19 November 2012
One Guess (And the First Three Don't Count)
Here's a picture of my desk at work. I'll give you one guess what course I insanely signed up for this Winter term. What was I thinking?
13 November 2012
Some More Post-Election Musings
I loved this post by Trogdor over at the One-Man Peanut Gallery blog.
It is remarkably quotable. His first point is probably the most important, though it will be missed by most.
Read it.
It is remarkably quotable. His first point is probably the most important, though it will be missed by most.
Read it.
08 November 2012
A Few Preliminary Thoughts on the Election
As I posted to FB earlier, one theological truth is again proven: God's purposes in election are mysterious (pun intended).
I couldn't write anything yesterday, because I was so angry. The funny part was, I wasn't sure with whom I was the most angry. I was mad at the liberals for further sliding this exceptional country closer to mediocrity, financial slavery, and all that. But I was also mad at my fellow Republicans for not seeing this thing through.
As more numbers are shared by the media, my second target has been borne out as the more culpable. Republicans simply didn't get their base out. Three million fewer Rs voted in 2012 than in 2008. I thought every R alive would be at the polls Tuesday, but many stayed home. Enough to change the outcome of the election. As they say down here in TX, that chaps my hide.
Yes, demographics are important. No one should ignore the demographics of who voted for the left, and the importance of making the tent bigger. But then, how do we do that without compromising our principles? Do we become pro-choice? Unthinkable. At least five million more babies will die in their mothers' wombs during the next four years, and I don't think any election is worth throwing that issue under the bus. We have to find ways to reach out to a broader demographic without compromising the principles that we find critical to our worldview.
Elections have consequences. We are getting, and will get more of, what we deserve. Babies will continue to die, and perversity will continue to be celebrated by our decaying society. I don't know how much of that a Romney victory would have changed in the next four years, but there was always hope for some change.
I couldn't write anything yesterday, because I was so angry. The funny part was, I wasn't sure with whom I was the most angry. I was mad at the liberals for further sliding this exceptional country closer to mediocrity, financial slavery, and all that. But I was also mad at my fellow Republicans for not seeing this thing through.
As more numbers are shared by the media, my second target has been borne out as the more culpable. Republicans simply didn't get their base out. Three million fewer Rs voted in 2012 than in 2008. I thought every R alive would be at the polls Tuesday, but many stayed home. Enough to change the outcome of the election. As they say down here in TX, that chaps my hide.
Yes, demographics are important. No one should ignore the demographics of who voted for the left, and the importance of making the tent bigger. But then, how do we do that without compromising our principles? Do we become pro-choice? Unthinkable. At least five million more babies will die in their mothers' wombs during the next four years, and I don't think any election is worth throwing that issue under the bus. We have to find ways to reach out to a broader demographic without compromising the principles that we find critical to our worldview.
Elections have consequences. We are getting, and will get more of, what we deserve. Babies will continue to die, and perversity will continue to be celebrated by our decaying society. I don't know how much of that a Romney victory would have changed in the next four years, but there was always hope for some change.
07 November 2012
31 October 2012
30 October 2012
Wild Boar Loose in Germany
I saw this headline this morning: Wild Boar Injures 4 in Germany.
Kind of ironic, thinking of the other wild boar loose in Germany some 495 years ago tomorrow, don't you think?
Kind of ironic, thinking of the other wild boar loose in Germany some 495 years ago tomorrow, don't you think?
12 October 2012
The Worst Hard Time (book review)
The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl by Timothy EganMy rating: 3 of 5 stars
I loved the stories of the individuals and what they went through during this time. There were many names I recognized who were friends of my parents and grandparents. I've personally met most of the James brothers, for example. The author's take of them is pretty straightforward and accurate.
What I did not like about the book were the assumptions, placement of blame, and conclusions the author liberally sprinkled throughout the narrative. Many of them could have been written by Al Gore, they were so far to the left. It was obvious the book was written by someone who's never lived in this part of the country, and has no understanding of the mentality, pride, and roots nor any idea how the people think, deep down. In this regard, the book is like reading a history of African-American culture written by a white man. Something is missing. Something important.
The author is also wrong on some facts. One glaring fact is in the Epilogue: He says the population of Dalhart never recovered from the Dust Bowl days. However, by 1943, the population of Dalhart was over 20,000 (three large B-17 training bases had been built around the city for WWII). The city is not a "windswept dog-eared town", as he calls it, but a thriving and beautiful town. It makes me seriously wonder if he has ever visited the city the author wrote so much about. The story has a lot of holes...it is very much incomplete, but this isn't unexpected for a book of this type...there is too much history to cram into a readable book if one wanted to cover it all. But I would like to have seen some additional communities and events covered in brief, to give a fuller picture of what times were like in those days. My dad was born in Boise City, OK in 1932, in the heart of the Dust Bowl. I know quite a few stories told first-hand that would have increased the value of this book, but again, not everything can fit that needs to fit. I suppose that's one of the biggest problems an author of a cultural history faces.
I recommend the book for those who want some of the story of the days and events of the time, but you'll have to wade through the politicisms and greenish worldview at times. Three stars might be a bit harsh; three-and-a-half is more accurate. But I don't think I can give it a four.
View all my reviews
05 October 2012
Why No Posts Lately?
One of my faithful readers (there aren't many!) asked why I hadn't been posting much. Good guess. Busy.
My wife and I are the president of the local Canyon Eagle Booster Club, which means we are in charge of concessions at Kimbrough Stadium (cap. 20,000) each Friday night. That keeps us pretty busy. (But we are hoping to raise close to $100,000 this year for Eagle athletics, so it's worth it.)
Additionally, the twins are on varsity football this year (Juniors), so that keeps us busy.
And we have a 7th grader playing football and an 8th grader who's a daughter. That keeps us busy.
I'm really not sure how I have time to go to work. But I still do. The thing that is giving way right now is writing on the blog and sleep. Hopefully I'll pick writing back up a bit after football season is over. I've been told I can catch up on sleep when the kids are grown.
I'm starting to think the Waterboy's momma was right: "Fooseball is the devil."
:-)
My wife and I are the president of the local Canyon Eagle Booster Club, which means we are in charge of concessions at Kimbrough Stadium (cap. 20,000) each Friday night. That keeps us pretty busy. (But we are hoping to raise close to $100,000 this year for Eagle athletics, so it's worth it.)
Additionally, the twins are on varsity football this year (Juniors), so that keeps us busy.
And we have a 7th grader playing football and an 8th grader who's a daughter. That keeps us busy.
I'm really not sure how I have time to go to work. But I still do. The thing that is giving way right now is writing on the blog and sleep. Hopefully I'll pick writing back up a bit after football season is over. I've been told I can catch up on sleep when the kids are grown.
I'm starting to think the Waterboy's momma was right: "Fooseball is the devil."
:-)
12 September 2012
06 September 2012
Book Review: The Intolerance of Tolerance by D. A. Carson
The Intolerance of Tolerance by D.A. CarsonMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
The book is an excellent survey of the political landscape and explains why so much emotionalism is put forth as thought in today's cultural debates. From the cover- "Carson traces the subtle but enormous shift in the way we have come to understand tolerance over recent years - from defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs to affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct. He looks back at the history of this shift and discusses its implications for culture today, especially its baring on democracy, discussions about good and evil, and Christian truth claims."
He concludes that real tolerance is not well tolerated today, and gives a good discussion of how we can deal with the continued slide away from the better definition of the term (and our resulting behavior toward those with whom we disagree), and how we can recover the real meaning and intent of the concept of tolerance.
I highly recommend the book.
View all my reviews
31 August 2012
Lincoln On Abortion In Light of the New Tolerance
What would Abe Lincoln have to say about abortion in this country? I'm not positive, but I think I have an idea. Below, I adapted a paragraph from a speech he made on March 6, 1860, in New Haven, CT on slavery to the idea of abortion. I think it fits our culture rather well, being descriptive of the fear (in the New Tolerance) of pronouncing anything as propositionally wrong; this is the position of the so-called 'pro-choice' advocate.
What we want, and all we want, is to have with us the men who think abortion[1] wrong. But those who say they hate abortion[1], and are opposed to it, but yet act with the Democratic party -- where are they? Let us apply a few tests. You say that you think abortion[1] is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong, that you are not willing to deal with as a wrong? Why are you so careful, so tender of this one wrong and no other? You will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will allow it to be even called wrong! We must not call it wrong in the Red[2] States, because it is not there, and we must not call it wrong in the Blue[3] States because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring it into the University[4] or the other institutions[5], because those are such unsuitable places, and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong!
21 August 2012
Is Pedophilia A Version of Homosexuality?
I commented to a recent post on Facebook on this topic. The punchline of the FB post was this-
The context of the comment was a response to a recent Atlantic editorial piece that suggested that Boy Scouts be killed like rabid dogs for the BSA policy which prohibits homosexuals from serving as Scoutmasters. It was a typical leftist hit-piece and really deserves no consideration at all, other than as an example of the hypocrisy and the hate on the far left. It was addressed by a response on Brietbart, and this is from where part of the quote came.
But I also have some problems with the implications of the comment. Here's how I addressed it in my FB reply-
The whole point of my post is this: we can't equate pedophilia with homosexuality any more than we can equate it with heterosexuality. Placing a gay man who is not a pedophile around boys is no more dangerous than placing a straight man who is not a pedophile around girls. Nonetheless, there are questions around this issue that remain to be resolved. One of the most daunting tasks is to find research which has been conducted in a neutral manner without an a priori agenda. Try an internet search and see how many articles you can find that are not from either the far right or the far left, and clearly so. Isolating facts is difficult. And all the agendas are decidedly not helpful to those seeking a legitimate answer to the questions.
So what are a few of the facts that cause one to question the causality? Well, the first fact with which I can find almost no disagreement is, almost all sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children is committed by males, not females. The other fact which is fairly stable in the research, though it has fluctuated over time, is that about a third of sexual assaults on pre-pubescent children are on boys.
Determining which child-offenders is a heterosexual and which is a homosexual is difficult. Self-identification is risky. And arbitrary labelling is probably not very accurate. For example, how do we choose to label the offender: by the gender of his victim, or the fact that he has a wife? If he molests boys but is married (like the recent offender at Penn State), is he homosexual or heterosexual? What if an offender (who is male) molests both boys and girls? What do we do in the (rare) case of a male offender who is homosexual with his adult relationships but molests girls?
All these are going to be very difficult questions to answer. In the mean time, our duty to protect children outweighs our duty not to offend homosexuals who are indeed not pedophiles.
This is a divisive topic that deserves more thought. It won't be easily answered because getting to the root of what causes pedophilia is not an easy task. It is made even harder when the experts cannot consider 'sin' as part of the problem. But it is a necessary task, and for many more reasons than simply finding the best policy for the Boy Scouts of America concerning who can be a Scoutmaster.
Can you think of a more inappropriate place for a gay man or boy to be than surrounded by other boys? Why don't we just let child molesters teach kindergarten?
The context of the comment was a response to a recent Atlantic editorial piece that suggested that Boy Scouts be killed like rabid dogs for the BSA policy which prohibits homosexuals from serving as Scoutmasters. It was a typical leftist hit-piece and really deserves no consideration at all, other than as an example of the hypocrisy and the hate on the far left. It was addressed by a response on Brietbart, and this is from where part of the quote came.
But I also have some problems with the implications of the comment. Here's how I addressed it in my FB reply-
The argument from the left is that pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing. I think that's a true statement, to the degree that it is a sentiment more than a viable descriptor of reality. Pedophilia crosses a lot of other demographic lines than just sexual orientation. The problem is, statistical facts don't favor the sentiment wholesale. The probability of someone being a pedophile is pretty low. The probability of someone being a pedophile given that they are a homosexual is still pretty low, though it is much higher than the probability of being a pedophile given that they are heterosexual*. Correlation does not imply causation, and we shouldn't conclude that being a homosexual is a cause of pedophilia. However, we do know the statistical relationship is different, so we need to try to understand what the underlying causal factors are.[*homosexual and heterosexual are meant in terms of the offense, not status in their 'normal' life...if 'normal life status' is considered, it appears more child-offending males are married than are single...this doesn't really add any information for obvious reasons]
This is a complex problem and deserves a careful analysis, but in the mean time, children cannot be put at risk while we figure out the best answers to the important questions on causality.
There are two mistakes, both of them harmful, that can be made in this situation: (1) to wrongly accuse non-pedophilic homosexuals of wanting access to children for pedophilic reasons, or (2) allowing pedophiles access to children because we don't want to wrongly accuse someone of being a pedophile.
I hope the lesser of two evils is clear to everyone.
The whole point of my post is this: we can't equate pedophilia with homosexuality any more than we can equate it with heterosexuality. Placing a gay man who is not a pedophile around boys is no more dangerous than placing a straight man who is not a pedophile around girls. Nonetheless, there are questions around this issue that remain to be resolved. One of the most daunting tasks is to find research which has been conducted in a neutral manner without an a priori agenda. Try an internet search and see how many articles you can find that are not from either the far right or the far left, and clearly so. Isolating facts is difficult. And all the agendas are decidedly not helpful to those seeking a legitimate answer to the questions.
So what are a few of the facts that cause one to question the causality? Well, the first fact with which I can find almost no disagreement is, almost all sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children is committed by males, not females. The other fact which is fairly stable in the research, though it has fluctuated over time, is that about a third of sexual assaults on pre-pubescent children are on boys.
Determining which child-offenders is a heterosexual and which is a homosexual is difficult. Self-identification is risky. And arbitrary labelling is probably not very accurate. For example, how do we choose to label the offender: by the gender of his victim, or the fact that he has a wife? If he molests boys but is married (like the recent offender at Penn State), is he homosexual or heterosexual? What if an offender (who is male) molests both boys and girls? What do we do in the (rare) case of a male offender who is homosexual with his adult relationships but molests girls?
All these are going to be very difficult questions to answer. In the mean time, our duty to protect children outweighs our duty not to offend homosexuals who are indeed not pedophiles.
This is a divisive topic that deserves more thought. It won't be easily answered because getting to the root of what causes pedophilia is not an easy task. It is made even harder when the experts cannot consider 'sin' as part of the problem. But it is a necessary task, and for many more reasons than simply finding the best policy for the Boy Scouts of America concerning who can be a Scoutmaster.
When the Law of Unintended Consequences Works in Your Favor
You may remember the scuffle earlier this year when Vanderbilt University passed a discriminatory policy (discriminating against evangelical Christian groups) in the name of tolerance. Well, not surprisingly to those of us know know something about the history of Christianity and what happens when the church is persecuted, this ruling is furthering the Kingdom of Christ.
Here's a quote from a recent blog post by Byron Yawn-
Gotta love those secular humanists at Vandy for helping to stamp out moralistic therapeutic deism and replace it with gospel-saturated Christianity.
Here's a quote from a recent blog post by Byron Yawn-
...I have a message for the faculty of Vanderbilt: THANK YOU. Thank you so much for implementing this policy, because you have taught my church members who are students at your campus things I couldn’t have taught them in years, and you have done that in just a summer.
This demonstration of white collar persecution has succeeded in lighting a fire under their faith. Essentially, you have brought the gospel to life for them. You have turned these students into fervent prayers for Vanderbilt, interceding for the students there and for the gospel. You have provoked them into becoming fervent evangelists. They know now first hand that they are surrounded by people who are alienated from God. The fact that Christian groups are no longer allowed to meet on campus provides incontrovertible evidence that their campus leaders are hostile towards Christ and His church.
You have given them a small and appropriately Americanized view of what opposition to Christ’s church looks like. It has caused the students who love the Lord to realize that college is not a game, but an opportunity to reach the lost.
Gotta love those secular humanists at Vandy for helping to stamp out moralistic therapeutic deism and replace it with gospel-saturated Christianity.
15 August 2012
When Justice Becomes Injustice: Penn State
This morning, I heard on Al Mohler's podcast, The Briefing (which I listen to every day, and recommend you do too) that Penn State is now in danger of having their accreditation yanked by their regional accrediting agency because of findings in the Freeh Report.
Nuttiness has moved to insanity.
If this happens (which isn't likely, but possible), that means we can now add to the list of people punished for the perpetrator's sins (remember, I won't use his name on this blog)-
How are they being punished? Try using a degree from a non-accredited institution to get a job, or even worse, to transfer credit to another school.
Now, I'm not a softy on punishment for crime. I'm a bit of a redneck, in fact. I'm of the opinion that the perpetrator didn't get what he deserved. He'll likely get some ridiculous number which will translate to a life sentence. Think about that. They are sending a homosexual pedophile to prison. That's like sentencing a sex addict to house arrest at Hugh Hefner's place. My idea of a sentence is that he should be fed (slowly) into a wood chipper, genitalia-first. So you can't argue I'm opposed to tough sentences for actual crimes.
Let's look at the list of who's been punished so far-
And just as importantly, look who is not being punished so far-
Criminal activity has taken place in college athletic programs in the past. Remember the Baylor basketball player being murdered by a teammate over an alleged drug deal? What about the rapes we hear about on an almost-annual basis out of some of the other powerhouse schools? Where's the precedent for what happened to Penn State? Is the rape of a co-ed any less damaging to that person than the rape of a child? Is the murder of a student any less criminal than what the perpetrator did? All of them are terrible. All of them deserve a swift, but accurate, application of justice. But should we vacate Baylor's 30-win season in basketball because of what happened there in 2003? That's within the time-frame of how long Penn State suffered.
Before we are done, we may see as much injustice in response to the crimes as we saw in the crimes themselves. And that's criminal.
Nuttiness has moved to insanity.
If this happens (which isn't likely, but possible), that means we can now add to the list of people punished for the perpetrator's sins (remember, I won't use his name on this blog)-
all 44,000 (ish) current students, and however many future students enroll until the sanctions are lifted.
How are they being punished? Try using a degree from a non-accredited institution to get a job, or even worse, to transfer credit to another school.
Now, I'm not a softy on punishment for crime. I'm a bit of a redneck, in fact. I'm of the opinion that the perpetrator didn't get what he deserved. He'll likely get some ridiculous number which will translate to a life sentence. Think about that. They are sending a homosexual pedophile to prison. That's like sentencing a sex addict to house arrest at Hugh Hefner's place. My idea of a sentence is that he should be fed (slowly) into a wood chipper, genitalia-first. So you can't argue I'm opposed to tough sentences for actual crimes.
Let's look at the list of who's been punished so far-
1) the perp (that's a good thing)
2) the school president and athletic director (fired, awaiting trial; probably a good thing as they bear some culpability
3) Joe Paterno (probably should have lost his job, but many of the other penalties were over-zealous)
4) Every football player at Penn State since 1997 (all victories erased; absolutely terrible injustice...what did they have to do with the crimes?)
5) Students and supporters at Penn State since 1997 (same as the previous point with regards to athletics)
6) Local businesses (who will suffer greatly under the football sanctions for the next four or more years)
7) The local economy, and thus everyone in State College, PA (you don't yank sixty million dollars out of a small-town economy and expect nothing bad to happen in that small town)
8) The victims of the perpetrator (yep...with the insanity of the broadcast punishments, don't expect the unfortunate victims to go peacefully into the night...some kooks will blame them for the hardships that are unfairly brought on those listed above...this won't be fair but it will negatively affect the victims of the crimes of the perpetrator)
9) The Truth (everyone is afraid to speak up for the not-guilty who are being punished right now...people like me, but who have a bigger voice, will take a lot of flack for defending Penn State even though Penn State is not a pedophile)
And just as importantly, look who is not being punished so far-
1) Other minor players who directly facilitated the abuse (because of the lack of time and thoroughness of the Freeh Report, and the school's insistence to grab it and run with it (no pun intended), a careful investigation of the details has not yet happened...this almost surely means that some of the more egregiously guilty are walking away without sanction).
2) Individual trustees who, in the interest of covering their own rear-ends, have not pursued remedies more favorable to the innocent.
Criminal activity has taken place in college athletic programs in the past. Remember the Baylor basketball player being murdered by a teammate over an alleged drug deal? What about the rapes we hear about on an almost-annual basis out of some of the other powerhouse schools? Where's the precedent for what happened to Penn State? Is the rape of a co-ed any less damaging to that person than the rape of a child? Is the murder of a student any less criminal than what the perpetrator did? All of them are terrible. All of them deserve a swift, but accurate, application of justice. But should we vacate Baylor's 30-win season in basketball because of what happened there in 2003? That's within the time-frame of how long Penn State suffered.
Before we are done, we may see as much injustice in response to the crimes as we saw in the crimes themselves. And that's criminal.
13 August 2012
Mass-Media Worship
I tease my kids (though with a sense of irony) about watching their favorite shows on Disney Channel and such. I walk in from work, and finding them watching an episode of the latest teen idol fad doing something inane, ask them how many brain cells they've killed today. They look at me like I'm a dork.
We've restricted these shows to no more than an hour a day during the summer, and one episode during the school year, and that only after the homework is done. But they don't seem to get it, in spite of my repeated explanations. Of course, I was the same way, except the shows were Gilligan's Island, Hogan's Heroes, The Brady Bunch, etc. I didn't get it either, and didn't figure it out till much later.
Here's a pretty good way to stating the point...I just wish I could get my kids to agree.
We've restricted these shows to no more than an hour a day during the summer, and one episode during the school year, and that only after the homework is done. But they don't seem to get it, in spite of my repeated explanations. Of course, I was the same way, except the shows were Gilligan's Island, Hogan's Heroes, The Brady Bunch, etc. I didn't get it either, and didn't figure it out till much later.
Here's a pretty good way to stating the point...I just wish I could get my kids to agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)