Enron - Ideas Have Consequences
Just watched the documentary Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, directed by Alex Gibney. I have a number of conclusions, so let's get started.
1. Threaded throughout the piece was the unapologetically, explicit philosophy of Darwinism which was prevalent at Enron, from top management to commodity traders. If you embrace the tenets of evolutionary thought then you are rejecting creationism. You are rejecting the God of creation. If you reject the God of creation, you reject His laws, His ethics. His Law can be summed up with the following: Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Just that simple, yet profound truth, if embraced at all, would have stopped the fraud before it had begun.
2. For the most part, those that documented the sins of Enron are most likely Darwinists themselves - a herd of blind hypocrites. This is not very surprising, but quite typical. Current American culture attempts to retain part of God's law, while wholesale rejecting the Author of it.
3. During the rolling blackout/brownouts of California, conservation radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh were roundly criticizing the liberals of that state for being in lockstep with the wacko environmentalists who were regulating or restricting any corporate industrial effort to build more energy producing refineries/plants. The then Governor Gray Davis and his Democrat buddies were being thorough excoriated while Enron traders were instructing the power plants to shut down from time to time. I don't remember hearing any apologies acknowledging that it was pure corporate and personal greed that caused those blackouts, not failed liberal policies.
4. Among several reasons that liberal policies are failed, a significant one is because they are stupid- both policies and policy makers. Californians haven't quite figured all that out, so eventually, we'll see this history repeat itself.
5. For many, but certainly not all, of the Enron employees, I do not sympathize with their plight of lost pensions and investments. Those that generated the cash flow were complicit with the fraud, enriching themselves at the expense of others. The administrative types and field personel of the different Enron entities are the ones that suffered, and should not be blamed or even painted with the brush as painted Kenneth Lay, Jeff Schilling, and Eddie Fastow, to name a few.
6. The philosophy or mission statement of Enron is not exclusive to Enron. Much of corporate North America (wouldn't want our Canadian friends to feel left out) holds to the same ethic as Enron, except instead of perpetrating fraud, because now there is a real consequence (like jail). They treat their employees like expendable commodities that can be easily replaced. This is especially true of companies listed with Dow Jones or Nasdaq. The stock analyst is now the engine that drives corporate America, and it is impersonal and cold. Corporate execs, whose performance bonuses are now determined by formulas established and monitored by stock analysts, personify Darwin's theory on the survival of the species. Having worked for both privately held companies (large and small) and public companies (always large), I know the difference. Given a choice, working for the private company is much more enjoyable--almost humane.
7. There are enough Darwinian lawyers who will get some of the money back for the empty pension funds from the fortunes that were amassed at Enron.
It's time to take a shower and go to bed. After viewing all that scum, I'm ready for a little cleansing.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Selling Your Soul for a Crisis
I'm in the middle of reading the book, Witness, the autobiography of Whitaker Chambers. The name doesn't resonate with most folks, but for those folks who have a walking-talking knowledge of Alger Hiss and the House Committee for Un-American Activities in the late forties, early fifties, they just might recognize the name.
Amongst liberals and commie-philes, Chambers is a despicable traitor to the cause of what they define as freedom. From the early 1920's to the late 1930's, Whitaker Chambers, by profession a journalist, was an active member of the American Communist Party. The incident--or epiphany--that convinced him to reject communism was quite simple, but utterly profound. One morning in the late 1930's, Chambers was sitting in his kitchen watching his youngest child sitting in his high chair eating. Transfixed by the complexity of the human being, even in child-like form, he realized that this "perfection", as he termed it, could not have happened by chance. There had to be a Creator. A tenet of communism denies the existence of God, so Chambers realized he couldn't be a communist.
I am still in the middle of reading this book, but I've read enough to say that describing it in a couple of sentences is almost two simplistic. Whitaker Chambers was a very intelligent, articulate, and complex man. His writing reflexs this. Reading his story is like reading the playbook of the modern-day Democratic Party, however, because of his insights into the liberal mindset. I say this somewhat circumspectly since so many of the modern-day Republicans seem to want to be like their Democrat counterparts.
Here are some excerpts from Witness:
Page 193
Few Communists have ever been made simpy by reading the works of Marx or Lenin. The crisis of history makes Communists; Marx and Lenin merely offer them an explanation of the crises and what to do about it. Thus a graph of Communist growth could show that in numbers and its power increased in waves roughly equivalent to each new crest of crisis.
Page 194
Under pressure of the crisis, his decision to become a Communist seems to the man who makes it a choice between a world that is dying and a world that is coming to birth, as an effort to save by political surgery whatever is sound in the foredoomed body of a civilization which nothing less drastic can save--a civilization foredoomed first of all by its reluctance to face the fact that the crisis exists or to face it with the force and clarity necessary to overcome it.
Thus the Communist Party presents itself as the one organization of the will to survive the crisis in a civilization where that will is elsewhere divided, wavering, or absent.
This is what we have been seeing in our professional, elitist politicians. This is especially true during election season. The writer of Ecclesiastes said that there is nothing new under the sun. Hearing the promises of either political party are nothing but echoes from the past, vowing to take care of and provide for the citizenry. The citizenry's abdication of personal responsibility is also an echo of past mistakes, and those past mistakes led to the destruction of once-formidable civilizations.
May God have mercy on us.
I'm in the middle of reading the book, Witness, the autobiography of Whitaker Chambers. The name doesn't resonate with most folks, but for those folks who have a walking-talking knowledge of Alger Hiss and the House Committee for Un-American Activities in the late forties, early fifties, they just might recognize the name.
Amongst liberals and commie-philes, Chambers is a despicable traitor to the cause of what they define as freedom. From the early 1920's to the late 1930's, Whitaker Chambers, by profession a journalist, was an active member of the American Communist Party. The incident--or epiphany--that convinced him to reject communism was quite simple, but utterly profound. One morning in the late 1930's, Chambers was sitting in his kitchen watching his youngest child sitting in his high chair eating. Transfixed by the complexity of the human being, even in child-like form, he realized that this "perfection", as he termed it, could not have happened by chance. There had to be a Creator. A tenet of communism denies the existence of God, so Chambers realized he couldn't be a communist.
I am still in the middle of reading this book, but I've read enough to say that describing it in a couple of sentences is almost two simplistic. Whitaker Chambers was a very intelligent, articulate, and complex man. His writing reflexs this. Reading his story is like reading the playbook of the modern-day Democratic Party, however, because of his insights into the liberal mindset. I say this somewhat circumspectly since so many of the modern-day Republicans seem to want to be like their Democrat counterparts.
Here are some excerpts from Witness:
Page 193
Few Communists have ever been made simpy by reading the works of Marx or Lenin. The crisis of history makes Communists; Marx and Lenin merely offer them an explanation of the crises and what to do about it. Thus a graph of Communist growth could show that in numbers and its power increased in waves roughly equivalent to each new crest of crisis.
Page 194
Under pressure of the crisis, his decision to become a Communist seems to the man who makes it a choice between a world that is dying and a world that is coming to birth, as an effort to save by political surgery whatever is sound in the foredoomed body of a civilization which nothing less drastic can save--a civilization foredoomed first of all by its reluctance to face the fact that the crisis exists or to face it with the force and clarity necessary to overcome it.
Thus the Communist Party presents itself as the one organization of the will to survive the crisis in a civilization where that will is elsewhere divided, wavering, or absent.
This is what we have been seeing in our professional, elitist politicians. This is especially true during election season. The writer of Ecclesiastes said that there is nothing new under the sun. Hearing the promises of either political party are nothing but echoes from the past, vowing to take care of and provide for the citizenry. The citizenry's abdication of personal responsibility is also an echo of past mistakes, and those past mistakes led to the destruction of once-formidable civilizations.
May God have mercy on us.
Running for their pension, not to serve
We are so far from our Founding Fathers' original intent, and even further from the Biblical paradigm, that we might as well be living in a parallel universe or on Pluto. Whether they are Republican or Democrat, today's politician--particularly those on the state and national levels--it is so blatantly obvious that serving their constituents is the euphemism for staying in power.
For me, the United States Congress, the federal union of bureaucrats, and most of the clergy of ECUSA have one and the same purpose: saving their pensions. They are willing to commit evil and to ignore evil for what they consider to be self-preservation. In the meantime, they rob from the ones who pay their salaries, and call it service. I would not want to be in any of their shoes, or even to be standing close to them when they appear in judgment before God.
We are so far from our Founding Fathers' original intent, and even further from the Biblical paradigm, that we might as well be living in a parallel universe or on Pluto. Whether they are Republican or Democrat, today's politician--particularly those on the state and national levels--it is so blatantly obvious that serving their constituents is the euphemism for staying in power.
For me, the United States Congress, the federal union of bureaucrats, and most of the clergy of ECUSA have one and the same purpose: saving their pensions. They are willing to commit evil and to ignore evil for what they consider to be self-preservation. In the meantime, they rob from the ones who pay their salaries, and call it service. I would not want to be in any of their shoes, or even to be standing close to them when they appear in judgment before God.
Under Their Thumb: the Lesson of United 93
It's been sometime since my last posting, due to computer problems, so I have several things on my mind. I will begin with the most recent impressions that arose last evening as my wife and I watched the movie, United 93.
First of all, I was struck by the incredible amount of confusion that existed on so many levels in government, from the FAA air traffic controllers to the military to the passengers themselves. But that was what made the terrorists' methods so ingenious. Their effectiveness was determined and rewarded (in their own minds), by that element of surprise.
The second lesson I observed was the transformation of the surviving passengers and crew members after the initial attact. Once they realized that they were spectators to and unwilling partners of a suicide mission they took decisive action. Their action deserves our unwavering honor, respect, and rememberance.
So, this is the lesson I take from this painful story:
1. The action of a brave few, who saved many more lives.
2. You cannot appease anyone, whose goal and purpose is to kill you even at the expense of their own life. Your reaction must be quick and decisive. This is not a matter of sending the bad boy to "time out". This is a matter of killing the bad boy before he kills you.
Do you want to know what life would be like living under the thumb of Islam?
I wish that it were possible to overstate how wretched that would be, but those who ignore history will find out.
It's been sometime since my last posting, due to computer problems, so I have several things on my mind. I will begin with the most recent impressions that arose last evening as my wife and I watched the movie, United 93.
First of all, I was struck by the incredible amount of confusion that existed on so many levels in government, from the FAA air traffic controllers to the military to the passengers themselves. But that was what made the terrorists' methods so ingenious. Their effectiveness was determined and rewarded (in their own minds), by that element of surprise.
The second lesson I observed was the transformation of the surviving passengers and crew members after the initial attact. Once they realized that they were spectators to and unwilling partners of a suicide mission they took decisive action. Their action deserves our unwavering honor, respect, and rememberance.
So, this is the lesson I take from this painful story:
1. The action of a brave few, who saved many more lives.
2. You cannot appease anyone, whose goal and purpose is to kill you even at the expense of their own life. Your reaction must be quick and decisive. This is not a matter of sending the bad boy to "time out". This is a matter of killing the bad boy before he kills you.
Do you want to know what life would be like living under the thumb of Islam?
I wish that it were possible to overstate how wretched that would be, but those who ignore history will find out.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Tribalism est Rex
America is increasingly becoming a land without law, that is law passed by duly elected officials and enforced by legitimate authorities. I suppose that one can be delusionally functional on this matter, but the one-time aberration is now becoming the norm. There was a time that this was kept in the ghetto, but helped in part by the tireless efforts of civil rights leaders and protesters, the ACLU, and mindless liberalism, but largely fueled by a wholesale rejection of God and His written Word, anarchy is fast becoming an equal opportunity affliction.
I have heard ad nauseum those talking heads that express fear that the influence of Christian conservatives pose a great danger to freedom. I don't care what poll says otherwise, but America has bought into this fear that loving God with all of your heart and soul and mind is bad, along with loving your neighbor as yourself. Oh, the humanity!! With our new-found, hard-won freedom we can no longer allow our children to play in their own front yard without responsible adult supervision. Two doors down from my home resides a registered sex-offender who assaulted a ten-year old girl. The courts put this guy back on the street, and his only punishment is the stigma attached to his crime. And I'm supposed to bask in my freedom?
Joseph Edington, a patent lawyer in Fairfield, Connecticut, was told by his wife after coming home from work that their two year old daughter was sexually assaulted by a 58 year-old single man living next door to them with his 87 year-old mother. Edington decided to not wait for the courts or police to investigate and act, but that night climbed through the neighbor's window, and killed the guy with a knife. Taking the law into his own hands--which was wrong--is understandable, knowing how our current legal system, being an extension of current cultural norms, operates. But that is where we are. We are headed for vigilanteism where might makes right. Yes, that's a cliche, but that doesn't change the reality of our present condition. We are in trouble, and tragically, only a small minority has more than a clue.
America is increasingly becoming a land without law, that is law passed by duly elected officials and enforced by legitimate authorities. I suppose that one can be delusionally functional on this matter, but the one-time aberration is now becoming the norm. There was a time that this was kept in the ghetto, but helped in part by the tireless efforts of civil rights leaders and protesters, the ACLU, and mindless liberalism, but largely fueled by a wholesale rejection of God and His written Word, anarchy is fast becoming an equal opportunity affliction.
I have heard ad nauseum those talking heads that express fear that the influence of Christian conservatives pose a great danger to freedom. I don't care what poll says otherwise, but America has bought into this fear that loving God with all of your heart and soul and mind is bad, along with loving your neighbor as yourself. Oh, the humanity!! With our new-found, hard-won freedom we can no longer allow our children to play in their own front yard without responsible adult supervision. Two doors down from my home resides a registered sex-offender who assaulted a ten-year old girl. The courts put this guy back on the street, and his only punishment is the stigma attached to his crime. And I'm supposed to bask in my freedom?
Joseph Edington, a patent lawyer in Fairfield, Connecticut, was told by his wife after coming home from work that their two year old daughter was sexually assaulted by a 58 year-old single man living next door to them with his 87 year-old mother. Edington decided to not wait for the courts or police to investigate and act, but that night climbed through the neighbor's window, and killed the guy with a knife. Taking the law into his own hands--which was wrong--is understandable, knowing how our current legal system, being an extension of current cultural norms, operates. But that is where we are. We are headed for vigilanteism where might makes right. Yes, that's a cliche, but that doesn't change the reality of our present condition. We are in trouble, and tragically, only a small minority has more than a clue.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
What part of "We want you to die" do you not understand?
The reigning president of Iran (his name is not worth repeating or spelling correctly) is an unabashed, unrepentent member of Islam's most radical faction. He has said or done nothing that could be remotely construed as conciliatory. Yet, the diplomatic corps of both the United States and Western Europe delusionally agree that he and his ilk can be negotiated with.
During the Cold War, negotiations had some measure--however small--of success because mutually assured destruction was not a viable alternative to the enemies of freedom. This is not true of these Islamic fascists. They are willing--no, almost hoping--to go to their death in the struggle to dominate. Let there be no mistake about it. Peaceful coexistence is not a part of there vernacular. Domination and death are.
Unfortunately, we have a host of "politically correct" leaders who insist on describing Islam has a noble, peace-loving religion. BULL. I'm not an Israel-lover (remember: it's illegal to publically proclaim the gospel in Israel), but they do have the right attitude in dealing with Hezbollah: When they hit you, you hit back harder until they wish they hadn't hit you in the first place--that is if they are alive to regret it.
What's the bottom line here?
Let Israel wipe Hezbollah, Hamas, and any other jihadist off the face of the earth, and we can supply them with weapons to do so, and do so effectively. As long as Israel has the backbone to fight, let them fight.
What about those "innocent" Lebonese?
I remember that climatic scene in Star Wars: The Return of the Jedi. The evil emperor is slowly killing Luke with Darth Vader standing by passively. To his own destruction, Darth Vader intervenes and kills the emperor, but saves his son. Where are the Lebonese men while the "innocent" women and children are being killed? Those men are either members of Hezbollah themselves, or too, spineless to defend against those fascists who are launching rockets from their back yard. Too harsh? Maybe you would prefer starring in the jihadist next video: You wear an orange jump suit. You beg for your life. Some coward with a mask saws your head off.
The reigning president of Iran (his name is not worth repeating or spelling correctly) is an unabashed, unrepentent member of Islam's most radical faction. He has said or done nothing that could be remotely construed as conciliatory. Yet, the diplomatic corps of both the United States and Western Europe delusionally agree that he and his ilk can be negotiated with.
During the Cold War, negotiations had some measure--however small--of success because mutually assured destruction was not a viable alternative to the enemies of freedom. This is not true of these Islamic fascists. They are willing--no, almost hoping--to go to their death in the struggle to dominate. Let there be no mistake about it. Peaceful coexistence is not a part of there vernacular. Domination and death are.
Unfortunately, we have a host of "politically correct" leaders who insist on describing Islam has a noble, peace-loving religion. BULL. I'm not an Israel-lover (remember: it's illegal to publically proclaim the gospel in Israel), but they do have the right attitude in dealing with Hezbollah: When they hit you, you hit back harder until they wish they hadn't hit you in the first place--that is if they are alive to regret it.
What's the bottom line here?
Let Israel wipe Hezbollah, Hamas, and any other jihadist off the face of the earth, and we can supply them with weapons to do so, and do so effectively. As long as Israel has the backbone to fight, let them fight.
What about those "innocent" Lebonese?
I remember that climatic scene in Star Wars: The Return of the Jedi. The evil emperor is slowly killing Luke with Darth Vader standing by passively. To his own destruction, Darth Vader intervenes and kills the emperor, but saves his son. Where are the Lebonese men while the "innocent" women and children are being killed? Those men are either members of Hezbollah themselves, or too, spineless to defend against those fascists who are launching rockets from their back yard. Too harsh? Maybe you would prefer starring in the jihadist next video: You wear an orange jump suit. You beg for your life. Some coward with a mask saws your head off.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Selective Privacy
or
We are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
If you are fourteen-year-old girl who is pregnant, you have the force of the United States government and her courts to grant you the right to grant you privacy from even your own parents, so that you can quietly kill your unborn child.
If you are the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, you have the privacy to keep your military records sealed from any public scrutiny.
If you are the President of the United States AND a Democrat, you are granted privacy to keep anyone from accessing your medical records--records that might reveal systematic drug use.
If you are a child protective services worker dealing with a child, you are granted privacy in dealing with your client.
If you are a sixteen year old boy, and do not want to endure another miserable round of chemotherapy, because the first round did not cure you, you have no privacy. This is true, even if you have the full, knowledgeable support of both your parents. You have no right to pursue the type of treatment that you desire. What is happening to sixteen-year-old, Abraham Cherrix, in Norfolk, Virginia, is an absolute disgrace.
or
We are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
If you are fourteen-year-old girl who is pregnant, you have the force of the United States government and her courts to grant you the right to grant you privacy from even your own parents, so that you can quietly kill your unborn child.
If you are the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, you have the privacy to keep your military records sealed from any public scrutiny.
If you are the President of the United States AND a Democrat, you are granted privacy to keep anyone from accessing your medical records--records that might reveal systematic drug use.
If you are a child protective services worker dealing with a child, you are granted privacy in dealing with your client.
If you are a sixteen year old boy, and do not want to endure another miserable round of chemotherapy, because the first round did not cure you, you have no privacy. This is true, even if you have the full, knowledgeable support of both your parents. You have no right to pursue the type of treatment that you desire. What is happening to sixteen-year-old, Abraham Cherrix, in Norfolk, Virginia, is an absolute disgrace.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
an unfinished life
My wife and I just finished watching the film an unfinished life, starring Robert Redford, Morgan Freeman, and Jennifer Lopez. A strong supporting cast (including Camryn Manheim, Damian Lewis, and Josh Lucas), excellent production, and a beautiful setting garnished a rather compelling story of forgiveness, love, and redemption. The film, rated PG13 for language and some violence, is the story of a thirty-something single mother/widow who seeks a safe haven for her and her daughter at her ex-father-in-law's Montana ranch to get away from domestic violence.
The writers do a great job in peeling away the different layers of each character to reveal their motivations, and except for one needless dialogue scene that had no relationship to anything before or after--apparently to satisfy the homosexual lobby agenda--the story skillfully interweaves the demons that affect each character. Watching Redford and Freeman together was a real treat, but the centerpiece relationship for me, however, was between Redford's character and his granddaughter, played by Becca Gardner.
Having seen Lopez in Enough, and Angel Eyes--two stories with very strong themes on domestic violence--this was a more realistic performance, but I think that the writing had something to do with that. The director, Lasse Hallstrom, exacted some excellent performances that made each protagonist quite sympathic as they struggled with their "ghosts" from the past, and as a result, I found myself rooting for each one of them.
Except for that one meaningless-to-the-story scene, we both liked this movie. It's now available on DVD, and well worth the time.
My wife and I just finished watching the film an unfinished life, starring Robert Redford, Morgan Freeman, and Jennifer Lopez. A strong supporting cast (including Camryn Manheim, Damian Lewis, and Josh Lucas), excellent production, and a beautiful setting garnished a rather compelling story of forgiveness, love, and redemption. The film, rated PG13 for language and some violence, is the story of a thirty-something single mother/widow who seeks a safe haven for her and her daughter at her ex-father-in-law's Montana ranch to get away from domestic violence.
The writers do a great job in peeling away the different layers of each character to reveal their motivations, and except for one needless dialogue scene that had no relationship to anything before or after--apparently to satisfy the homosexual lobby agenda--the story skillfully interweaves the demons that affect each character. Watching Redford and Freeman together was a real treat, but the centerpiece relationship for me, however, was between Redford's character and his granddaughter, played by Becca Gardner.
Having seen Lopez in Enough, and Angel Eyes--two stories with very strong themes on domestic violence--this was a more realistic performance, but I think that the writing had something to do with that. The director, Lasse Hallstrom, exacted some excellent performances that made each protagonist quite sympathic as they struggled with their "ghosts" from the past, and as a result, I found myself rooting for each one of them.
Except for that one meaningless-to-the-story scene, we both liked this movie. It's now available on DVD, and well worth the time.
War by Proxy
We are now in the fourth or fifth day of Israel's conflict with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. I misspoke. I should have said Iranian-backed Hezbollah. I am not an Israel-lover like many in Evangelical America--it is just as illegal to share the Gospel in Israel as it is in Iran or Saudi Arabia--but I do believe that Israel has a solid Biblically-based reason to defend her land and her citizens against foreign intruders. Tune in to any news outlet, and one will hear politicians, retired military, intelligance consultants, and diplomats agree that Iran and Syria are at the heart of this latest brouhaha with the intention of attacking the United States along with Israel. It could be compared to a bully approaching you on the playground, telling you he hates you, and then have one of his mindless syncophants hit the friend who is standing next to you. Iran knows that direct confrontation will earn a direct response, so they have put enough layers (all they need is one) between them and Israel. It is, in effect, war by proxy.
I vote for response by proxy. Israel doesn't need America's permission to defend herself, nor should she wait for it. I think that Israel should take action against Iran in Iran, and the annihilation of Iran's nuclear facility would be a good place to start. The sovereign territory of the United States has not been violated, but the sovereign territory of the nation of Israel has, and the perpetrators of that action deserves a clear and decisive response.
We are now in the fourth or fifth day of Israel's conflict with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. I misspoke. I should have said Iranian-backed Hezbollah. I am not an Israel-lover like many in Evangelical America--it is just as illegal to share the Gospel in Israel as it is in Iran or Saudi Arabia--but I do believe that Israel has a solid Biblically-based reason to defend her land and her citizens against foreign intruders. Tune in to any news outlet, and one will hear politicians, retired military, intelligance consultants, and diplomats agree that Iran and Syria are at the heart of this latest brouhaha with the intention of attacking the United States along with Israel. It could be compared to a bully approaching you on the playground, telling you he hates you, and then have one of his mindless syncophants hit the friend who is standing next to you. Iran knows that direct confrontation will earn a direct response, so they have put enough layers (all they need is one) between them and Israel. It is, in effect, war by proxy.
I vote for response by proxy. Israel doesn't need America's permission to defend herself, nor should she wait for it. I think that Israel should take action against Iran in Iran, and the annihilation of Iran's nuclear facility would be a good place to start. The sovereign territory of the United States has not been violated, but the sovereign territory of the nation of Israel has, and the perpetrators of that action deserves a clear and decisive response.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Moses and Munro
My wife and I just finished watching the movie The World's Fastest Indian, a movie starring Anthony Hopkins and directed by Roger Donaldson. This story is based on true events involving a New Zealander, Burt Munro, who while in his seventies set a land speed record on his modified 1920 Indian motorcycle. In 1967, he set a land speed record for a motorcycle that is less than 1000 cc's, and the record still stands. It is all the more profound when you know how Munro engineered and designed his bike. It's a great story that should inspire anyone who dares to chase a dream into their senior years. In my early fifties, I still have unfulfilled goals, so I take great encouragment from people like Burt Munro.
So, what does a quirky old codger like Munro have to do with Moses? In Moses, we see a man, who while in the idealism of youth, he sought to bring freedom to his fellow Hebrews with a little murder and mayhem. God had other plans for freeing them, and Moses didn't get the call until he was 80. Yet, Moses served with distinction, accomplishing more in the last 40 years of his life than he did in the first 80.
My wife and I just finished watching the movie The World's Fastest Indian, a movie starring Anthony Hopkins and directed by Roger Donaldson. This story is based on true events involving a New Zealander, Burt Munro, who while in his seventies set a land speed record on his modified 1920 Indian motorcycle. In 1967, he set a land speed record for a motorcycle that is less than 1000 cc's, and the record still stands. It is all the more profound when you know how Munro engineered and designed his bike. It's a great story that should inspire anyone who dares to chase a dream into their senior years. In my early fifties, I still have unfulfilled goals, so I take great encouragment from people like Burt Munro.
So, what does a quirky old codger like Munro have to do with Moses? In Moses, we see a man, who while in the idealism of youth, he sought to bring freedom to his fellow Hebrews with a little murder and mayhem. God had other plans for freeing them, and Moses didn't get the call until he was 80. Yet, Moses served with distinction, accomplishing more in the last 40 years of his life than he did in the first 80.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
The New York Times Be Damned
The recent decision by the New York Times to reveal the counter terrorism strategies of the Bush administration and the Department of Homeland Security is not over truth or privacy. It is about liberals doing anything to acquire power, and using the media to denigrate in any way possible those in power. The liberals roast the present administration for the failure of many law enforcement agencies to foresee and prevent 9/11, yet when those being criticized are proactive, they are suddenly enfringing on our rights.
These journalistic tactics are not new. Stalin used them. Castro used them. Mao Tse Tung used them. Pol Pot used them. Again, the issue is not truth, but gaining power. Pure and simple. That's why you can't have a rational and reasoned discussion with a liberal. It's not because they are incapable of an intelligent conversation, but because an intelligent conversation/debate does not serve their purpose. They are only interested in facts if those facts serve their cause.
Unfortunately, the collective thought processes of the American public is about at the 3rd to 4th grade level. This age group believes anything that they are told by anyone presenting themself in any authoritative way, however remote the resemblance. For this reason, I know longer subscribe to the local, lazy, liberal rag called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Between the Internet, talk radio, and cable news (FOX), I get all the news that is worth noting. As far as I'm concerned, the print media and its current prevailing view can go to--well, you know where--by itself, and not try to drag me there with them.
The recent decision by the New York Times to reveal the counter terrorism strategies of the Bush administration and the Department of Homeland Security is not over truth or privacy. It is about liberals doing anything to acquire power, and using the media to denigrate in any way possible those in power. The liberals roast the present administration for the failure of many law enforcement agencies to foresee and prevent 9/11, yet when those being criticized are proactive, they are suddenly enfringing on our rights.
These journalistic tactics are not new. Stalin used them. Castro used them. Mao Tse Tung used them. Pol Pot used them. Again, the issue is not truth, but gaining power. Pure and simple. That's why you can't have a rational and reasoned discussion with a liberal. It's not because they are incapable of an intelligent conversation, but because an intelligent conversation/debate does not serve their purpose. They are only interested in facts if those facts serve their cause.
Unfortunately, the collective thought processes of the American public is about at the 3rd to 4th grade level. This age group believes anything that they are told by anyone presenting themself in any authoritative way, however remote the resemblance. For this reason, I know longer subscribe to the local, lazy, liberal rag called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Between the Internet, talk radio, and cable news (FOX), I get all the news that is worth noting. As far as I'm concerned, the print media and its current prevailing view can go to--well, you know where--by itself, and not try to drag me there with them.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Ann Coulter's Comments
Ann Coulter reminds me of the story of Deborah, mentioned in the book of Judges in the Old Testament. In both cases, we see a woman who has the courage to speak out when the men are scared of their own shadows, and in Ann's case, their politically-correct shadows. I say "Amen!" to Ann's comments about the Jersey girls. Being a grieving widow does not grant one the title of expert in anything, including grieving. As a parent who has lost two children: one to SIDS and one stillborn--I am well acquainted with the grief process, and the only clarity that this process will guarantee will be regarding one's own mortality. For months after my oldest child died (of SIDS), I struggled with the basics of keeping my mind attentive to my wife, my work, and my school. I did not have any grand new geopolitical insights that might bring world peace. Most of the time, my wife and I were grateful to navigate from point A to point B without getting lost.
And, by the way, you might be interested to know that although our son died while Jimmy Carter was president, we never blamed him or anyone else in government for not funding enough research to find the cure for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, thank you. So, I say to Ann Coulter: God bless you. Stay strong!
Ann Coulter reminds me of the story of Deborah, mentioned in the book of Judges in the Old Testament. In both cases, we see a woman who has the courage to speak out when the men are scared of their own shadows, and in Ann's case, their politically-correct shadows. I say "Amen!" to Ann's comments about the Jersey girls. Being a grieving widow does not grant one the title of expert in anything, including grieving. As a parent who has lost two children: one to SIDS and one stillborn--I am well acquainted with the grief process, and the only clarity that this process will guarantee will be regarding one's own mortality. For months after my oldest child died (of SIDS), I struggled with the basics of keeping my mind attentive to my wife, my work, and my school. I did not have any grand new geopolitical insights that might bring world peace. Most of the time, my wife and I were grateful to navigate from point A to point B without getting lost.
And, by the way, you might be interested to know that although our son died while Jimmy Carter was president, we never blamed him or anyone else in government for not funding enough research to find the cure for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, thank you. So, I say to Ann Coulter: God bless you. Stay strong!
Friday, June 02, 2006
No Opinions - Just Convictions
Several years ago, Paul Little wrote a book called Know What You Believe and Why You Believe It. He was writing regarding the Christian faith, but the importance of his premise extends to all areas of life, just as one's faith--if it is genuine--influences all of life, Jimmy Carter's (and politicians of his ilk) milquetoast declaration notwithstanding.
So, here I am. A product of American midwestern middleclass Christian values enscripturating, if you will, what I spend a portion of my working day doing: positing what I believe to be true about anything and everything. Everyone has an opinion that is filtered through, or affected by a particular worldview. Whether or not a person is honest enough to admit it, they still have some kind of standard that informs everything they believe, say, and/or do. Even those that claim to be middle-of-the-roaders, spend a a substantial amount of time, dealing out unbridled scorn and condescension to those among us who are strongly opinionated in either direction. The late RJ Rushdoony, a noted author and theologian, described their position with the phrase "myth of neutrality". So, what is my standard? The Bible. In explicit terms, it may not speak to everything (like what I should wear today), but it does speak to everything in principle (I should dress modestly).
So, here I am. A product of American midwestern middleclass Christian values enscripturating, if you will, what I spend a portion of my working day doing: positing what I believe to be true about anything and everything. Everyone has an opinion that is filtered through, or affected by a particular worldview. Whether or not a person is honest enough to admit it, they still have some kind of standard that informs everything they believe, say, and/or do. Even those that claim to be middle-of-the-roaders, spend a a substantial amount of time, dealing out unbridled scorn and condescension to those among us who are strongly opinionated in either direction. The late RJ Rushdoony, a noted author and theologian, described their position with the phrase "myth of neutrality". So, what is my standard? The Bible. In explicit terms, it may not speak to everything (like what I should wear today), but it does speak to everything in principle (I should dress modestly).
Today, our cultural spokesmen vilify those among us who come down on any issue with any hard opinions. As a Christian and a constitutional conservative in the civic and political sphere, I applaud people like Ann Coulter, for instance, who have the courage to say what is on their mind--and in her case, to say it well--and then stand up under public scrutiny and defend themselves without apology.
As long as I'm here, I might as well state my opinion. You might have deduced that I'm a fan of Ann's, so you might guess what is coming next. Hang in there, and I'll have something posted soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)