it to be clear evidence in support of my theory: God's plan dictates global climate trends. Mans' actions may have some impact, but so rarely can man overcome the forces of nature. We may want to believe we caused a period of global warming, but I don't really believe we were a major contributing factor for the same reason I refuse to believe mankind can stop a tornado: mother nature is far more powerful than we mere mortals give her credit. God built the earth, and his enginnering skills are above par. To suggest we can change the climate is like suggesting man can stop tsunamis: both sound like science fiction to me.
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
And the award ... means nothing? The death of the Nobel Prize.
Apparently the Nobel prize is no longer a noble prize. Even the Associated Press is questioning the committee's motives. Check out this article they published on Yahoo! news.
Now, I am not going to bash our president, regardless of my political views. That is not the point I am after here. My aim is to ask, like the author of that article, what has Obama done (not promised) to earn such a prestigious award?
We have all heard the promises of a new world with free healthcare, no poverty, and no war, but has the President actually accomplished, past tense, any of this? Whatever your political views, believers, none of us can claim he has delivered on those promises at this time. Will he deliver? That remains to be seen. However, as it stands, he has accomplished nothing that would place him ahead of other contenders. Even Bono (U2 lead singer) has done more, to date, to end hunger and poverty than President Obama. Comparing their efforts, Bono probably comes out ahead of most presidents to date.
I say the prize has lost its nobility, because it is being awarded for political goals - not for rewarding actual accomplishments in achieving a better world for all. What was once a prestigious award now is junk, at least in my eyes. If they gave me the award (which they shouldn't - I don't deserve it no matter what I promise), it would adorn the bottom of my waste basket rather than the top of my mantle. An award given purely for a political agenda is only truly an award to someone sharing that agenda. Otherwise, it is just junk taking up space.
But that's just me. Who knows - maybe they will resurrect it in the future by giving it out to someone based on his/her merits and achievements rather than political promises.
Be blessed.
Now, I am not going to bash our president, regardless of my political views. That is not the point I am after here. My aim is to ask, like the author of that article, what has Obama done (not promised) to earn such a prestigious award?
We have all heard the promises of a new world with free healthcare, no poverty, and no war, but has the President actually accomplished, past tense, any of this? Whatever your political views, believers, none of us can claim he has delivered on those promises at this time. Will he deliver? That remains to be seen. However, as it stands, he has accomplished nothing that would place him ahead of other contenders. Even Bono (U2 lead singer) has done more, to date, to end hunger and poverty than President Obama. Comparing their efforts, Bono probably comes out ahead of most presidents to date.
I say the prize has lost its nobility, because it is being awarded for political goals - not for rewarding actual accomplishments in achieving a better world for all. What was once a prestigious award now is junk, at least in my eyes. If they gave me the award (which they shouldn't - I don't deserve it no matter what I promise), it would adorn the bottom of my waste basket rather than the top of my mantle. An award given purely for a political agenda is only truly an award to someone sharing that agenda. Otherwise, it is just junk taking up space.
But that's just me. Who knows - maybe they will resurrect it in the future by giving it out to someone based on his/her merits and achievements rather than political promises.
Be blessed.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Pirate Bay: Some Thoughts
There's a huge amount of context necessary to truly understand the story of The Pirate Bay. John has provided a good deal of it, but there are some other relevant facts that I know off the top of my head.
There's a strong component of corporate/governmental bullying to this. The RIAA and MPAA in the US have been pushing very hard to get the Swedes to convict the Pirate Bay folks for a long time. Trouble is, the Swedish government brought criminal charges once before -- and failed to convict. The fact is, Sweden is not the US, and the American government (which felt obligated to back up companies which had probably contributed to a lot of Congressional campaigns), which pushed very hard for this conviction, really has no right to demand that Sweden convict its citizens of something which before now wasn't actually a crime in Sweden. The operating theory seemed to be that "we (RIAA/MPAA/Sony/etc.) hate this behavior, therefore it must be illegal."
I'm not dead certain, but I'm not sure any laws changed between the first prosecution and this second one. If that's the case, as you point out it's hard to expect TPB to know that what was being done was illegal, since the court system itself rejected that argument previously (though presumably those charges were brought under a different law, assuming Sweden has double jeopardy rules) and one would expect them to have brought their strongest case first.
Finally, there's a technical aspect here. Any technology of this kind is inherently capable of piracy. TPB essentially provided addresses of providers, which you then had to go to yourself to get the content. It's important to remember that TPB hosted none of the pirated content whatsoever. What they provided was a free platform to index files. If John Doe wants to provide File X to the world, he would have to host it from his own internet connection, but he could make the file easily accessible to large numbers of people around the globe via TPB. This, along with a small forum to allow discussion of each file, was the only service provided by TPB.
That may still sound bad, until you recognize that this is exactly what Google does. It was pointed out more than once during the trial that if you're looking for a particular torrent, you'll get more hits with Google than with TPB. Does being more specialized really make TPB worse than Google, considering that both provide exactly the same service? If Google does everything TPB does and then some, then isn't Google even more guilty? How does lack of other services make the services which are provided illegal?
Another technical issue is with removing all copyrighted content. Let's say we want to really do this. Let's say we want to stop people from downloading "The Dark Knight." How can we possibly know that every file called "The Dark Knight" is actually the movie which is copyrighted? The phrase itself is not trademarked; anyone could make any work of art with his own ownership and call it "The Dark Knight." If it's a video file, then it may look exactly the same as the copyrighted motion picture. The file could also be called "asdfasdfasdf" and actually contain the movie "The Dark Knight." There is no way to correlate the name of a file/torrent with its content except to download it, which is illegal if it turns out to have been copyrighted. So legally, you can't download the torrent to determine its contents, but you also can't assume until you have downloaded it that you know what's in it to know whether it's copyrighted or not.
This is akin to demanding that Google not link to sites which plagiarize content. How could you do this, even if you tried? What database would you compare against? How could you keep it current? How could you know which was the original and which the copy? And so on.
All that being said, clearly The Pirate Bay was built for the purpose of allowing illegal file sharing. That's obvious from everything they've ever done. What I object to is the assumption that because it can be used for illegal means that it "must be" illegal, which often seems to be the working theory. This is as invalid as it has always been: other things which can be and often are used to aid in illegal activity include cars, guns, and computers. That capacity for illegal activity doesn't make manufacturing or selling these items illegal. That's at least in part because these items have many legitimate uses, as do TPB and BitTorrent itself (an exhaustive list of legitimate BitTorrent uses would be long, but one which immediately comes to mind is the update process for World of Warcraft). What has prompted this action on the part of the various corporate entities is that it's very hard to stop all the individuals committing individual acts of copyright infringement -- so in my view the legal argument against TPB is based entirely on convenience, rather than law. It's a lot easier to turn off the hose than to try to catch all the water. Thus, they'll do whatever then can to turn off that hose, regardless of how weak their legal arguments for doing so may be.
I also object to the dubious legal theories which are applied to this sort of technology which draw distinctions without a difference. I can't see how any law which can convict the founders of TPB would not apply to Google as well. The idea that being "primarily for the purpose of piracy" really means anything is hard to defend. If you make a large enough corporation angry, they will attempt to prove that any technology is used "primarily for piracy" (as the movie industry once did with VHS).
In the long run, of course, fighting sites like TPB is like trying to dump buckets of water out of a sinking boat. When one memorable major player went down in a fight like this, Napster's centralized architecture died and gave rise to decentralized, ad hoc networks of file sharing which have no one point that can be shut down. TPB was already working on this sort of technology for its file-sharing protocol, and it will no doubt be seen very soon. The fundamental problem is that consumers want services and products that the companies who make this content refuse to provide. As long as that's the case, more and more piracy will occur.
There's a strong component of corporate/governmental bullying to this. The RIAA and MPAA in the US have been pushing very hard to get the Swedes to convict the Pirate Bay folks for a long time. Trouble is, the Swedish government brought criminal charges once before -- and failed to convict. The fact is, Sweden is not the US, and the American government (which felt obligated to back up companies which had probably contributed to a lot of Congressional campaigns), which pushed very hard for this conviction, really has no right to demand that Sweden convict its citizens of something which before now wasn't actually a crime in Sweden. The operating theory seemed to be that "we (RIAA/MPAA/Sony/etc.) hate this behavior, therefore it must be illegal."
I'm not dead certain, but I'm not sure any laws changed between the first prosecution and this second one. If that's the case, as you point out it's hard to expect TPB to know that what was being done was illegal, since the court system itself rejected that argument previously (though presumably those charges were brought under a different law, assuming Sweden has double jeopardy rules) and one would expect them to have brought their strongest case first.
Finally, there's a technical aspect here. Any technology of this kind is inherently capable of piracy. TPB essentially provided addresses of providers, which you then had to go to yourself to get the content. It's important to remember that TPB hosted none of the pirated content whatsoever. What they provided was a free platform to index files. If John Doe wants to provide File X to the world, he would have to host it from his own internet connection, but he could make the file easily accessible to large numbers of people around the globe via TPB. This, along with a small forum to allow discussion of each file, was the only service provided by TPB.
That may still sound bad, until you recognize that this is exactly what Google does. It was pointed out more than once during the trial that if you're looking for a particular torrent, you'll get more hits with Google than with TPB. Does being more specialized really make TPB worse than Google, considering that both provide exactly the same service? If Google does everything TPB does and then some, then isn't Google even more guilty? How does lack of other services make the services which are provided illegal?
Another technical issue is with removing all copyrighted content. Let's say we want to really do this. Let's say we want to stop people from downloading "The Dark Knight." How can we possibly know that every file called "The Dark Knight" is actually the movie which is copyrighted? The phrase itself is not trademarked; anyone could make any work of art with his own ownership and call it "The Dark Knight." If it's a video file, then it may look exactly the same as the copyrighted motion picture. The file could also be called "asdfasdfasdf" and actually contain the movie "The Dark Knight." There is no way to correlate the name of a file/torrent with its content except to download it, which is illegal if it turns out to have been copyrighted. So legally, you can't download the torrent to determine its contents, but you also can't assume until you have downloaded it that you know what's in it to know whether it's copyrighted or not.
This is akin to demanding that Google not link to sites which plagiarize content. How could you do this, even if you tried? What database would you compare against? How could you keep it current? How could you know which was the original and which the copy? And so on.
All that being said, clearly The Pirate Bay was built for the purpose of allowing illegal file sharing. That's obvious from everything they've ever done. What I object to is the assumption that because it can be used for illegal means that it "must be" illegal, which often seems to be the working theory. This is as invalid as it has always been: other things which can be and often are used to aid in illegal activity include cars, guns, and computers. That capacity for illegal activity doesn't make manufacturing or selling these items illegal. That's at least in part because these items have many legitimate uses, as do TPB and BitTorrent itself (an exhaustive list of legitimate BitTorrent uses would be long, but one which immediately comes to mind is the update process for World of Warcraft). What has prompted this action on the part of the various corporate entities is that it's very hard to stop all the individuals committing individual acts of copyright infringement -- so in my view the legal argument against TPB is based entirely on convenience, rather than law. It's a lot easier to turn off the hose than to try to catch all the water. Thus, they'll do whatever then can to turn off that hose, regardless of how weak their legal arguments for doing so may be.
I also object to the dubious legal theories which are applied to this sort of technology which draw distinctions without a difference. I can't see how any law which can convict the founders of TPB would not apply to Google as well. The idea that being "primarily for the purpose of piracy" really means anything is hard to defend. If you make a large enough corporation angry, they will attempt to prove that any technology is used "primarily for piracy" (as the movie industry once did with VHS).
In the long run, of course, fighting sites like TPB is like trying to dump buckets of water out of a sinking boat. When one memorable major player went down in a fight like this, Napster's centralized architecture died and gave rise to decentralized, ad hoc networks of file sharing which have no one point that can be shut down. TPB was already working on this sort of technology for its file-sharing protocol, and it will no doubt be seen very soon. The fundamental problem is that consumers want services and products that the companies who make this content refuse to provide. As long as that's the case, more and more piracy will occur.
Friday, April 17, 2009
NEWS: The Pirate Bay sentenced to prison; fined millions.
Read the article for yourself here.
What is in a name?
So, four Swedes who setup a website that allows visitors to search, access, and download indexed torrent files, and they called it, "The Pirate Bay." Right or wrong, frankly they should have seen this coming a long time ago. Titling your website with the word "pirate" is like confessing to piracy before a court officials that so rarely understand fully the technology involved.
In fact, that is a much larger legal problem in today's world: courts are operated by judges, clerks, and attorneys, none of whom are required to hold degrees in science, tech, or engineering. The same is true of the police who investigate Internet-based crimes and the juries who so often render verdicts. So, how do courts determine whether net-based activity is criminal or merely novel?
Courts often are forced to rely on expert witnesses, whose services are financed by the parties involved, that are financially motivated to testify in favor of the party compensating them. The experts are supposed to provide opinions on the scientific issues involved, in spite of this bias, and also the grounds/bases for these "expert opinions." Being myself largely ignorant of Swedish legal procedure, I do not know whether experts were used in trying the Pirate Bay owners for criminal copyright infringement, but I have no idea how else they would do it. I also know, from experience, that experts can, and usually do, differ in their opinions.
Regardless, a court filled with people who think that words like "torrent" and "tracker" refer to storms and hunting, respectively, have sentenced 4 people to jail time and fined them millions of dollars. I have a limited background in computer engineering, and I am also an attorney. In spite of this, I cannot bring myself to say that what they have done is illegal, or even wrong.
Does posting to the net technology that is capable of being used to commit a crime constitute an illegal or immoral act? To the first, I cannot say, as I am not an expert in Swedish copyright law. However, to the second, I think it depends largely, in my view, on for what purpose those posting the technology intended it to be used.
Say I create a brand new device for use splitting rock. Let us call it dynamite. Suppose I intend it to be used by the highway department in mountainous regions to create safer roads. My intent was to enable the government to create safer roads. However, what if others use my dynamite to commit acts of terrorism and destruction? Is the inventor/developer of an explosive device or material responsible for how others use it? Most of us would say no, but what if we marketed and sold (or even gave) our explosives to terrorists that we knew would use it for immoral, reprehensible purposes? Most of us would say that is wrong.
The Pirate Bay could have been used for perfectly legal, moral purposes and file-sharing (swapping free, unrestricted material or material licensed for sharing). However, it was also susceptible to being used illegally. Did the Swedes intend for it to be used it illegally or immorally? I think so - after all, they named the site "The Pirate Bay."
They marketed their website and programs to those who would consider themselves "pirates." It is hard to believe that they intended anything good. Is the name conclusive evidence of their intent? Hardly. However, the name certainly serves as the best available evidence we possess of their intentions. Also, they failed to take measures to prevent or report illegal activity, suggesting that they were consenting to it. Rather, they dealt with illegal activity on a complaint-driven basis that could never be expected to be effective.
So, were they engaged in immoral activity? I think the name is telling of their mindset. Was it illegal? That is even more difficult, since file-sharing hasn't been the subject of much legalisation or judicial precedent, but why try to buy an ocean-based platform reputed to be an independent, sovereign nation, if you are not worried that you are breaking a few laws (check out the article if you think I am kidding)? I think the evidence demonstrates that they believed their activities were illegal, whether they were or not. Would it not be better to err on the side of obeying the law?
Do not think that I am coming out against file-sharing. There certainly are legitimate uses for the tech, and some artists actually permit their fans to swap files containing their work (e.g. Motley Crue). Also, I often ponder the legality of downloading television shows that you missed on TV, since they are broadcasted publicly at any rate. It seems silly to think that watching TV on the computer is less legal than watching it on the TV or recording it with a VCR then editing out the commercials. Certainly, however, there is an area where sharing copyrighted material not available for free is definitely illegal. At best, file-sharing is a grey area of the law and potentially dangerous activity.
My bottom line? Perhaps governments should establish legislation directly covering these areas rather than leaving their citizens to wonder if they are abiding by or breaking the law. It seems unfair for the state to leave people guessing until a judge or jury informs them that what they did was wrong. Nothing like finding out people broke a law that didn't really exist on paper then seeing them get thrown in jail for it to make people hate the government.
And, if the Pirate Bay folks have a reason to cry foul, then that is it. Did they have fair notice of the law and the potential punishments for breaking it in this fashion (if indeed they broke it at all)? If so, the I say they got a fair shake. Otherwise, regardless of what their intents were, it seems like they got a pretty raw deal.
Whatever happens, I will not lose any sleep at the punishment of people who had the audacity/stupidity to call themselves "The Pirate Bay." For all intents and purposes, they were begging to be sued. Still, a part of me wonders if they were really begging for jail?
What is in a name?
So, four Swedes who setup a website that allows visitors to search, access, and download indexed torrent files, and they called it, "The Pirate Bay." Right or wrong, frankly they should have seen this coming a long time ago. Titling your website with the word "pirate" is like confessing to piracy before a court officials that so rarely understand fully the technology involved.
In fact, that is a much larger legal problem in today's world: courts are operated by judges, clerks, and attorneys, none of whom are required to hold degrees in science, tech, or engineering. The same is true of the police who investigate Internet-based crimes and the juries who so often render verdicts. So, how do courts determine whether net-based activity is criminal or merely novel?
Courts often are forced to rely on expert witnesses, whose services are financed by the parties involved, that are financially motivated to testify in favor of the party compensating them. The experts are supposed to provide opinions on the scientific issues involved, in spite of this bias, and also the grounds/bases for these "expert opinions." Being myself largely ignorant of Swedish legal procedure, I do not know whether experts were used in trying the Pirate Bay owners for criminal copyright infringement, but I have no idea how else they would do it. I also know, from experience, that experts can, and usually do, differ in their opinions.
Regardless, a court filled with people who think that words like "torrent" and "tracker" refer to storms and hunting, respectively, have sentenced 4 people to jail time and fined them millions of dollars. I have a limited background in computer engineering, and I am also an attorney. In spite of this, I cannot bring myself to say that what they have done is illegal, or even wrong.
Does posting to the net technology that is capable of being used to commit a crime constitute an illegal or immoral act? To the first, I cannot say, as I am not an expert in Swedish copyright law. However, to the second, I think it depends largely, in my view, on for what purpose those posting the technology intended it to be used.
Say I create a brand new device for use splitting rock. Let us call it dynamite. Suppose I intend it to be used by the highway department in mountainous regions to create safer roads. My intent was to enable the government to create safer roads. However, what if others use my dynamite to commit acts of terrorism and destruction? Is the inventor/developer of an explosive device or material responsible for how others use it? Most of us would say no, but what if we marketed and sold (or even gave) our explosives to terrorists that we knew would use it for immoral, reprehensible purposes? Most of us would say that is wrong.
The Pirate Bay could have been used for perfectly legal, moral purposes and file-sharing (swapping free, unrestricted material or material licensed for sharing). However, it was also susceptible to being used illegally. Did the Swedes intend for it to be used it illegally or immorally? I think so - after all, they named the site "The Pirate Bay."
They marketed their website and programs to those who would consider themselves "pirates." It is hard to believe that they intended anything good. Is the name conclusive evidence of their intent? Hardly. However, the name certainly serves as the best available evidence we possess of their intentions. Also, they failed to take measures to prevent or report illegal activity, suggesting that they were consenting to it. Rather, they dealt with illegal activity on a complaint-driven basis that could never be expected to be effective.
So, were they engaged in immoral activity? I think the name is telling of their mindset. Was it illegal? That is even more difficult, since file-sharing hasn't been the subject of much legalisation or judicial precedent, but why try to buy an ocean-based platform reputed to be an independent, sovereign nation, if you are not worried that you are breaking a few laws (check out the article if you think I am kidding)? I think the evidence demonstrates that they believed their activities were illegal, whether they were or not. Would it not be better to err on the side of obeying the law?
Do not think that I am coming out against file-sharing. There certainly are legitimate uses for the tech, and some artists actually permit their fans to swap files containing their work (e.g. Motley Crue). Also, I often ponder the legality of downloading television shows that you missed on TV, since they are broadcasted publicly at any rate. It seems silly to think that watching TV on the computer is less legal than watching it on the TV or recording it with a VCR then editing out the commercials. Certainly, however, there is an area where sharing copyrighted material not available for free is definitely illegal. At best, file-sharing is a grey area of the law and potentially dangerous activity.
My bottom line? Perhaps governments should establish legislation directly covering these areas rather than leaving their citizens to wonder if they are abiding by or breaking the law. It seems unfair for the state to leave people guessing until a judge or jury informs them that what they did was wrong. Nothing like finding out people broke a law that didn't really exist on paper then seeing them get thrown in jail for it to make people hate the government.
And, if the Pirate Bay folks have a reason to cry foul, then that is it. Did they have fair notice of the law and the potential punishments for breaking it in this fashion (if indeed they broke it at all)? If so, the I say they got a fair shake. Otherwise, regardless of what their intents were, it seems like they got a pretty raw deal.
Whatever happens, I will not lose any sleep at the punishment of people who had the audacity/stupidity to call themselves "The Pirate Bay." For all intents and purposes, they were begging to be sued. Still, a part of me wonders if they were really begging for jail?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
NEWS: Barack Obama tries to silence God.
Check the news story out for yourself here.
" Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram 'IHS' --symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there. As of Wednesday afternoon, the “IHS” monogram that had previously adorned the stage at Georgetown’s Gaston Hall was still covered up--when the pediment where it had appeared was photographed by CNSNews.com."
So.... Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, asked Georgetown to cover up the name of God? He professes to be a Christian, so why would he do this?
Many good Christians voted for President Obama. Some did so because they believed, legitimately, that a black president was long overdue. Others voted for Mr. Obama because they believed his economic policies would end economic turmoil. Both were legitimate reasons to vote for a political leader. Also, this junior senator claimed to be a Christian.
Setting aside, for the moment, the issue of whether BHO truly qualifies as black and can, therefore, truly be our nation's first black president, setting aside the issue of whether BHO is even a true US citizen, and also setting aside whether the junior senator was qualified to accept the nation's most important office, what of his last promise? The one in which he claimed to believe in an all-powerful God that created all that exists?
How can a man, who claims to believe in God, be so bold as to actively conceal God from others? Why would a believer not want to be associated with God during a speech given at a university? Would his speech at Georgetown not provide a wonderful opportunity to affirm his association with Jesus Christ? Why did he feel this small reference to God was a threat to him? Even if he were an atheist, why would the mention of a deity he doesn't believe in be a threat?
As a believer, I fear angering God. I fear angering my Lord, because I know God is supreme and perfect. I am thankful that God is merciful, because I fear God's wrath. His power is unchallenged, both in this world and beyond. I cannot believe that anyone who really believes in God would seek to cover up God's name in a building. A true believer fears God, and this sort of active rebellion against the name of God should have been prevented by BHO's fear of the Lord.
President Obama does not fear God. He does not want to be affiliated with God. It is time that believers stopped and asked themselves, why is this? It is no secret that I am no fan of BHO's policies and political platform. However, I never dreamed he would make so public a contradiction of his own stated faith.
If our president does not believe in or fear God, then why has he lied about it? If he lied about this, then what else has he lied about? And, how many of you believers will excuse this lie as though it doesn't matter?
" Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram 'IHS' --symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there. As of Wednesday afternoon, the “IHS” monogram that had previously adorned the stage at Georgetown’s Gaston Hall was still covered up--when the pediment where it had appeared was photographed by CNSNews.com."
So.... Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, asked Georgetown to cover up the name of God? He professes to be a Christian, so why would he do this?
Many good Christians voted for President Obama. Some did so because they believed, legitimately, that a black president was long overdue. Others voted for Mr. Obama because they believed his economic policies would end economic turmoil. Both were legitimate reasons to vote for a political leader. Also, this junior senator claimed to be a Christian.
Setting aside, for the moment, the issue of whether BHO truly qualifies as black and can, therefore, truly be our nation's first black president, setting aside the issue of whether BHO is even a true US citizen, and also setting aside whether the junior senator was qualified to accept the nation's most important office, what of his last promise? The one in which he claimed to believe in an all-powerful God that created all that exists?
How can a man, who claims to believe in God, be so bold as to actively conceal God from others? Why would a believer not want to be associated with God during a speech given at a university? Would his speech at Georgetown not provide a wonderful opportunity to affirm his association with Jesus Christ? Why did he feel this small reference to God was a threat to him? Even if he were an atheist, why would the mention of a deity he doesn't believe in be a threat?
As a believer, I fear angering God. I fear angering my Lord, because I know God is supreme and perfect. I am thankful that God is merciful, because I fear God's wrath. His power is unchallenged, both in this world and beyond. I cannot believe that anyone who really believes in God would seek to cover up God's name in a building. A true believer fears God, and this sort of active rebellion against the name of God should have been prevented by BHO's fear of the Lord.
President Obama does not fear God. He does not want to be affiliated with God. It is time that believers stopped and asked themselves, why is this? It is no secret that I am no fan of BHO's policies and political platform. However, I never dreamed he would make so public a contradiction of his own stated faith.
If our president does not believe in or fear God, then why has he lied about it? If he lied about this, then what else has he lied about? And, how many of you believers will excuse this lie as though it doesn't matter?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
NEWS: Garden of Eden discovered?
This is an interesting article. It is all about a set of ruins believed to constitute a link to the Garden of Eden. What it is exactly, I don't know, but it is really fun to think about. Check out the article, and feel free to comment with your theories.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
NEWS: Why was this guy on the streets?
Warning: this post, the links, and content are probably not appropriate for younger readers (which is frequently the case with news unfortunately).
Check the article out here.
Summed up, a regstered sex offender (who once was in trouble for failing to register) is killed by the father of a girl he tried to rape. He breaks into her bedroom via the window naked save for laytex gloves and a mask, and the girl screams. Daddy does what any father would be tempted to do: he crushes the life out of the offender. No one knows, really, whether this was an intentional killing or an accident, but few will mourn the passing of this severely disturbed individual. My question is, why was he out on the streets?
It makes no sense to me, and this is why I, a former prosecutor, am especially grieved. A man now has killer another, with good cause, in front of his family. The intruder, who clearly needed to be confined with full access to mental healthcare, is dead. Was he sick? Yes. Was he evil? Yes (we all sin and come short of God's glory, though). Could this entire tragedy have been completely averted? Yes. However this man slipped through the cracks of our justice system is a mystery to me, but this incident should spark some serious reform if we care to prevent similar tragedies in the future. This could have gone far, far worse.
Check the article out here.
Summed up, a regstered sex offender (who once was in trouble for failing to register) is killed by the father of a girl he tried to rape. He breaks into her bedroom via the window naked save for laytex gloves and a mask, and the girl screams. Daddy does what any father would be tempted to do: he crushes the life out of the offender. No one knows, really, whether this was an intentional killing or an accident, but few will mourn the passing of this severely disturbed individual. My question is, why was he out on the streets?
It makes no sense to me, and this is why I, a former prosecutor, am especially grieved. A man now has killer another, with good cause, in front of his family. The intruder, who clearly needed to be confined with full access to mental healthcare, is dead. Was he sick? Yes. Was he evil? Yes (we all sin and come short of God's glory, though). Could this entire tragedy have been completely averted? Yes. However this man slipped through the cracks of our justice system is a mystery to me, but this incident should spark some serious reform if we care to prevent similar tragedies in the future. This could have gone far, far worse.
Monday, February 9, 2009
UPDATED NEWS: Ben Stein truly is expelled...
UPDATE:
The associated press differs with the Huffington Post. The AP claims Stein withdrew from the commencement, while the Huffington Post claims he was disinvited. Read the reports for yourself:
-Post article.
-AP article.
So, which is it? Was Stein dropped, or did he cancel? So much for accurate, unbiased reporting.
ORIGINAL NEWS POST:
See the report here.
It is amazing, but apparently the University of Vermont felt that it was necessary to literally expel Ben Stein from its commencement. Apparently, supporting intelligent design is not allowed at their institution. So much for open debate, the freedom of thought, and the First Amendment. Liberal colleges have decided that the "Theory" of Evolution is the only truth, and they will entertain no other theories nor tolerate others who disagree. For those who pride themselves on being open-minded, they have acted just like those who persecuted Galileo for his theories. It is a sad day in academia when politics and prejudice rule rather than open debate and scientific inquiry.
The associated press differs with the Huffington Post. The AP claims Stein withdrew from the commencement, while the Huffington Post claims he was disinvited. Read the reports for yourself:
-Post article.
-AP article.
So, which is it? Was Stein dropped, or did he cancel? So much for accurate, unbiased reporting.
ORIGINAL NEWS POST:
See the report here.
It is amazing, but apparently the University of Vermont felt that it was necessary to literally expel Ben Stein from its commencement. Apparently, supporting intelligent design is not allowed at their institution. So much for open debate, the freedom of thought, and the First Amendment. Liberal colleges have decided that the "Theory" of Evolution is the only truth, and they will entertain no other theories nor tolerate others who disagree. For those who pride themselves on being open-minded, they have acted just like those who persecuted Galileo for his theories. It is a sad day in academia when politics and prejudice rule rather than open debate and scientific inquiry.
Friday, February 6, 2009
DEBATE: black history month vs. year-round unified history?
First, I suggest that you read this article, which encapsulates the pending debate.
The question that I am posing for discussion/debate, both on this blog and in your conversations with others is: "Should we abandon black history month in favor of actively incorporating black history into history courses year-round."
Now, a few ground rules are necessary to limit the scope. The first rule is: don't question whether the incorporation will actually happen; presume that if black history month is terminated, that black history will be incorporated into history classes every day, all year long.
Second rule: don't start a second debate about whether there is a need for "women's history" month or "white history month," etc.; this is a debate regarding, essentially, whether there should be one month set aside per year to study the history of one specific people group or whether there be a unified study of the history of all people groups, all year long.
Third rule: make logical arguments and points only; it is impossible, after all, to debate emotion or prejudice, which brings us to the last rule...
Fourth rule: do not accuse anyone in the discussion of being a racist or prejudiced, as that will bring a halt to any intelligent discussion; throwing out labels is rarely an effective way to be persuasive.
Consider this a challenge, from me to you.
The question that I am posing for discussion/debate, both on this blog and in your conversations with others is: "Should we abandon black history month in favor of actively incorporating black history into history courses year-round."
Now, a few ground rules are necessary to limit the scope. The first rule is: don't question whether the incorporation will actually happen; presume that if black history month is terminated, that black history will be incorporated into history classes every day, all year long.
Second rule: don't start a second debate about whether there is a need for "women's history" month or "white history month," etc.; this is a debate regarding, essentially, whether there should be one month set aside per year to study the history of one specific people group or whether there be a unified study of the history of all people groups, all year long.
Third rule: make logical arguments and points only; it is impossible, after all, to debate emotion or prejudice, which brings us to the last rule...
Fourth rule: do not accuse anyone in the discussion of being a racist or prejudiced, as that will bring a halt to any intelligent discussion; throwing out labels is rarely an effective way to be persuasive.
Consider this a challenge, from me to you.
NEWSFLASH: Fisrt Facial Transplant in the US.
Amazing. Praise God that this woman can eat, smell, and breathe normally again.
Monday, February 2, 2009
NEWS: Phil saw his shadow...
Check it out here. I guess that means 6 more weeks of Winter. Oh well, I was enjoying the cool weather anyway, so no big deal. One day, I want to see this festival - it looks like a lot of fun in the movie with Bill Murray.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
True religion in action.
As a followup to our post on what "true religion" is and why believers should be proud to call themselves "religious" (read it here), I'd like to point our readers to a minister who is practicing true religion. Take a look for yourself here.
Summed up, this minister put true religion into practice by selling his $50,000.00 Infiniti Coupe in order to save $600 a month. With those savings, he sponsors children through Compassion International. The idea is to live with less in order to give more.
So, what's the point? Do you need to sell your car and buy a clunker? That's not what I am preaching here, folks. However, I do support their idea: make reductions in your spending on material things and use it to ensure that the impoverished get to eat and sleep under a roof. James 1:27 teaches us that true religion is (1)being unstained by the world; and (2) aiding those in need. Isn't it interesting how those two things are related? It's easier to visit the needy when you've focused less on material gain.
So, you could buy that $50k car, or you could make do with one that costs $25k or even $15k. The $25-35k you save would do a lot for a ministry like Compassion. You don't have to sponsor a child - make a 1-time donation to the unsponsored children's fund. It doesn't obligate you to dfo more, and your money goes directly to support children who have no one to sponsor or support them.
If children aren't your conviction, then feel free to support Food For the Poor. Feeding the hungry is a powerful witness for the Christian faith.
Please, do not think that because you cannot give a lot that your donation won't mean a lot to organizations like these. If 100 people give a 1-time donation of $1, then these roganizations can use that $100 to provide food and shelter to many who don't have it. In many third-world economies, the US dollar still goes a long way. Ever dollar donated is a major victory for those in need. Please stop to consider their needa.
You do not need to be "convicted" to donate $1 or even $10. Do it because you know the Lord your God considers it to be true religion. Do it because you want to love as Jesus did: sacrificially. Do it because God considers it a loan that he will repay (Proverbs 19:17). Just don't do it to make yourself look pious or righteous in the eyes of others (Matthew 6:1-4).
Have a heart. There are many who are suffering in this world, and they need your help. Please, please, give to one of these organizations and practice the religion that you preach.
Summed up, this minister put true religion into practice by selling his $50,000.00 Infiniti Coupe in order to save $600 a month. With those savings, he sponsors children through Compassion International. The idea is to live with less in order to give more.
So, what's the point? Do you need to sell your car and buy a clunker? That's not what I am preaching here, folks. However, I do support their idea: make reductions in your spending on material things and use it to ensure that the impoverished get to eat and sleep under a roof. James 1:27 teaches us that true religion is (1)being unstained by the world; and (2) aiding those in need. Isn't it interesting how those two things are related? It's easier to visit the needy when you've focused less on material gain.
So, you could buy that $50k car, or you could make do with one that costs $25k or even $15k. The $25-35k you save would do a lot for a ministry like Compassion. You don't have to sponsor a child - make a 1-time donation to the unsponsored children's fund. It doesn't obligate you to dfo more, and your money goes directly to support children who have no one to sponsor or support them.
If children aren't your conviction, then feel free to support Food For the Poor. Feeding the hungry is a powerful witness for the Christian faith.
Please, do not think that because you cannot give a lot that your donation won't mean a lot to organizations like these. If 100 people give a 1-time donation of $1, then these roganizations can use that $100 to provide food and shelter to many who don't have it. In many third-world economies, the US dollar still goes a long way. Ever dollar donated is a major victory for those in need. Please stop to consider their needa.
You do not need to be "convicted" to donate $1 or even $10. Do it because you know the Lord your God considers it to be true religion. Do it because you want to love as Jesus did: sacrificially. Do it because God considers it a loan that he will repay (Proverbs 19:17). Just don't do it to make yourself look pious or righteous in the eyes of others (Matthew 6:1-4).
Have a heart. There are many who are suffering in this world, and they need your help. Please, please, give to one of these organizations and practice the religion that you preach.
NEWS: The "Goracle" speaks - hilarious.
I highly recommend you read this hilarious prophesises of Al Gore, the "Goracle" in the report by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post here.
Feel free to comment below - this may be the funniest news article yet.
Feel free to comment below - this may be the funniest news article yet.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
NEWS: Rev. Lowery gives racist benediction.
*bumped*
Read the story here. Read an interesting blog post on-topic here.
"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right," Rev. Lowery said (emphasis supplied).
**For a complete transcript, click here.
I am terribly disappointed by these words that, if taken literally, imply that we live in a time that my entire race is wrong, having failed "embrace what is right." I realize that many Americans have been judged solely based upon the colour of their skin. Now all Caucasians join those ranks. The deliverer of the benediction for President Obama, the Reverend Joseph Lowery, has asked our president to help this nation "work for that day when ... white will embrace what is right." Omitting the other clauses in his rhyme does not alter the meaning of the words quoted. In fact, they are just as awful.
I have felt judge exclusively by my skin colour before, but never by anyone whose opinions had any weight with me. Now, the man who gave the inaugural benediction has judged all white Americans wrong because they are white. I found that remark to be offensive, and I hope President Obama will condemn this man's bigoted statements publicly.
EDIT: It's odd how the native American population has not raised a ruckus over being referred to as "the red man." I am certain that, if a white person said anything that Rev. Lowery did, then he would be called a racist. As such, this story has become the basis for my new motto: "I am white (racist)." This is apparently the Rev. Lower's way of thinking, at least. I would get a T-shirt printed, but that might qualify as a hate crime?
Read the story here. Read an interesting blog post on-topic here.
"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right," Rev. Lowery said (emphasis supplied).
**For a complete transcript, click here.
I am terribly disappointed by these words that, if taken literally, imply that we live in a time that my entire race is wrong, having failed "embrace what is right." I realize that many Americans have been judged solely based upon the colour of their skin. Now all Caucasians join those ranks. The deliverer of the benediction for President Obama, the Reverend Joseph Lowery, has asked our president to help this nation "work for that day when ... white will embrace what is right." Omitting the other clauses in his rhyme does not alter the meaning of the words quoted. In fact, they are just as awful.
I have felt judge exclusively by my skin colour before, but never by anyone whose opinions had any weight with me. Now, the man who gave the inaugural benediction has judged all white Americans wrong because they are white. I found that remark to be offensive, and I hope President Obama will condemn this man's bigoted statements publicly.
EDIT: It's odd how the native American population has not raised a ruckus over being referred to as "the red man." I am certain that, if a white person said anything that Rev. Lowery did, then he would be called a racist. As such, this story has become the basis for my new motto: "I am white (racist)." This is apparently the Rev. Lower's way of thinking, at least. I would get a T-shirt printed, but that might qualify as a hate crime?
NEWS: Obama's first day priorities include abortion.
See the report here.
"Among the possibilities for the first day was the naming of a Middle East envoy, critical at a time of renewed hostilities between Israelis and the Palestinians; an order closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a move that will take considerable time to execute and comes on the heels of a suspension of war crimes trials there pending a review; prohibiting - in most cases - the harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists that have damaged the U.S. image around the globe; overturning the so-called Mexico City policy that forbids U.S. funding for family planning programs that offer abortion; and lifting President George W. Bush's limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research" (emphasis supplied).
Well, it is clear that President Obama's priorities do not actually include compromise. To include abortion as a line item in his first day itinerary is a slap in the face to every conservative in the country. Not less than half of the people in this country consider themselves "pro-life." On his first day, our new president intends to offend 50% of the voter base, though I imagine he will try to minimize the attention this maneuver receives. Also, by engaging the abortion issue upfront, he is banking that people will forget about it four years from now. Good tactics, true, but his plan is immoral and evil.
We Christians may have to respect our president (Rom 13:1), but we do not have to refrain from criticizing his choices. I urge everyone to stay informed, because change is coming, but it doesn't appear to be for the better.
ROB: Some interesting context I found at another blog:
"Among the possibilities for the first day was the naming of a Middle East envoy, critical at a time of renewed hostilities between Israelis and the Palestinians; an order closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a move that will take considerable time to execute and comes on the heels of a suspension of war crimes trials there pending a review; prohibiting - in most cases - the harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists that have damaged the U.S. image around the globe; overturning the so-called Mexico City policy that forbids U.S. funding for family planning programs that offer abortion; and lifting President George W. Bush's limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research" (emphasis supplied).
Well, it is clear that President Obama's priorities do not actually include compromise. To include abortion as a line item in his first day itinerary is a slap in the face to every conservative in the country. Not less than half of the people in this country consider themselves "pro-life." On his first day, our new president intends to offend 50% of the voter base, though I imagine he will try to minimize the attention this maneuver receives. Also, by engaging the abortion issue upfront, he is banking that people will forget about it four years from now. Good tactics, true, but his plan is immoral and evil.
We Christians may have to respect our president (Rom 13:1), but we do not have to refrain from criticizing his choices. I urge everyone to stay informed, because change is coming, but it doesn't appear to be for the better.
ROB: Some interesting context I found at another blog:
Tomorrow morning, President Obama’s first act will be what had also been Bill Clinton’s first act as president, to overturn the Mexico City Policy, thus allowing federal funds to be spent on abortions overseas.
Well, that does not give me much hope. This is interesting:
"President Reagan first put the Mexico City Policy in place and it is named for a population conference that took place in the Mexican capital in 1984 when he introduced it.
President George H.W. Bush continued the pro-life policy, President Clinton overturned it, and President George W. Bush kept it for eight years and threatened to veto any Congressional spending bill reversing it."
So, this policy keeps going back and forth - Republicans come in, they end funding for overseas abortions, Democrats come in, and the “first thing” they do is put the funding back.
It almost seems like the first thing they’re doing is making a token offering to Moloch - to the Culture of Death.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
NEWS (to me): Brokeback Dove?
Check this out. Did anyone else realize that "Lonesome Dove," arguably the best "western" ever written, was authored by the same man that co-authored the script for "Brokeback Mountain," definitely the gayest "western" ever made? I will never be able to see Woodrow and Gus in the same light.
From Pulitzer to Poofter? Please Larry McMurtry, say it ain't so...
"Best-known for his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, Lonesome Dove, the 72-year-old
McMurtry remains extraordinarily prolific. He contributes frequently to the New
York Review of Books. His screenplay for Brokeback Mountain, co-written with
Diana Ossana, won an Academy Award in 2006."
From Pulitzer to Poofter? Please Larry McMurtry, say it ain't so...
NEWS: Pray for Ted Kennedy.
Read the report here.
Excerpt:
"The Obamas then repaired to the Capitol's Statuary Hall for a traditional luncheon before this afternoon's inaugural parade.
"During the lunch, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) fell ill and was rushed away for treatment. Kennedy, 76, who was diagnosed last year with brain cancer, apparently suffered a violent seizure and was taken to a hospital in an ambulance, officials said."
"Obama paid tribute to Kennedy at the end of the luncheon. 'I would be lying to you if I did not say right now a part of me is with him,' the new president said."
Now, I am a conservative. I do not support Senator Kennedy's ideals. However, I believe he deserves our prayers. There is no such thing as a "good man," and we all fall short in different areas. Please, a Christian is only as good as his/her mercy: pray for Ted Kennedy.
Excerpt:
"The Obamas then repaired to the Capitol's Statuary Hall for a traditional luncheon before this afternoon's inaugural parade.
"During the lunch, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) fell ill and was rushed away for treatment. Kennedy, 76, who was diagnosed last year with brain cancer, apparently suffered a violent seizure and was taken to a hospital in an ambulance, officials said."
"Obama paid tribute to Kennedy at the end of the luncheon. 'I would be lying to you if I did not say right now a part of me is with him,' the new president said."
Now, I am a conservative. I do not support Senator Kennedy's ideals. However, I believe he deserves our prayers. There is no such thing as a "good man," and we all fall short in different areas. Please, a Christian is only as good as his/her mercy: pray for Ted Kennedy.
NEWS: Pastor makes inaugural sci-fi blunder...
Read the report here.
"'Bishop T.D. Jakes, a senior pastor from Houston, used Scripture to offer the incoming president four lessons for his administration. "In time of crisis, good men must stand up," Jakes said. "God always sends the best men into the worst times." He also told the worshipers, "This is not a time for politeness or correctness; this is a time for people to confront issues and bring about change. . . . You cannot enjoy the light without enduring the heat.'
Looking directly at Obama, Jakes said, 'The problems are mighty and the solutions are not simple, and everywhere you turn there will be a critic waiting to attack every decision that you make. But you are all fired up, sir, and you are ready to go. And this nation goes with you. God goes with you.'
'I say to you as my son who is here today, my 14-year-old son -- he probably would not quote Scripture. He probably would use Star Trek instead. And so I say, 'May the force be with you.' "
Sigh. All nerds in this country feel betrayed at your lack of sci-fi knowledge sir. Star Trek is, "Live long and prosper." Star Wars is, "May the force be with you."
The nerve.
"'Bishop T.D. Jakes, a senior pastor from Houston, used Scripture to offer the incoming president four lessons for his administration. "In time of crisis, good men must stand up," Jakes said. "God always sends the best men into the worst times." He also told the worshipers, "This is not a time for politeness or correctness; this is a time for people to confront issues and bring about change. . . . You cannot enjoy the light without enduring the heat.'
Looking directly at Obama, Jakes said, 'The problems are mighty and the solutions are not simple, and everywhere you turn there will be a critic waiting to attack every decision that you make. But you are all fired up, sir, and you are ready to go. And this nation goes with you. God goes with you.'
'I say to you as my son who is here today, my 14-year-old son -- he probably would not quote Scripture. He probably would use Star Trek instead. And so I say, 'May the force be with you.' "
Sigh. All nerds in this country feel betrayed at your lack of sci-fi knowledge sir. Star Trek is, "Live long and prosper." Star Wars is, "May the force be with you."
The nerve.
Clarification...
Regarding the political news posts today, I do want to make it clear that I am giving my respect and prayers to President Obama. Please see Romans 13:1 if you need a reason to join me in praying for our new president. I do not believe that Barack Obama would be president against God's will. That does not mean that he is right on every issue, but as Christians we should support and pray for our leaders.
For those of you who supported the president during the election, please do not be offended by our news posts. I am a self-professed right-winger, and I think Rob would say the same thing. All people are welcome here, however, regardless of their political views. Comments that disagree (politely) with a post on this blog are welcomed.
That said, if I believed in omens, then the news today would not call for optimism. The Obama presidency began with a flubbed oath (regardless of who is to blame), a bigoted benediction, and the most expensive inauguration in history. Fortunately, I put no faith in omens, only in the Lord, who never leaves us nor forsakes us.
For those of you who supported the president during the election, please do not be offended by our news posts. I am a self-professed right-winger, and I think Rob would say the same thing. All people are welcome here, however, regardless of their political views. Comments that disagree (politely) with a post on this blog are welcomed.
That said, if I believed in omens, then the news today would not call for optimism. The Obama presidency began with a flubbed oath (regardless of who is to blame), a bigoted benediction, and the most expensive inauguration in history. Fortunately, I put no faith in omens, only in the Lord, who never leaves us nor forsakes us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)