Filed under: happenings
Not sure where this came from, but the other day as I was listening to the news and making dinner I went through a bunch of scenarios in my head on where the Republican Party could go in terms of leadership – someone to be the primary face of the party. Not that it matters much to me. I see nothing of principle practiced in the GOP, and I’m even moving away from Libertarianism toward the political beliefs of modern-day Anarchists.
Anyway… I thought about Sarah and Bobby – how HuffPo and the MSM will do their best to paint each of them as stupid, even though… well, I’ll just keep it at that: Even though.
Then I thought about the Florida Bush… no way is America voting another Bush as POTUS. W pretty much destroyed their brand. Ron Paul is the John The Baptist of the party, and he’s too old for a win. Huckabee comes across as a used car salesman, and Mit is a strong contender, but the GOP made their bed with the Religious Right and there is NO WAY the Bible Belt is voting a guy into office that believes in Joseph Smith and 7 golden plates….among other things. Sanford couldn’t keep his dick in line.
That pretty much leaves Newt, and if Chairman O continues course I see ample opportunity for ousting him.
In the last election the GOP trotted out an old man, not even sure if he would qualify as an elder Boomer. The Boomers are the key to winning, and McBush did a very bad job of assuring people he was a leader of the situation. So if the GOP can get their heads out of their asses, there could be a legit contender versus Obama in ‘12.
No matter, though. Chairman O will win. He is the guy that closes this shop for good.
Filed under: happenings
Last week I wrapped up Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne, and I thought I’d jot down some impressions. As a grade school kid I had to do book reports, and think that what this is essentially.
So before I read IR, I read Jesus For President – which I reviewed here – and like J4P, I leave IR with a mixed bag of inspiration to challenge how I think, yet also disagreeing with Claiborne’s “this way or nothing” impression he emotes in both books.
On one hand I was blessed to read someone else in the Kingdom of God saying/thinking similar thoughts about the USA, war, the consistent value of life, poverty, and the state of the entertaining church. He and author Michael Frost have really pointed me in the direction of past authors who had been writing all of this stuff a long time ago, yet somehow it had been Westernized and made into watered down bullet points for an entertainment sermon.
All that aside, I found myself nodding in agreement with Claiborne’s thoughts on how our vows to country cannot coexist with our vows to the cross, to the Kingdom of God. It’s only a matter of time before Jesus’ words of being the only way to the Father (God) are considered “hate speech,” and Shane is one of several vocal prophets among us right now….IMHO.
Forget charismatics and conservatives, Methodists and Lutherans, Southern Baptists and Non-Denominationalists… it’s all as Tyler Durdin said: Polishing the brass on the Titanic. I love and agree with the prophetic messages within IR.
Where I part ways with Shane is in practice of how he lives, and assumes everyone else should live in practical terms. He is very much a city dweller, and his passion for it is contagious. His thoughts and practices on being wise stewards of Planet Earth have softened the hard mind of a Libertarian like me, and I find myself actually recycling plastic and paper these days. I’m even considering getting reusable shopping bags! WTF is happening to me?!?
But then Shane talks about the suburbs and rural areas with a tone that isn’t quite so friendly. Harsh criticisms coupled with condescension is how I’d put it. And this is where I believe Shane’s otherwise good message will be lost on many.
My friend Eric asked me what I thought of IR, and here is what I wrote him:
where i get uncomfortable is in the practical areas of life. while i find his life experiences and stories to be inspiring, i can’t relate.
i don’t think the average suburbanite could relate either. and while i know that’s sort of the point, there is a big elephant in the room of that shane can’t tell Joe Suburbanite, who has a load of debt, a wife who is not in sync with her husband, 3 kids: ”i know what it’s like, and there is hope.”
instead i see a man of God who was called/led into this from college onward. for me, though, here i am living in a very nice home, in a great little village, with a mortgage, debt for a car and student loans, a kid, a wife who is not on the same page as me in just about everything… the template doesn’t quite fit that shane lays down.
what i’d like to hear more about is the suburban family he wrote about who live next to each other, do laundry together, etc. – maybe he pairs up with one of the many suburbanite house church leaders to hear what they’re doing to be Jesus in the Burbs, and write about that.
i guess what i’m saying/thinking is that i love the new breath that he and others (frost) are giving The Body. i’d just like to hear more stories of how it’s being done outside the inner city… while i write my own story
That pretty much sums up my biggest problem with IR: It puts the practicality of the Kingdom of God into a very narrow scope.
I have to say that I’m especially challenged by this because God is challenging me during this very weird season of life with what I think He blesses and uses. I used to have a big chip on my shoulder against mega-churches because I am doing the house church thing. Then when my former house church imploded, I found rest for my weary soul at… a mega-church. Not just rest, either, but very specific rest, instruction, peace, and knowledge.
It left me with the humble thought of: How can I say what God uses or blesses? Who the heck am I to think I know this? I don’t. I just have today and the work in front of me. That’s it.
So I hope that Shane is working on a book that opens his mind to the stuff happening in non-urban areas, or perhaps he’s inspired someone with more experience than me to write that book, give that lecture, or make those points.
At the end of the day, I’ll suggest that anyone read IR or J4P because they are worth it. They are worth reading and engaging. They must not be read and absorbed without critical thought, though. Glad I read them, and glad that a guy like Shane is out there saying these things.
Filed under: happenings
Let’s turn Judge Sotomayor’s infamous quote around to see how it reads when populated with diverse racial references:
First, here is Judge Sotomayor’s quote:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” [I found it here, among many other places.]
Now let’s see how this reads when we mix it up, in the name of diversity:
I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.
or
I would hope that a wise Black woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina man who hasn’t lived that life.
or
I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Black woman who hasn’t lived that life.
or
I would hope that a wise Asian woman with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Black man who hasn’t lived that life.
That this quote – among her many other troubling quotes – is not getting the attention it deserves, or more importantly, that it was not an immediate deal-breaker in choosing her, speaks once again to the man Barak Obama is. Sure, he gives a great lecture, uses outstanding branding, and seems approachable. But look at the man’s associations… if he were not black, a liberal, and a media darling, he would have been the Gary Hart or Howard Dean of this past election.
Not that it matters much. I gave up on the idea of America a year or so ago. I think we are now living in the time between seasons, and it is a time to put both feet squarely into what one beleives instead of trying to balance multiple commitments.
I know where I stand.
Filed under: happenings
The new routine is fug’n awesome. Love getting up and having the morning to do what I want – usually start working nice and early. This morning, though, I went for a walk and got a big blister on my heel from my shoes that I’ve since departed with. I tend to keep clothes around for a very long time.
The downside to the new routine is that I have had to face how quickly I packed on a few pounds over the past 25 days. My all-or-nothing mentality kicks my ass. I’m pretty much eaither totallly dedicated to fitness and health, or an every-expanding fatass.
Had a great lunch with my friend Mark today. The kind of conversation that shakes things up. So glad I can count on him and his wife as a friend and brother in Christ. A few hours later he left us some dinner at our door step, and called to let me know it was there!
That’s about it for now.
Filed under: happenings
It is so refreshing to see these scientists, and their findings, to get some coverage. It’s nothing short of arrogance to believe that a consensus could be arrived at so quickly on a topic of such vast scale.
Climate change is something that I openly admit I know little about. My skepticism is based mostly on intuition, so if I’m proved to be totally wrong, I’ll accept it.
But one thought occurred to me the other day when I read a story about the Creation Museum’s assertion of a “young earth”:
“Rapid” climate change is logically considered extreme for the Old Earth (millions-of-years) folks, but for the Young Earth (6k-12k year old Earth) folks, the pace of these climate changes fits right in. I’m not saying this has any weight in the debate – I simply found it to be interesting.
I guess the thing that bothers me about Big Govt. and Big Media’s rush to assume consensus on man-made global climate change is that it is nothing but a segue for more intrusion and control. I’m already seeing stories written about Carbon Credits, etc. and it makes my eyes sore from rolling so much.
Filed under: happenings | Tags: morality, cincinnati zoo, creation museum, religion, right and wrong, ravi zacharius
In today’s Cincinnati Enquirer, a story on the front page tells of how our local zoo has decided to cut off a promotion partnership with another local big attraction – the Creation Museum – because of “dozens of calls” from people protesting the partnership.
I would first like to give my opinion on the matter: The Cincinnati Zoo did a very inappropriate thing by going into this deal to begin with, specifically because they accept public money via a tax levy. I part ways with many of my brothers and sisters in Christ in my strong belief in a separation between church and state.
For example, I don’t have a problem with a government approving unions between adults, so long as government doesn’t dictate what Churches approve of or honor. When I married my wife, I made the commitment to God, alone, and the paperwork for the state of Ohio was a formality. I fall into the C.S. Lewis camp of belief that there should be 2 distinct and different kinds of unions, those of the state and those of the Church. This intermingling of the two just muddies the waters of what the purpose of each really is.
So when it comes to this topic of the Creation Museum and the Cincinnati Zoo, I see it more of a “What were you thinking?!?” thing on the part of the zoo, than anything else. Keep public funds out of blatantly religious things. Just my opinion on the matter, and I reserve the right to change my mind on this as I age and gain more experience on the topic.
But…
The story caused me to also think on a big picture question: Who decides what is tolerable? Last month’s drama in California about gay marriage had the same question at it’s core when those in favor of gay marriage went on a rampage, essentially displaying intolerance at the will of the people. They used intolerance to lash out against intolerance.
When God or faith or any kind of religious thinking is taken out of the conversation, where is the objective frame work for figuring out what is ultimately right and wrong?
Pro-gay marriage or anti-Creationist folks are strong in their opposition to their counterparts, but any time I have engaged someone they simply cannot answer the question how they draw the distinction between wrong and right. If gay marriage is right… if creationism is wrong, just tell me why, on absolute terms.
On the surface, in the most shallow of terms in conversation, relativism is often cited as the rule of the day – that there is simply no ultimate right or wrong.
But if one logically draws that out, one must accept that his/her opinion on a matter of right or wrong is no longer valid! You say creationism is wrong. I say it’s right. In a relative context, neither of us are wrong, so why all the drama?
The fact that there is outrage, that there is conversation, is proof that even in the most relativistic thinker, has a core sense of wanting an ultimate right or wrong exists.
Here’s the trouble most find themselves in – the smart ones, anyway: They start with the consensus argument, that our social context is one that is very “open minded” to these ideas, and that as such we should be “open” to gay marriage, and “free” of creationism. The trouble is that they are at the same time bashing group-think and holding up group-think. Bashing it in their perceptions that people are opposed to gay marriage or somehow slaves to creationism. Holding up in their glorification of social contexts. It’s a circular firing squad.
Dr. Ravi Zacharius gives his life’s work to looking at these kinds of questions, and the question of absolute morality, specifically. He points out that absolutes must exist because if they didn’t, their non-existence would in fact be an absolute: They would absolutely not exist.
So at some point, we’re all going to have to ask “why?” in determining the value of right or wrong in any situation. Unfortunately, the prevailing winds of thought dictate that most will spend most of the time debating the direction of that wind instead of where it’s coming from.
A month ago I started wondering if my most viewed posts on this blog, regarding Safe Eyes, had gotten the attention of Safe Eyes or their parent company. My Safe Eyes posts account for several hundred views to-date, and literally every day I see the search phrases used to find my posts. Some are very funny!
I was out on my nightly walk last night when I got a call from a number I didn’t recognize. Turns out it was one of the founders of Internet Safety, parent company of Safe Eyes! He wanted to personally reach out to me about my bad Safe Eyes experiences on the Mac platform.
We talked for maybe thirty minutes where I was able to set a much more conversational tone to my posts. In the time since my posts I had also arrived at a big-picture conclusion to by brand experience: A general lack of curiosity on the part of Safe Eyes.
This is the theme that occurred over and over – I’d make my issues known to Safe Eyes on my Mac, and instead of curiosity, I heard “Well it works fine on my/our Mac(s).” I think a simple asking of deeper questions would have prevented my blog posts and ultimate removal of Safe Eyes from our Macs.
I should note that we did get some advice for solutions on at least two occasions from Safe Eyes, but the ideas were so obviously not from long-time Mac users that I just rolled my eyes. Even yesterday there was a posted reply to one of my blogs, and while the advice would be appropriate for a Mac newbie, it’s the kind of thing that a long-time Mac user knows and does already (permissions repair).
But all that aside, the reaching out of one of the founders (name escapes me) was huge. I will certainly give Safe Eyes another trial try a year from now once a few more versions have come out, and that will give the developers more time to get accustomed with the Mac.
As I’ve said before, I think Safe Eyes is a great product at its core. I think it has the potential to market itself as a resource for business owners who want to keep their employees off of Facebook or Myspace, etc. in order to keep productivity up. Until the Mac version is stable, those benefits will be for someone else, but I’m looking forward to giving Safe Eyes another shot.
Did you hear the one about the dumb beauty pagent contestant whom didn’t know that Africa was a continent, loved to shop, and had a funny accent?! Stupid women….
While some Americans celebrate the victory of Obama, I’m still a bit in taken aback by how casually sexism was played against Gov. Sarah Palin, and how it’s continuing still by way of viral videos and forwarded links to articles created by sexist cowards.
During her 9 weeks on the national public stage, it’s safe to say that she underwent 100 times more scrutiny than the three men making up the two main tickets. It’s safe to say that more journalistic curiosity went into her alleged shopping sprees than any of the other men’s alleged vices.
I was talking with a friend and Palin-critic whom after going back and forth for a while finally admitted that every critique on the Governor was based on style, and not substance. This person whom I was talking with is someone I have great respect for and whom I like having friendly debate with, yet even this very with-it person couldn’t name a single policy that was part of Palin’s record.
All this person had to offer me was that Sarah Palin is a woman who likes to shop, has an accent that makes her sound like a Fargo extra, is said to not know much about anything, and has the moose-in-headlights look when sitting across from an anchor of TV news.
Forget the politics. This is sexism, plain and simple. If it’s not sexism, then where was all the coverage of Palin’s record as Governor? Where were the stories on the work she has done in Alaska. It’s all public record. There are folks to interview, video to watch, etc., etc.
Yet her story is that she is a stupid woman, a beauty pagent contestant to boot, and oh yeah, she likes to shop.
While I think it was an interesting event to elect Obama as President, I think it came at the cost of sexism that, at least for now, is still a punchline.
Just finished watching the VP debate – while tracking a second straight night of the Cubs getting their asses kicked…argh!!! – and wanted to jot down some thoughts because I have come away from this thing with thoughts that I didn’t think I’d have.
(For the record, I’m an Ohio voter, and I sit here at my MacBook Pro with my State of Ohio ballot, which I will fill out an mail in tomorrow.)
- Palin can hold her own. I hope SNL starts diving into the gold mine of material that Obama/Biden have on tape. They likely won’t because, frankly, SNL does not have that kind of talent right now. But Palin definitely held her own, showed humility in moments, but was not the moose-in-headlights she was predicted to be.
- I actually like Joe Biden! Wow…I hadn’t really listened to the guy too much, just read what he’s said, or saw some youtube clips, etc. of his many gaffes. But he’s a very likable man, and I sit here wanting a Palin/Biden ticket. At least there would be differing views in the White House so as to not let govt. get bigger or too confident. Biden is a guy I’d like to sit down over coffee with at a waffle house and talk about anything.
- McCain and Palin have got to start naming names with the whole economic crisis’ systemic causes. There’s a ton of facts they can cite on how Democrats hold the majority of the blame from bad policy of the Carter and Clinton administrations. I was disappointed that Palin didn’t go after Barney Frank, Dodd, etc.
- Ifill was less of a factor than I thought she’d be. She stayed on foreign policy longer than was necessary, which obviously favors Biden, but overall she was probably more pleasant than the other guy.
- Seeing Palin hold her own solidified my vote for her and McCain. Quite frankly, as a business owner, hearing a candidate like Palin say with conviction that she wants govt. to get out the way is exactly what the majority of business owners want. Hearing Biden cite the many problems of the struggling middle-class, then assume that govt. holds the answers, is nothing less than absurd. So what if McCain voted against government funded alternative engery exploration. I’m GLAD he voted against it because the private sector will always be more efficient new discoveries of any kind, in any industry. Case in point: I’m a Gen-Xer and I want my SS money so I can invest… there are a lot of cheap stocks right now that I could buy up, and that would solve two problems with one action!
My Ohio vote for McCain-Palin will be in the mail tomorrow and that’s that.
