In search of the ropes

I am working on "breaking in" this blog. I see I have numerous typos and what not. I need to train myself to give hat tip, since almost no link on this site is original to me. I will do better.

Meanwhile, two of my favorite blogs are Chrenkoff and The Corner. Both are rather longwinded, but both are stuffed with great information. You can't get anything like this from the MSM.

Chuck Colson on C. S. Lewis

Chuck Colson has some thoughts on C. S. Lewis. The problem is not that modern evangelicals are less intelligent than Lewis. As Mark Noll explains in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, the problem is that our sharpest intellects have been channeled into biblical scholarship, exegesis, and hermeneutics. While that is a vital enterprise, we rarely give the same scholarly attention to history, literature, politics, philosophy, economics, or the arts. As a result, we are less aware of the culture than we should be, less equipped to defend a biblical worldview, and less capable of being a redemptive force in our postmodern society—less aware, as well, of the threats headed our way from cultural elites.



We evangelicals have wimped out when it comes to intellectual discussions. Since the Bible is truth, all of Scripture will be intellectually sound. We have not been effect at arguing our beliefs in this post-Christian culture. It is true that many will reject Christianity for itself and not for any apparant logical inconsistency, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility. Lewis was and is a vital component of Christianity. We should carry on his legacy.

O"Reilly's "Fairness"

According to Bill O'Reilly, Dan got smeared: "Dan Rather did not get what he deserved in this case. He made a mistake, as we all do, but he is not a dishonest man.

Unfair freedom of speech did him in. This is not your grandfather's country anymore. "



O'Reilly is a good TV and talk-show host. I enjoy watching his program. However, I think his obsession with "fairness" often blinds him from the truth. He won't accuse anyone of anything until he has complete his own "complete" investigation. He seems to have an affinity toward Mr. Rather, which probably distorts his opion. I wonder if he has completed an investigation on Mr. Rather and the memos. I wonder if he will attempt one. The evidence complied by numerous qualified people against y Mr. Rather is fairly compelling. It is very difficult to believe Mr. Rather was guilty solely of laziness.

BTW: I don't think O'Reilly has ever given the Swift Boat Vets a fair shake. He thinks they have a valid disagreement with Keryy, yet he seems to think their disagreement is a smear. Fairness should never supercede truthfulness, as it sometimes does for O'Reilly.

Anti-Semitic news

Little Green Footballs is a great conservative blog. Charles Johnson is the proprietor of the site. He normally post interesting and very pertinent information. An Anti-Israel Holocaust Survivor in Berkeley is an example of one of his posts. He links to many stories that deal with anti-semetism. This is a topic that I find very interesting, and of Biblical importance. He covers it very well

Power Line: Meet Command Sgt. Maj. Jordan

I was not aware that Michael Jordan has a Brother. The family resemblance is pretty strong. I wonder how good he is at basketball.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: 'My Son, My Son'

Here is a good article by William SafireThe New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: 'My Son, My Son': "Of course, in a $20 billion ripoff, $125,000 to the boss's son for doing nothing is chump change. But it should lead to questions for the son: what are his associations with families in the oil industry? (Yamani or ya life!) Did he lie to his father about four years of fees from Cotecna, or did Kofi fail to ask him? Did Kojo inform Sevan about the fees, or know about any lucrative oil vouchers given by Saddam to Sevan?



For the father: Will he now share with Congress, which supplies 22 percent of the U.N. budget, his 'thorough investigation' of his son's Cotecna connection? Did he learn of the 'nothing illegal' fees only last Tuesday, as his aides say? Has he since asked his Absalomic son if the secretary general can stand by his April 'nothing to do with' statement about Cotecna?



This marks the end of the beginning of the scandal. Its end will not begin until Kofi Annan, even if personally innocent, resigns - having, through initial ineptitude and final obstructionism, brought dishonor on the Secretariat of the United Nations."



He asks some great questions here, questions that Mr. Secretary General needs to answer. It seems highly improbable that Mr. Anan Senior was completely unaware of his son's doings, much less the schennanagins of the UN. My opinion is that he was very much complicant in all of this. I agree with NRO (National Review Online) in that the U.S. must call for his (Kofi's) resignation. He is a crook. Then again, what other kind of person would we expect to head such a crooked, Marxist organization.

Gay marriage arguments

I certainly have not read all the commentary available on gay marriage. I have read much, though. I am disappointed that I have yet to find a compelling argument against it. I am firmly opposed to it as it is diametrically opposed to my Christian doctrines. The Bible is clear that God's plan for marriage is one man and one woman. It is also clear that any and all sexual relations outside marriage are, in Paul's words, an "abomination". My belief is that all humans understand at some level that the homosexual lifestyle is an aberrant lifestyle. It is a choice. It is a choice that brings about much misery and depression.

All that being said, it is important in this post-Christian culture to posit an intellectual argument that is Scripturally sound. I have yet to see this in regard to gay marriage. Some have said that marriage is primarily for procreation. Since same sex couples cannot procreate, they should not be allowed marriage. Marriage is a far more complicated and intricate bond than just a means for reproduction. Also, as others have pointed out (I cannot remember where I read it), many heterosexual couples lack the ability to bear children. Can we restricted marriage to only the non-barren couples?

Many (i.e. Bill O'Reily) make the argument that we should not alter the traditional view of marriage (heterosexual-monogamous) because it is the traditional view. They don't want to contradict the obvious will of the majority. Under this argument, however, we should have never outlawed slavery, as it was the traditional view of the majority for many years. One of the tyrannies our founding fathers feared the most was the tyranny of the majority. They did not want of country governed solely by the will of the majority. They placed numerous checks and balances within government to prevent this. Any successful nation must be founded on some absolute principle outside of themselves. The general will of the people must not be overlooked. It must be placed subservient to the absolute principles of morality. What do we do if one day incest gains acceptance by a majority of people?

The only reasonable argument that I have heard is that traditional families are the strongest. There are some studies that support this, though I am unaware of their location. If you accept this argument, however, might extend far beyond marriage. If indeed homosexuality is a detriment to society, then it ought to be outlawed (as it was when Thomas Jefferson lived). Any extra-marital relationships ought to be discouraged (as they were when Thomas Jefferson lived). This argument will no doubt be seen as homophobic and Puritan, which, in a sense, it is. BTW: The term "homophobic" is a really silly term. Does it mean someone has a psychological fear of gays, much like someone who has "arachniphobia" has some psychological fear of spiders? And if it is psychological, then is it really their fault? Can they control it?

Meanwhile, my search for a strong intellectually sound and Scripturally consistent argument continues.

Experimentation

As anyone who has ever used a computer or the so-called "internet" before can easily tell, I am not very good at this (using the term "good" with its broadest implications). I am much like a fawn taking its first steps. Or like an eaglet attempting its first flight. Or like a fawn attempting its first flight. I am also not very good at writing, or using metaphors (when it comes to metaphors I am like Captain Ishmael in dance contest). For instance, or for example, I am not certain as to how to insert thus named "hyperlinks", like this or this. You should check out both of those sites. They are very good ones. Look, I guess I do now know how to "insert" the "hyperlinks". Next on my priority list is learning how to write a post in less than 45 minutes. All we can do is hope.

A psuedo-retractment

I must apologize for my two latest posts. They were, in all due frankness, bat guano. I should explain that they were actually notes to myself--examples of what not ever to post. I am sorry that anyone but me should see them. But I did need to see them. I will now be able to never publish such manure again.

Television

I have a theory that every broadcast and cable network has been hijacked by 60 year old women. I have nothing against 60 year women. Both my grandmothers were once 60. My mother will be sixty in just under 40 years. My wife will make a lovely sextagenarian. They do, however, suffer from a dangerous lack of taste. Hence, the banality that spews out of my television screen. In a world where I would have more financial freedom than I do right now, I would have digital cable or satelite, and I would be able to watch Turner Classic Movies. As of right now, I am consigned to choosing from either a litnany of TV movies (There has never been a decent TV movie and there will not be one this side of eternity) or reruns of one many flavors of Law and Order or real movies that made $7500 total at the box office. I could watch College Football. Who wouldn't want to watch North Central Connecticut State in their annual grudge match against Lemory University? It seems that the only people who enjoy the line-up are 60 year old women, who can't get enough of William H. Macy playing--what?--a loser and reruns of "Doc" on PAX.

Hugh Hewitt's infatada

I think http://www.hughhewitt.com is an execellent blog. However, I fail to understand his beef with Target. The Salvation Army is a superb and beneficent organization. They raise millions of dollars each year and help millions of needy people. I have to wonder how much money they raise with their Santa-bell-ringers each year. I can't imagine it being a tremendous amount. Being unable to stand in front of one majoy chain couldn't hurt them all that much. It could cause as much bleeding for them as the boycott will for Target--a nominal amount. My view may be far too pragmatic, and I may be missing the greater principle here. I like shopping a Target. They are generally cleaner and nicer than the best Wally Worlds. I can't see making a political statement via boycott--I don't know if boycotts are ever successful. I am all for the e-mail campaign. But let's not go overboard folks. As one respondant to Hugh's site said, why not just send the Army the approximate amount of money you would've dropped in the bucket?

Starting with the second time

I am a recent inititate into the blogosphere. I have found it to be extremely interesting and informative. Being no writer, I don't expect to make any waves. I might as well give it a my best shot. Happy belated thanksgiving to anyone reading.