I'll start with the non-sports post...
The way we view the universe: I was thinking the other day that we (and by we I mean the "academic intellectuals" (Or AI's) among us) like to think that a) there is other intelligent life in the universe and b) it is technologically advanced beyond us. So basically, this is a way of being humble. "We aren't the greatest, smartest in the universe. There are others that have advanced far beyond us, and perhaps someday they will visit us." (It's a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there?) I think Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) put it best when he said, "I think the surest proof that there is intelligent life out there is that none of it has chosen to visit us."
But I digress. I would like to submit some evidence that we (again, the AI's) are not as humble as we purport to be. How old do they believe the universe to be? Somewhere between eleven to thirteen billion years. And how old is our Earth? Somewhere between three to four billion years. How are distances in space calculated? By light years, or the distance light travels in one year. One Earth year. The arbitrary amount of time that it takes our planet to rotate around our star. We measure the age of the universe by something that has existed for less than half supposed age of the great expanse!
What happens when (if) we encounter another intelligent life form and their life sustaining orb takes 20 times longer to complete a rotation around their sun? We start comparing notes... How old is the universe? About 600,000 years. How far is there planet from ours? About a third of a light year away. Took nearly no time to get here.
Second, who's to say that the other life forms are more technologically advanced than us? Someone has to be first! If we aren't the most advanced, are the creatures that visit us? Or is there another, even more advanced culture than theirs?
So they get here, and we're more advanced than they are. Wouldn't they be like, "Dude, you guys are so much more technologically advanced than we are, We only live 1/3 of a light year away! Why haven't you come to visit us?!"
Ok, now sports.
Ozzie Guillen: Ozzie is the manager of the "World Champion" White Sox. (To see why it's in quotes click here, here, here, here, or here.) Recently, they were playing the Texas Rangers and one of his players was hit by two different pitches. He sent a rookie to the mound to hit one of the Ranger's stars in retaliation. (This is a great example for the "World Champion" manager to set). The rookie threw inside twice, both times missing the batter by a significant margin. He then got the batter to ground out, getting out of the inning.
What did Ozzie "Manager of the Year" Guillen do? He reamed him out in the dugout on national TV. Screaming that he didn't follow his instructions and that he was going back to the minors. What a surprise, this pitcher is no longer with the major league White Sox. He now plays for one of their minor league teams.
This is the reward this kid gets for respecting the game and keeping some honor in it? Let's say he even tried to hit the Ranger and failed. What would happen if he gave up a run or two? The same treatment? Probably not! Ozzie Guillen needs to be fined and punished for his behavior. MLB does not condone throwing at batters even in retaliation, that is why there are warnings issued, people ejected and fined. An example needs to be set. Ozzie's intentions were clear and action needs to be taken.
There you go. Today's "We don't have a baby yet" dose of just my opinion.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Eminent Domain
There is a law, called Eminent Domain, that allows for a government (be it town, state, or federal) to force people to sell their land to said government (usually for less than market value) if the government needs it. This was designed to allow for necessities that the ruling body deems important. For example: roads, power plants, schools, public works, parks, etc.
There is a state that is citing Eminent Domain to steal the houses of some people who have lived where they are for many years. These people do not want to leave and do not believe the state has the right to do what they are trying to do. The state is going to build private upscale condos, a hotel, and a convention center. This is private development! And, therefore, illegal.
This case is now before the Supreme Court and, hopefully, the court will do what's right and stop this thievery by the state government.
But here's the kicker: what state do you think is doing this? Is it a "big business" red state like Texas or North Carolina? What about a "swing" state like Florida or Ohio. No. This is being done by a die hard, "we're-here-for-the-little-guy," continually blue, nearly bluist of the blue states: Connecticut!
Connecticut! My home state! I am embarrassed that my former state is attempting this travesty. I hang my head in shame that they are willingly ignoring the original intent of this law. I hope for one of two things: either the state has to return the land it's already stolen and the people can keep their money. Or the state is allowed to buy the land for at least 5 times the value of the property.
Why aren't the "we don't like big businesses" leftist government officials stepping forward on behalf of these people? Because this case is about two things, one obvious, one hidden:
1) The obvious one is that businesses will get this land. Shouldn't the right be all for this? Doesn't the right love to help big businesses? Well, I don't personally see it that way, but for the sake of argument, let's say they do. The other issue that this case revolves around outweighs the rights "love of big business."
2) The hidden (and I'm sure the left wishes it'd stay that way) agenda of this case is regarding the power of the government. Dems love a big powerful government (Don't forget, you must wear your helmet!) They want to be able to take your land whenever they want for whatever purpose they want. The far left of the left are the Socialists. Socialism isn't against big business. In fact Socialism loves big business. Truth be told, they wish the government were the only big business.
This action is despicable and it should be stopped! Come on US Supreme Court, don't let us down! (The Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the state. The liberal judges outweighed the conservative! The left is pushing this through! Let's see what the US Supreme Court does!)
Hopefully, I'll be able to post on this again saying that justice has been served. You may hear then that all of this isn't just my opinion!
There is a state that is citing Eminent Domain to steal the houses of some people who have lived where they are for many years. These people do not want to leave and do not believe the state has the right to do what they are trying to do. The state is going to build private upscale condos, a hotel, and a convention center. This is private development! And, therefore, illegal.
This case is now before the Supreme Court and, hopefully, the court will do what's right and stop this thievery by the state government.
But here's the kicker: what state do you think is doing this? Is it a "big business" red state like Texas or North Carolina? What about a "swing" state like Florida or Ohio. No. This is being done by a die hard, "we're-here-for-the-little-guy," continually blue, nearly bluist of the blue states: Connecticut!
Connecticut! My home state! I am embarrassed that my former state is attempting this travesty. I hang my head in shame that they are willingly ignoring the original intent of this law. I hope for one of two things: either the state has to return the land it's already stolen and the people can keep their money. Or the state is allowed to buy the land for at least 5 times the value of the property.
Why aren't the "we don't like big businesses" leftist government officials stepping forward on behalf of these people? Because this case is about two things, one obvious, one hidden:
1) The obvious one is that businesses will get this land. Shouldn't the right be all for this? Doesn't the right love to help big businesses? Well, I don't personally see it that way, but for the sake of argument, let's say they do. The other issue that this case revolves around outweighs the rights "love of big business."
2) The hidden (and I'm sure the left wishes it'd stay that way) agenda of this case is regarding the power of the government. Dems love a big powerful government (Don't forget, you must wear your helmet!) They want to be able to take your land whenever they want for whatever purpose they want. The far left of the left are the Socialists. Socialism isn't against big business. In fact Socialism loves big business. Truth be told, they wish the government were the only big business.
This action is despicable and it should be stopped! Come on US Supreme Court, don't let us down! (The Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the state. The liberal judges outweighed the conservative! The left is pushing this through! Let's see what the US Supreme Court does!)
Hopefully, I'll be able to post on this again saying that justice has been served. You may hear then that all of this isn't just my opinion!
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Big Ben meets Big Cadillac
Yesterday, Ben Roethlisberger (QB Pittsburgh Steelers) was in a motorcycle accident. He wasn't wearing a helmet. The star for the Steelers is alive but needed surgery for a broken jaw, crushed sinus cavity, head laceration, and lost teeth.
This has sparked a debate because Pennsylvania does not have a helmet law. Massachusetts does. So my question is: Should our government be passing laws because they are for "our own good?"
Here is my belief: In America, we have the right to be stupid.
If I want to ride my motorcycle without a helmet please view me as an experiment in Darwinism. If I want to drive without wearing a seatbelt, please see me as a public service announcement ("This is your body without a seatbelt....")
Where do these laws end? If we continue passing "For your own good" laws, then I propose the following:
A law against using a hair dryer in the tub
A law requiring a helmet while skiing
A law demanding that Grady Little pull Pedro in the seventh inning
A law that limits the amount of time you can drive within 10 miles of your house (after all 90% of all accidents happen within 10 miles of your house)
A law against running with sissors
A law that caps the amount of car commercials that air in one hour, because after about five of them I wanna break things
A law that fines people for driving with hot coffee between their legs
These laws would all be for my safety. Because I need to be protected from myself... Hey Big Brother: No thanks! I'm all set. (That was for you Jason). I have a mother and I'm and adult. I don't need you telling me to be sure to finish my vegatables.
Another thing that annoys me to no end is that we have a government that tells me I have no choice about wearing a seatbelt or a helmet and turns around and tells me that I do have a choice when it comes to an unborn child.
And the people who are backing helmet laws are opposing the governmental tapping of international phone calls. How do you justify this? They are both for your own good! One protects you against yourself, the other against international terrorists. You can't have it both ways.
What is my solution? Do not mandate helmet or seatbelt wearing. Here is the law that needs to be in the books: If you are in an accident and you are found to not have been wearing a helmet or seatbelt, you are responsible for your medical expenses. Even if it is not your fault or if you do not have health insurance, if you are going to exercise your right to be a moron, you will pay for the consequences. Other drivers will not and tax payers will not. Problem solved. I have the freedom to not wear the life saving devices and no one else is at risk.
This is an issue of big vs little government. The more we allow our government to tell us what we must and must not do, the closer we come to a big government tells me how many calories you must intake to be healthy or face punishment, a government that outlaws motorcycles all together because they are so dangerous to the rider, and a government that regulates how much coffee you can drink because, after all, it's for your own good.
What's best for me? A government that let's me make my own mistakes. A government that let's me be free to be stupid. A small government that I hardly notice. That's what's best for me. Anyone agree with that which is just my opinion?
(By the way, at the time of the accident, Ben didn't have a valid Pennsylvania Motorcycle License...)
This has sparked a debate because Pennsylvania does not have a helmet law. Massachusetts does. So my question is: Should our government be passing laws because they are for "our own good?"
Here is my belief: In America, we have the right to be stupid.
If I want to ride my motorcycle without a helmet please view me as an experiment in Darwinism. If I want to drive without wearing a seatbelt, please see me as a public service announcement ("This is your body without a seatbelt....")
Where do these laws end? If we continue passing "For your own good" laws, then I propose the following:
These laws would all be for my safety. Because I need to be protected from myself... Hey Big Brother: No thanks! I'm all set. (That was for you Jason). I have a mother and I'm and adult. I don't need you telling me to be sure to finish my vegatables.
Another thing that annoys me to no end is that we have a government that tells me I have no choice about wearing a seatbelt or a helmet and turns around and tells me that I do have a choice when it comes to an unborn child.
And the people who are backing helmet laws are opposing the governmental tapping of international phone calls. How do you justify this? They are both for your own good! One protects you against yourself, the other against international terrorists. You can't have it both ways.
What is my solution? Do not mandate helmet or seatbelt wearing. Here is the law that needs to be in the books: If you are in an accident and you are found to not have been wearing a helmet or seatbelt, you are responsible for your medical expenses. Even if it is not your fault or if you do not have health insurance, if you are going to exercise your right to be a moron, you will pay for the consequences. Other drivers will not and tax payers will not. Problem solved. I have the freedom to not wear the life saving devices and no one else is at risk.
This is an issue of big vs little government. The more we allow our government to tell us what we must and must not do, the closer we come to a big government tells me how many calories you must intake to be healthy or face punishment, a government that outlaws motorcycles all together because they are so dangerous to the rider, and a government that regulates how much coffee you can drink because, after all, it's for your own good.
What's best for me? A government that let's me make my own mistakes. A government that let's me be free to be stupid. A small government that I hardly notice. That's what's best for me. Anyone agree with that which is just my opinion?
(By the way, at the time of the accident, Ben didn't have a valid Pennsylvania Motorcycle License...)
Monday, June 12, 2006
Marathon Post
A friend recently said that due to the fact that I hadn't posted in a bit, she was concerned that the Queen of Hearts and I had our son and hadn't informed her. The truth is: we haven't had our son yet and due to my inability to post I have about 17 different things to rant on. I'll try to express them in order of succinctness compared to time sensitiveness. (I'll headline them so you can skip the ones that don't interest you).
Shiloh Nuvelle Jolie-Pitt: Brangelina have had their baby. Who cares? I hope no one, and here's why: People magazine paid $4 million for exclusive North American rights to the first pictures of Shiloh Nuvelle Jolie-Pitt. That's a lot of money. Where did they get it? From anyone who buys this edition of their periodical! That's right: People has more than doubled the cost of their magazine for this one edition. If you want to have the first pictures of this child born out of wedlock to a man and woman who were married to other people when the began their relationship ~ You are going to pay for it! Why oh why do we worship celebrities in our culture?
The UN: This impotent grouping of nations continues to baffle me. Due to the suicides in Guantanamo they are once again calling for it's closure. How susceptible and emotional is this body of ambassadors? If suicides lead to the demand of the closure of a detention center then the doors of all jails should be closed. Why doesn't the UN worry about Sing Sing? What about the genocide and civil wars in Africa? Why don't they cry out about those? Look: Be like Amnesty International who is at least consistent in their knee-jerk human rights for all including convicts and murders, or continue to meet without actually doing anything (You're good at that anyway.) (Oh, by the way: Germany is trying to take over Europe through the EU, have you noticed that? No, I didn't think so.)
Canada: Recently (or not so recently anymore), Canada apprehended terrorists in their nation that were planning on assassinating their Prime Minister. This is a massive blow to the "let's pull out of Iraq and the terrorism will cease" crowd. What has Canada done in regard to Iraq? Opposed the war, avoided the coalition, made their stance known around the world. What is Canada? Still a target for international terrorism. It seems that simply not being Islamic is a good enough reason for terrorists to plan on breaking into your legislature and beheading your Prime Minister with a sword.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: When I heard the news I was happy. Then I realized: I'm happy that someone is dead. I'm happy that someone has lost his opportunity for redemption. I wasn't too happy after that. I was puzzled. This is the man who beheaded "infidels." He was the mastermind of the attacks on my countrymen. He was the Al-Qaeda mastermind in Iraq (wait, I thought Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq). My contemplation lead me to a place where I wanted to say that "This was a man that God wanted to love." Did not God love him anyway? I think he did. And now Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is separated from his maker forever. I continue to believe that no human has the right to hoist that punishment on another. That is for God to justly decide. In allowing/causing al-Zarqawi's death, wasn't God sovereign over this and, therefore, sentencing al-Zarqawi to this judgement? Whoops, theological spiral that will drive me crazy. The conversion of a radical Muslim (which would probably lead to his martyrdom) would be much more powerful on the world stage than the death of one at the hands of an enemy.
Measles: There have been enough cases of the Measles recently for the CDC (center for disease control) to label this as an outbreak. It's interesting to note that it hasn't only been the Measles, "German Measles" (or Rubella) have also been reported. Many have been asking, "How are these people getting the measles? Aren't we all inoculated against them?" The answer is: Yes. By law, one must receive their measles shots before they can attend school. Measles shots are a three stage process that inoculates you against Measles and Rubella. In fact, if you are going to immigrate into this country, you must also "have your shots." However, some of our neighboring countries do not offer their citizens immunizations against these diseases. So, if someone were to enter this country without the government knowing and without the government being able to regulate their medical care, then they would be susceptible to these diseases. I mean, this would only happen if someone entered the country, say, illegally. But we should continue to allow this and let them stay, right? (I don't think I got my small pox vaccination, have you?)
Ann Coulter: Critics of Ms. Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" are focusing on one sentence in particular: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Most news outlets will tell you that this is a statement about 9/11 widows. This is a gross overstatement. This is about four women from New Jersey who have appeared in political ads, and other public forums. Many people take issue with this statement. I am among them. This quote is rude, abrasive, and calloused. Is it untrue? They are millionaires, they have been interviewed countless times because of their dislike for the current administration, and they have actively supported liberal candidates. The "enjoying" portion is simply opinion, and if I were them, this sentence might spur me into reviewing how I've been behaving because someone thinks I'm enjoying my spouse’s death. The flip side of this is that many people do not take issue with other "controversial figures" like Michael Moore. Is this because they are on the other side of the isle? No one bats an eye when he says things like: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win." (Really, people killing Americans are to be honored? Is this something he's hoping for?). Even "wikipedia" slams Coulter while pretending to offer criticism of Moore. Bottom line: Too often people claim that you cannot disagree with people like the New Jersey Widows because of their losses. Well, if they didn't want to face criticism they should have stayed out of the spotlight. Also, while I cannot support the manner in which Coulter presented her argument, why doesn't anyone slam the Left like they love to rage on the Right? Ann's job is to sell books. This one sentence may double her sales.
So, now that you’ve taken an hour to wade through all of this, any comments on what you’ve read? Would you like to respond to what which is just my opinion?
Shiloh Nuvelle Jolie-Pitt: Brangelina have had their baby. Who cares? I hope no one, and here's why: People magazine paid $4 million for exclusive North American rights to the first pictures of Shiloh Nuvelle Jolie-Pitt. That's a lot of money. Where did they get it? From anyone who buys this edition of their periodical! That's right: People has more than doubled the cost of their magazine for this one edition. If you want to have the first pictures of this child born out of wedlock to a man and woman who were married to other people when the began their relationship ~ You are going to pay for it! Why oh why do we worship celebrities in our culture?
The UN: This impotent grouping of nations continues to baffle me. Due to the suicides in Guantanamo they are once again calling for it's closure. How susceptible and emotional is this body of ambassadors? If suicides lead to the demand of the closure of a detention center then the doors of all jails should be closed. Why doesn't the UN worry about Sing Sing? What about the genocide and civil wars in Africa? Why don't they cry out about those? Look: Be like Amnesty International who is at least consistent in their knee-jerk human rights for all including convicts and murders, or continue to meet without actually doing anything (You're good at that anyway.) (Oh, by the way: Germany is trying to take over Europe through the EU, have you noticed that? No, I didn't think so.)
Canada: Recently (or not so recently anymore), Canada apprehended terrorists in their nation that were planning on assassinating their Prime Minister. This is a massive blow to the "let's pull out of Iraq and the terrorism will cease" crowd. What has Canada done in regard to Iraq? Opposed the war, avoided the coalition, made their stance known around the world. What is Canada? Still a target for international terrorism. It seems that simply not being Islamic is a good enough reason for terrorists to plan on breaking into your legislature and beheading your Prime Minister with a sword.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: When I heard the news I was happy. Then I realized: I'm happy that someone is dead. I'm happy that someone has lost his opportunity for redemption. I wasn't too happy after that. I was puzzled. This is the man who beheaded "infidels." He was the mastermind of the attacks on my countrymen. He was the Al-Qaeda mastermind in Iraq (wait, I thought Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq). My contemplation lead me to a place where I wanted to say that "This was a man that God wanted to love." Did not God love him anyway? I think he did. And now Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is separated from his maker forever. I continue to believe that no human has the right to hoist that punishment on another. That is for God to justly decide. In allowing/causing al-Zarqawi's death, wasn't God sovereign over this and, therefore, sentencing al-Zarqawi to this judgement? Whoops, theological spiral that will drive me crazy. The conversion of a radical Muslim (which would probably lead to his martyrdom) would be much more powerful on the world stage than the death of one at the hands of an enemy.
Measles: There have been enough cases of the Measles recently for the CDC (center for disease control) to label this as an outbreak. It's interesting to note that it hasn't only been the Measles, "German Measles" (or Rubella) have also been reported. Many have been asking, "How are these people getting the measles? Aren't we all inoculated against them?" The answer is: Yes. By law, one must receive their measles shots before they can attend school. Measles shots are a three stage process that inoculates you against Measles and Rubella. In fact, if you are going to immigrate into this country, you must also "have your shots." However, some of our neighboring countries do not offer their citizens immunizations against these diseases. So, if someone were to enter this country without the government knowing and without the government being able to regulate their medical care, then they would be susceptible to these diseases. I mean, this would only happen if someone entered the country, say, illegally. But we should continue to allow this and let them stay, right? (I don't think I got my small pox vaccination, have you?)
Ann Coulter: Critics of Ms. Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" are focusing on one sentence in particular: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Most news outlets will tell you that this is a statement about 9/11 widows. This is a gross overstatement. This is about four women from New Jersey who have appeared in political ads, and other public forums. Many people take issue with this statement. I am among them. This quote is rude, abrasive, and calloused. Is it untrue? They are millionaires, they have been interviewed countless times because of their dislike for the current administration, and they have actively supported liberal candidates. The "enjoying" portion is simply opinion, and if I were them, this sentence might spur me into reviewing how I've been behaving because someone thinks I'm enjoying my spouse’s death. The flip side of this is that many people do not take issue with other "controversial figures" like Michael Moore. Is this because they are on the other side of the isle? No one bats an eye when he says things like: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win." (Really, people killing Americans are to be honored? Is this something he's hoping for?). Even "wikipedia" slams Coulter while pretending to offer criticism of Moore. Bottom line: Too often people claim that you cannot disagree with people like the New Jersey Widows because of their losses. Well, if they didn't want to face criticism they should have stayed out of the spotlight. Also, while I cannot support the manner in which Coulter presented her argument, why doesn't anyone slam the Left like they love to rage on the Right? Ann's job is to sell books. This one sentence may double her sales.
So, now that you’ve taken an hour to wade through all of this, any comments on what you’ve read? Would you like to respond to what which is just my opinion?
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
06/06/06
Ooo. Today's date is so scary. There are some that are taking advantage of this date:
The Omen opens today. This is a remake (What a surprise! Is there anything original coming out of Hollywood these days?) of the original The Omen. The Anti-Christ is born, people die, blah blah blah. Have you heard the tag line for this film? Close your eyes and... wait, you can't read if you do that. So, keep your eyes open and hear in your head that grizzled movie voice doing the "this is a horror movie" trailer. Here's what he says: "Evil..." (dramatic pause) "... has a birthday." GAG!
But evil isn't the only one using today's date. There's a book that has a national release date today: "The Rapture" by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye is the third book in their prequel series entitled "Before They Were Left Behind." This series chronicles the lives of the main characters from their 12 book "Left Behind" series. Can we say: "beating a dead horse?" How about: "Anything for the money?" Let's try: "Who is buying this crap?!" Thankfully, this tired book leads right into the first of their terrible series and the world ends in book 12 of it so there can be no more. Unless they feel the need to publish a "Prior to Before They Were Left Behind." (Don't miss the first installment of this 40 book series due out in August!)
There was a pregnant woman so concerned about if her child would be born on this date that she had herself induced before it to make certain it didn't happen!
Why are we so superstitious? Friday the 13th. 06/06/06. My mother didn't want her children born on Halloween or Veterans Day. My brother's birthday is November 11th. That always makes me chuckle.
It's not as though God is going to do anything based on man's arbitrary calendar. Look, you're still here reading this. There's my proof. Will my generation live to see Christ's return? Will my son's? Somehow, I doubt it.
On a brief side note: I was watching a program on the end of the world on ITV (Formerly Pax) and they were asking lots of questions regarding today's events and Biblical prophesies. "Could this be the fulfillment of [insert questionable interpretation here] spoken of in Isaiah?" Funny, the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls were asking the same questions. Their answers were yes, too.
Modern Christians are way too focused on the end of the world and not focused on the now of the world. We are looking to the horizon to see if Christ is coming while our brothers are starving next to us. Yes, Christ will return. And I bet he'd be happier to find us feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and tending to the sick than gazing in his general direction. When the master returns, let's be busy working for him, not looking for him!
The Omen opens today. This is a remake (What a surprise! Is there anything original coming out of Hollywood these days?) of the original The Omen. The Anti-Christ is born, people die, blah blah blah. Have you heard the tag line for this film? Close your eyes and... wait, you can't read if you do that. So, keep your eyes open and hear in your head that grizzled movie voice doing the "this is a horror movie" trailer. Here's what he says: "Evil..." (dramatic pause) "... has a birthday." GAG!
But evil isn't the only one using today's date. There's a book that has a national release date today: "The Rapture" by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye is the third book in their prequel series entitled "Before They Were Left Behind." This series chronicles the lives of the main characters from their 12 book "Left Behind" series. Can we say: "beating a dead horse?" How about: "Anything for the money?" Let's try: "Who is buying this crap?!" Thankfully, this tired book leads right into the first of their terrible series and the world ends in book 12 of it so there can be no more. Unless they feel the need to publish a "Prior to Before They Were Left Behind." (Don't miss the first installment of this 40 book series due out in August!)
There was a pregnant woman so concerned about if her child would be born on this date that she had herself induced before it to make certain it didn't happen!
Why are we so superstitious? Friday the 13th. 06/06/06. My mother didn't want her children born on Halloween or Veterans Day. My brother's birthday is November 11th. That always makes me chuckle.
It's not as though God is going to do anything based on man's arbitrary calendar. Look, you're still here reading this. There's my proof. Will my generation live to see Christ's return? Will my son's? Somehow, I doubt it.
On a brief side note: I was watching a program on the end of the world on ITV (Formerly Pax) and they were asking lots of questions regarding today's events and Biblical prophesies. "Could this be the fulfillment of [insert questionable interpretation here] spoken of in Isaiah?" Funny, the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls were asking the same questions. Their answers were yes, too.
Modern Christians are way too focused on the end of the world and not focused on the now of the world. We are looking to the horizon to see if Christ is coming while our brothers are starving next to us. Yes, Christ will return. And I bet he'd be happier to find us feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and tending to the sick than gazing in his general direction. When the master returns, let's be busy working for him, not looking for him!
Friday, June 02, 2006
Man, I feel like a woman
When I first heard about this story I thought, "That'd be a good blog issue." After some consideration I thought, "But what can I say? Common sense will win out and there'll be no need for me to post on this." Looks like I was wrong.
Robert Kosilek, an admitted killer, is demanding that the state pay for his sex change. He is a man (still) who calls himself Michelle who killed his wife and is serving a life sentence. He has informed the state that he will commit suicide if he is not granted the surgery to complete his transformation.
The state has already paid for his laser hair removal ($500 per treatment, several treatments needed) and female hormone injections ($200 per injection). He is also demanding that the state (read: tax payers) pay for his breast implants ($5,000), chest hair removal ($600 per treatment, typically 10 treatments needed), two surgeries (total $12,500 for both), and recovery costs.
Of course, my first impression is to chuckle. That's pretty funny, nice try, you're a convict you have lost your freedom to change your sex. However! This felon's lawyer has found medical experts to side with him. One psychiatrist said "not allowing Kosilek's sex change operation is the same as denying a patient treatment for a burst kidney." Pardon? Because he's gonna die if he doesn't receive "treatment?" ("Treatment," obviously, is a misnomer as this is a voluntary operation. They are making it seem as though a nose job were "treatment.") Well, he may die, but only at his own hands. Another article explains that he's attempted suicide twice before. Hmm, seems to me he isn't very talented at this. Do we really have a lot to worry about? (he's also threatened to castrate himself... Ok, have fun!)
The controversial side of me asks, "If he does kill himself, is that so bad? Lowers the number of inmates, lowers the cost to feed, clothe, and house him, lowers court costs for all the times that he's going to sue for this procedure (This is his third attempt). Why stop him?"
Another issue is that there are about 15 prisoners hoping he wins because they want the same procedure! So a conservative estimate of the overall "treatment" would be $25,000 just for him. If he is awarded this tax payer funded gift, all of the others would be able to receive it as well, costing the state $375,000. This isn't something that I could get the tax payers to pay for. But this man has killed someone so he's entitled to it? Am I the only one who sees the problem here?
Let's take a step back and suppose that this man isn't crazy but rather brilliant. He's serving a life term in a male prison with male guards. If he has this done he would have to be moved to a woman's prison yet he would still have his male muscular make up. Perhaps he thinks that he has a better chance of breaking out of a female prison. Or even more devious: he changes his gender, changes his name, changes his identity. Suddenly, he is no longer Robert Kosilek, the man who murdered his wife. He is Michelle Kosilek, the woman trapped in a man's body that has finally emerged and deserves to go free. She hasn't done anything!
No matter what the case, this man does not deserve my money to become a woman. I wish our society would stop giving things away to people who don't deserve them! If you break the law, you lose your freedom. America is no longer the land of the free for you! If you wanted to become a woman, you should have saved some money, paid for the surgery, and not killed your wife! I'm sure you could have gotten a divorce once you made your sexual intentions known.
It's insane that this issue is even being discussed. It should be laughed out of court and he should have to somehow pay reparations to the state for what we've already paid for! I wish I could say this was more than just my opinion!
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Dryer Lint
That's right, you read the title of this post correctly. I'm musing on dryer lint (that would be a really cool band name) and other things that are needlessly taking up brain cells.
Dryer Lint: Why is it that, no matter what I put in the dryer: be it towels, colors, sheets, or shoes, the lint caught in the screen is always the same color? I could throw in a single, white, lint free item and at the end of the cycle the lint catcher will be caked with that grey, woolly lint that peels off like it's home made paper! Something tells me there are lint gnomes living in my dryer, cursing every time I use it because they lose more and more of their abodes to the evil lint screen!
Roger Clemens: Yes, a sports post, but a brief one. Consider this: Roger Clemens (returning to the Houston Astros) will be 44 this year. That is amazing longevity for an MLB pitcher. He has missed the first 52 games of this season. The new penalty for a first time positive steroids test is a 50 game suspension. Also, he has admitted that he doesn't know how good he is going to be this year. Could all of this be due to a surreptitious suspension by the MLB brass and a knowledge that The Rocket won't be able to use his quick recovery booster? Just something to ponder.
Minority Report: (Yes, the one starring Tom Cruise.) This is a great movie. I just have one beef with the plot: The fact that the Pre-Cog sees Anderton (Cruise) kill the man is what sets Anderton on the path that leads him to the place where he has the opportunity to do so. If the Pre-Cog hadn't seen the incident, it never would have happened. Hence: the Pre-Cogs viewing of the murder caused it to happen. So how did the Pre-Cog see it if it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't seen it? Oh well. When dealing with time viewing/travel, Hollywood just can't quite get it right. I really need to write my screenplay to see if others can find those inconsistencies in my plot structure.
Bonds: (I'm really sick of writing about him, so there will probably be only one more after this) I just wanted to briefly point out that Bonds is suing the writers of the book that calls him out for his steroid usage (Game of Shadows) for using classified grand jury testimony as evidence for their publication. He is not suing for defamation of character. This means one thing: Barry is admitting that he has done steroids. If he didn't take steroids then his grand jury testimony was perjury as proven by his actions in suing the authors for using it. So there are your choices, Barry: Either you are innocent of taking steroids and you perjured yourself and are facing jail time. Or you took steroids and you deserve to be catapulted out of baseball for good. So Barry: deal, or no deal?
Just some thoughts that ramble through my head while I ponder other serious matters. Don't forget: They are all just my opinion.
Dryer Lint: Why is it that, no matter what I put in the dryer: be it towels, colors, sheets, or shoes, the lint caught in the screen is always the same color? I could throw in a single, white, lint free item and at the end of the cycle the lint catcher will be caked with that grey, woolly lint that peels off like it's home made paper! Something tells me there are lint gnomes living in my dryer, cursing every time I use it because they lose more and more of their abodes to the evil lint screen!
Roger Clemens: Yes, a sports post, but a brief one. Consider this: Roger Clemens (returning to the Houston Astros) will be 44 this year. That is amazing longevity for an MLB pitcher. He has missed the first 52 games of this season. The new penalty for a first time positive steroids test is a 50 game suspension. Also, he has admitted that he doesn't know how good he is going to be this year. Could all of this be due to a surreptitious suspension by the MLB brass and a knowledge that The Rocket won't be able to use his quick recovery booster? Just something to ponder.
Minority Report: (Yes, the one starring Tom Cruise.) This is a great movie. I just have one beef with the plot: The fact that the Pre-Cog sees Anderton (Cruise) kill the man is what sets Anderton on the path that leads him to the place where he has the opportunity to do so. If the Pre-Cog hadn't seen the incident, it never would have happened. Hence: the Pre-Cogs viewing of the murder caused it to happen. So how did the Pre-Cog see it if it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't seen it? Oh well. When dealing with time viewing/travel, Hollywood just can't quite get it right. I really need to write my screenplay to see if others can find those inconsistencies in my plot structure.
Bonds: (I'm really sick of writing about him, so there will probably be only one more after this) I just wanted to briefly point out that Bonds is suing the writers of the book that calls him out for his steroid usage (Game of Shadows) for using classified grand jury testimony as evidence for their publication. He is not suing for defamation of character. This means one thing: Barry is admitting that he has done steroids. If he didn't take steroids then his grand jury testimony was perjury as proven by his actions in suing the authors for using it. So there are your choices, Barry: Either you are innocent of taking steroids and you perjured yourself and are facing jail time. Or you took steroids and you deserve to be catapulted out of baseball for good. So Barry: deal, or no deal?
Just some thoughts that ramble through my head while I ponder other serious matters. Don't forget: They are all just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)