Nanner-nanner-nanner
I took a typing class in high school – just one. From then, all my typing experience has been just practice. I did have some motivation when my first job paid $.17/hour more if you typed 45 wpm or better.
So, how fast do you type?
70 words per minute, according to Speed test.
And I only had to take it 3 times to get there (Was 67, and 64).
Pray for our Next President – They’re Gonna Need It
A conversation at work got me thinking about what happens during a President’s first year in office. I thought that I remembered a few significant events, but decided to look up ones that I hadn’t remembered. My impression was that our enemies or adversaries were anxious to test a ‘new’ president to see what his reaction would be. I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran tests a nuke shortly after the inauguration, or maybe China will decide that they really do want Taiwan back. Keep these in mind when you are deciding who to vote for.
George Bush
April 1 2001 – U.S.-China Spy Plane Incident
September 11 2001 – Almost 3,000 people are killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks
Bill Clinton
January 19 1993 – Iraq disarmament crisis ( Technically this was the day before he took office, but I think it was a test meant for him)
February 26 1993 – World Trade Center bombing in New York City
February 28 1993 – BATF agents raid the Branch Davidian compound (Technically not external to the us)
March 12 1993 – North Korea announces that it plans to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
October 3 1993 – A large scale battle erupts between U.S. forces and local militia in Mogadishu, Somalia
George H.W. Bush
Revolutions of 1989
June 4 1989 – The Tiananmen Square massacre takes place in Beijing
Ronald Reagan
January 19 1981 – United States and Iranian officials sign an agreement to release 52 American hostages
June 7 1981 – The Israeli Air Force destroys Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor.
July 17 1981 – Israeli aircraft bomb Beirut, destroying multi-story apartment blocks
August 19 1981 – Gulf of Sidra incident
Charles Barkley’s fake Christians
Wolf Blitzer interviewed with Charles Barkley on CNN’s Situation Room on Friday afternoon. The interesting part follows, with interesting parts highlighted. If you compare the transcript with the video, they mostly match. I think that the word-processing software probably cleaned up a bit, as Mr Barkley is not as articulate as one would normally expect from a college graduate.
BARKLEY: Well, I think, you know, people keep saying, well, he doesn’t have enough experience on national security and things like that. First of all, whoever the president is, he’s going to have tons of advisers. It ain’t like the president gets to make every decision on his own. You have great advisers around you.
Hey, I live in Arizona. I have got great respect for Senator McCain. Great respect. But I don’t like the way the Republicans are taking this country. Every time I hear the word “conservative,” it makes me sick to my stomach, because they’re really just fake Christians, as I call them. That’s all they are. But I just — I’m going to vote Democratic no matter what.
BLITZER: What about you in politics? At one point you were thinking of running back in Alabama. What do you think?
BARKLEY: Well, I just bought a house in 2007. And in 2014, I promise you I’m going to run for governor of Alabama.
BLITZER: And when will you run for governor of Alabama?
BARKLEY: 2014. You have to have residency for seven years. And I bought my house at the end of last year. And I will be eligible in 2014.
BLITZER: All right. One quick point before I let you go. You used the phrase “fake Christians” for conservatives. Explain what you’re talking about.
BARKLEY: Well, I think they — they want to be judge and jury. Like, I’m for gay marriage. It’s none of my business if gay people want to get married. I’m pro-choice. And I think these Christians — first of all, they’re supposed to be — they’re not supposed to judge other people. But they’re the most hypocritical judge of people we have in this country. And it bugs the hell out of me. They act like their Christians. And they’re not forgiving at all.
BLITZER: So you’re going to get a lot of feedback on this one, Charles.
BARKLEY: They can’t do anything to me. I don’t work for them.
BLITZER: You feel comfortable saying all that?
BARKLEY: I feel very comfortable saying I’m pro-choice, and I’m for gay marriage. Very comfortable.
BLITZER: But you can’t lump all these conservatives as being fake. A lot of them obviously — most of them are very, very sincere in their religious beliefs.
BARKLEY: Well, they should read the part about they’re not supposed to judge other people. They forget that one when it doesn’t fit what they want it to say.
BLITZER: All right. We’ve got to leave it there, Charles.
Thanks very much for joining us.
BARKLEY: Thank you for having me.
Video of this is available at http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=48184 or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCaAx9SRZRU
The transcript is available here: http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/15/sitroom.01.html
Now…
This was the second time in as many weeks that I’ve heard that phrase misused in that way, and once was from a professing Christian. You’d really think that they would know better. Isn’t it odd that Mr Barkley would know (or think that he knew) a Bible passage? In reality, he doesn’t. He is just parroting back what he has heard others say. And those that he heard probably didn’t know it either.
The passage that he is referring to is in Matthew 7:1. So, let’s take a look at it.
Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
So, the passage isn’t saying that we aren’t to judge, but that the criteria that we use to judge others should be the same that we judge ourselves. How many of us are willing to overlook great transgressions in ourselves (the beam) while we point fingers at problems in others (the mote), and even offer to help them ‘fix’ their problem without dealing with our own?
Mr. Barkley certainly does. One of the areas where he and I actually agree is that professional athletes shouldn’t be role models for kids. I’m sure that we disagree as to WHY. I think that the vast majority of athletes don’t set good examples, where Mr. Barkley just doesn’t want the responsibility and scrutiny that would bring. How about a different ‘judge not’ scripture to remember.
Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
And for those who aren’t familiar with the concept, righteous means ‘according to the divine law’. I wonder what the gambling-addicted and violent former ball player who’s best known for spitting on a little girl would say to that?
If you haven’t given up on the world, and watch anything on TNT, you may want to let them know what you think of Mr. Barkley. It may not be a bad idea to see what Barack Obama would say about it, since Mr. Barkley was on CNN to give his endorsement of him.
Commuting home from the Capital
Yesterday, we had a winter storm. Not a bad one, mind you, more of a wintry drizzle. Most of the day it was around 32 degrees, and initially it came down as sleet and freezing rain, and then changed to all rain. I got a ride at my normal slug line and we were on the road about 4:20. I took a nap, which is normal for me. I’m a polite slug, and usually try to sit in the back, since I know that I’ll be snoozing. I also try not to snore or drool too much, either. My internal clock (or some combination of bumps in the road) usually wake me a few minutes before we get to the commuter lot. Yesterday, I was awakened by my cell phone buzzing (I said I’m a polite slug, and set it to stun). I looked around, and we had barely gotten a mile down the HOV lanes. It was also almost 7:00.
WHAT! 7:00. What was going on.
Apparently, the new Springfield spaghetti interchange had experienced icing on all of the elevated roadways. With one exception, they ALL are elevated through there. The icing had led to accidents, including two jack-knifed tractor-trailers. ALL of the highways there were blocked completely. I distinctly remember an interview with a VDOT official, when the construction was just starting. He was asked about heat strips for the elevated roads. He was confident that the combination of liquid de-icer and abrasives that they used would be more than adequate. I wonder if he’s still employed.
The driver eventually was able to get off at the nearest exit, and we wandered through several back roads that were almost as congested, but at least moving. After a stop for gas and bathroom (by now it was after 8:00) we got back on the road, and I was scraping 1/4″ of ice off my windshield by about 9:20. From there, the drive home took another half hour or so because of some traffic lights that were off, and the rain.
I finally walked in the door about 10:15. Total time from leaving work to arriving home, 6 hours 15 minutes. Google shows that the trip is about 35 miles. I have driven to South Carolina – a 450 mile trip – in less time than it took me to go 35 miles yesterday. For the last half hour, driving home from the commuter lot, I was trying to invent a plausible reason not to go to work today. I couldn’t come up with one, so I ended up going. I did check the traffic cameras before leaving today. My trip today door-to-door was almost exactly 1 hour. And that included a 20 minute walk to my alternate slug line.
It’s not like I don’t have options. The Metro and VRE commuter rail are both closer than either slug line, and taking them really isn’t a big deal. When I know that traffic is going to be hosed, I’ll usually take the VRE, and if I had checked before I left, I would have probably taken it yesterday. Sure, it takes half-an-hour longer than my normal method, but only half-an-hour longer would have been great yesterday.
I’m definitely going to remember to check the traffic cameras before I leave work- at least for the next few weeks.
A Political Sigh of Relief
As I was perusing some blogs on our lackluster presidential choices this year, I came across the following at The Jawa Report. Needless to say, I feel much better knowing that the two most likely Supreme Court Justices to retire are Stevens and Ginsburg. Both of them were on the wrong side of the Kelo decision, and I don’t know that it would be possible to put worse ones in place. In part, his analysis reads:
It is true that there’s a decent chance that one or two justices will retire in the next four years, but unfortunately for the liberals, the likely retirees aren’t named Thomas, Scalia, Roberts or Alito. The two oldest justices are Stevens (age 87) and Ginsburg (age 74), both generally considered two of the most liberal justices. As far as I know, not a single one of the conservatives is considered a particularly likely retirement in the next four years. Thus, the next President might very well have the opportunity to replace a justice or two, but it’s unlikely to affect the existing conservative wing of the court.
Knowing that, I really don’t feel the need to vote for McCain. I’m sure that over the next few weeks/months, he’ll give plenty of lip service to ‘conservative principals’, but I’m equally sure that lip service is all that it will be.
Now I have another dilemma. Our primary voting is tomorrow, and I still don’t know who to vote for. I was considering voting for Ron Paul, but his base is fairly rabid, and I’d just be counted as one of them. I think that a vote for Huckabee would carry much more weight as a protest against McCain, and I’m leaning that way. I have also considered voting in the Democratic primary for Hillary, with the hope that she gets the nomination. Obama is quite charismatic, and I’d much prefer the divisive gridlock that Hillary would cause.
The truly ugly choice for President
Now that the de-facto nominee for the republican party is going to be John McCain, I have a dilemma.
All of the potential candidates, Hillary, Obama, or McCain – None of them are acceptable to me. All are pro big government, soft on illegal immigration, pro tax increases, etc. No good choices there at all.
Rachel Lucas (rachellucas.com/?p=613) uses the analogy of being bitten by a dog – one more frequently, and one less. If you’re going to get bitten – and your friends are all going to get bitten – shouldn’t you want the blame to fall on someone ELSE’s dog?
I think that the only choice for a conservative is Hillary – not because she’s the ‘lesser evil’, but because she is such a divisive person that I think she would have a hard time getting things passed. A bad idea from her would be easily recognized as a bad idea. A bad idea from McCain would be hard for congress to stop, because the dems would like it, and the repubicans wouldn’t want to go against another republican. Gridlock is a good thing when the direction is wrong. Obama would be more likely to be able to work both sides to accomplish horrid things, and McCain can’t be counted on to take a hard stance on anything except the military. He’s proven on multiple occasions his willingness to compromise with the opposition so that things can ‘get done’, even if the things getting done are bad ones. Hopefully after a few years of her, we’d find a suitable conservative to run on conservative principals, and the damage wouldn’t be irreparable
I’d much rather have a known adversary than an occasional and unreliable ally. At least you know where you stand.
The only thing that troubles me about that decision is that it is quite likely that the next president will get to chose at least 1 supreme court justice – possibly more. I’m not sure that in the balance this weighs enough to hold my nose and vote once again for a moderate (read marginal) RINO.
Eye of the Oracle
A little background first: My daughter has been reading the ‘Dragons in our Midst’ series. She enjoyed the first two books, even to the point of reading them to her brothers. My wife and I looked at them first (obviously) and didn’t see any problem with them. My wife even posted a review of them in her blog. BUT… We picked up the 3rd book from that series, and the first book from the next series (which was also a prequel to the ‘Dragons in our Midst’ series). She initially read the first few chapters, and got a strange feeling about it. I read the first chapter and told her to not read any more. We felt that since she had recommended them in her blog, she really should post the new information and warning about them. My daughter also had a problem with the third book, and stopped reading it a few chapters from the end. It makes me immensely proud that she was able to hear the ’still, small voice’ that it took me better than a quarter century to finally recognize.
My daughter’s post is at her birdwhisper blog, and my wife’s is at her blog. My wife’s blog is subscribed to by the author’s feed-reader, which notified him immediately of the post with the name of his book. Obviously he wasn’t happy about it, and left a comment on her blog – and also at my daughter’s blog – and also as a forum topic on his fan-forum. This generated a lot of comments, which I feel that I need to address.
Many of the comments drew a comparison between his series and the ‘Lord of the Rings’ and ‘Narnia’ series. They also defended his series as being Biblical, but also fantasy fiction. Honestly, I was impressed by the comments. Knowing that they were coming mostly from teens, they were more articulate and respectful than comments I’ve seen coming from adults. My response follows:
Less than half way through the first chapter – about the point where Samyaza was trying to trick the angel guarding the garden of Eden, an internal alarm went off. The holy spirit was warning me about it, and some of the names sounded familiar. Upon investigation, I found that most of them are referenced in heretical writings. Good enough for me – I stopped reading and none in MY house will read them again.
There is a significant difference between ‘Eye of the Oracle’ and other fantasy fiction such as the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, or ‘Chronicles of Narnia’. The difference being that EOTO has a biblical story retold with ‘extras’ added to it, specifically extras that are from heretical writings. LOTR and Narnia have non-biblical stories, and therefore are free to include anything they like. Christian interpretation can found in them, but you have to be looking for it. An even broader case can be made for them exemplifying moral behavior – the struggle of good vs. evil, an individual prevailing against an overwhelming opponent, friendship and loyalty, etc. Because they are not re-telling a Biblical event, the standard that we hold them to is much lower. Do they romanticize wrong behavior? Are negative consequences shown and properly attributed? Christian fiction has the additional requirement to edify God, AND to be theologically correct.’Eye of the Oracle’ takes a well known Biblical story, and re-tells it. When dealing with the Bible, we MUST treat it honestly. There can be NO artistic license taken with it’s text. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. (Gal 5:9) This is most especially true when the ‘extras’ added to the Biblical narration are from apocryphal and heretical sources, as is the case with ‘Eye’. Claiming ‘It’s just fiction’ does nothing to remedy that problem.
Was the ‘Passion of the Christ’ Christian fiction, or was it a corrupting of true doctrine by incorporating the visions of Anne Catherine Emerich (http://www.olrl.org/prophecy/emmerich.shtml)? If your pastor told you that it was more holy to pray for souls in Purgatory than for living sinners, that the saints are more powerful on their feast days, that Christ suffered more from a wound on his shoulder than any other, and that he was subsisting entirely on communion wafers, you would leave that church and never look back.
Was the ‘Da Vinci Code’ harmless Christian fiction, or a corrupting of true doctrine with Gnostic heresies by incorporating the gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary? If they’re true, and Christ wasn’t a man and didn’t die on the cross, then where does salvation come from?
Is ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ harmless Christian fiction? It includes a disclaimer to that effect at the onset before the movie, before ’speculating’ on all of the different ways that Satan may have tried to seduce Him.
One of the items that commenters seem to be stuck on is the idea of the Nephilim. Nephilim (strongs # 5303) is NOT translated into English in many versions of the Bible. Selectively ‘transliterating’ a Hebrew word for giant/tyrant/bully doesn’t give it a different meaning. There is no reason to make ’sons of God’ in Genesis 6 mean something different than it does in Romans, where all who are ‘led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God’. And IF they were some hybrid, then they ALL DIED during Noah’s flood (Gen 7:21-22). As appealing as the idea of a god/man hybrid is (Greek & Roman myths are full of them), the only ‘Christian’ sources are the heretical ‘Book of Enoch’ and ‘Book of Giants’.
‘Eye of the Oracle’ is especially dangerous because it corrupts sound theology by mixing (capital T) Truth with fables and heressy.
Sure, it’s ‘just a story’ and you won’t confuse it for Truth. You’re grounded and strong enough to be able to tell the difference, right?
WRONG.
Without looking it up, see how well you can Biblically answer these questions. How many angels sang to announce the birth of Christ to the shepherds? How many wise men traveled to see Jesus after he was born? When did the wise men see Jesus? If you got them wrong, your knowledge of the Bible has been tainted by our ‘Christmas Culture’. Perhaps you can tell me how many angels God placed to guard the garden of Eden, and how many of them held flaming swords? If you’ve read ‘Eye of the Oracle’, your answer will differ from God’s.
Those who treat most of the bible stories as allegory or legend probably don’t have a problem with it – the details change, but the essence of the story remains the same. I, however, believe that the entire Bible was written by God working through human instruments, that ALL of the words are true and significant, and that they will remain that way forever. As such, any scripture story re-told as fiction must be held to the highest standard of biblical accuracy, neither adding nor subtracting. ‘Eye of the Oracle’ does not meet this standard.
And, specifically in response to Mr. Davis, who said:
- “You are doing harm to a series that God is using in a powerful way to change people’s lives for the better.”
God can use dishonorable vessels for honorable purposes. It is our responsibility to NOT lead children even one step down a path that has the potential to cause them harm. Something about a ‘mill-stone’ comes to mind. From what I have read of your work, you have an incredible talent. Judging by your forum and comments I have seen, you have an intelligent and devoted following. It is a shame that your work has the potential to confuse them about sound doctrine.
