This story amused me slightly. It's a sort of bizarre mind set this article reveals, as if things are always private even if you are in public. Can't you just hear the indignity of "We weren't doing anything wrong!" and the unspoken desire to sue a 'big brother' government? I hate to say it, but in public, people can take pictures of you. Additionally, anti-war protestors, in the middle of a war, are just BEGGING the government to look in on them. This doesn't have to be nefarious, but when you have people actively undermining you, you keep an eye on them. Oh the humanity! I talk bad about someone and they watch me!
Sorry, that wasn't kind, but it is how this comes accross to me. Americans are SO obsessed with this idea of privacy, that they expect to have it even while in public. They expect to be doing anythign they want and as long as it is illegal, for the government to stay completely away. Well, it just seems silly to me. After all, if you're doing something illegal, you think you'll advertise it? And if not, how in the world is the government supposed to stop it? Now, there is a line, but I think most people expect the line to be much to far over. If it was as far over as the ACLU wants it, there'd be a field day on criminal activity.
I think another reason this amuses me is living here. For about a week my roommate and I were being cased by the FSB. It was pretty obvious. Everytime I left and every time I returned the phone would ring. We saw guys who did not live in our building habitually around and in our building, occaisionally knocking on our door. It was as if they didn't care if we knew. And here americans are whining about photos being taken in a public place of an event they were doing to TRY and effect the government? Boggles the mind.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
Comics
If you didn't know, I'm a fan of the comics. Or rather, of some comics. I notice everytime I look at the comics pages in the newspaper, I actually dislike a big number of them.
For instance, let's look at Blondie. There hasn't been an original joke in Blondie for as long as I can remember. It's all about how dagwood eats, sleeps, and runs late. Recycle and repeat. Why is that in the paper? It was barely funny the first time, why is it funny the 100th time.
Then there's Garfield. If you buy the orignals they're funny. It's really funny. It's so funny you actually can see why it got so popular. Read them now, and you wonder why they're printed. It's like a Robert Jordan book I think. People read it hoping it's going to be good like the first ones were. Instead they feel like the author and newspaper cheated them and they owe them their 5 seconds of life back, because it really was like having that 5 seconds sucked out of you. I've heard rumors about a paper saying garfield is actually funny if you remove the cats speech, but then it's not garfield anymore.
Peanuts...I really don't know what to say. It's an undead freak of nature, resurrected in the name of the almighty dollar-I mean the family keeps it in print for the sake of good ol' grandpa chuck. Or at least that's what they say. Really, why can't you let it die. Peanuts was good (less so in recent years, but not quite as bad as garfield has gotten), but it's not worth preserving in newspapers for eternity. Let some up and coming artist have the space, let people have laughs not small smiles of recollection. Heck, *I* recognize most the peanuts they're re-printing.
Family Circus. Not funny...never has been...never will be. It might have a short cutesy factor, but really, it's jsut a waste of ink. It's like it's trying to be funny with kids, but the author really just doesn't know, and so just puts his old home videos to ink. But they're the sort of homevideos that only the parents appreciate.
Oooh, 1 more...Beetle Bailey. Never been funny either. It's like garfield, but without the element of having been humorous at one point in time. Here's the whole plot line: Every man is an idiot and has a big flaw. There you go, no need to read anymore.
I know these are cultural icons. My argument is that if they are such, then they belong in a museum! Hello, the comics is about humor, not about the world of yester-year.
For instance, let's look at Blondie. There hasn't been an original joke in Blondie for as long as I can remember. It's all about how dagwood eats, sleeps, and runs late. Recycle and repeat. Why is that in the paper? It was barely funny the first time, why is it funny the 100th time.
Then there's Garfield. If you buy the orignals they're funny. It's really funny. It's so funny you actually can see why it got so popular. Read them now, and you wonder why they're printed. It's like a Robert Jordan book I think. People read it hoping it's going to be good like the first ones were. Instead they feel like the author and newspaper cheated them and they owe them their 5 seconds of life back, because it really was like having that 5 seconds sucked out of you. I've heard rumors about a paper saying garfield is actually funny if you remove the cats speech, but then it's not garfield anymore.
Peanuts...I really don't know what to say. It's an undead freak of nature, resurrected in the name of the almighty dollar-I mean the family keeps it in print for the sake of good ol' grandpa chuck. Or at least that's what they say. Really, why can't you let it die. Peanuts was good (less so in recent years, but not quite as bad as garfield has gotten), but it's not worth preserving in newspapers for eternity. Let some up and coming artist have the space, let people have laughs not small smiles of recollection. Heck, *I* recognize most the peanuts they're re-printing.
Family Circus. Not funny...never has been...never will be. It might have a short cutesy factor, but really, it's jsut a waste of ink. It's like it's trying to be funny with kids, but the author really just doesn't know, and so just puts his old home videos to ink. But they're the sort of homevideos that only the parents appreciate.
Oooh, 1 more...Beetle Bailey. Never been funny either. It's like garfield, but without the element of having been humorous at one point in time. Here's the whole plot line: Every man is an idiot and has a big flaw. There you go, no need to read anymore.
I know these are cultural icons. My argument is that if they are such, then they belong in a museum! Hello, the comics is about humor, not about the world of yester-year.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Blessed be your name
"Blessed be your name
In the land that is plentiful
Where the streams of abundance flow
Blessed be your name
Blessed be your name
When I’m found in the desert place
Though I walk through the wilderness
Blessed be your name
Every blessing you pour out,
I turn back to praise
When the darkness closes in, Lord
Still I will say…
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be your name
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be your glorious name"
A song that has been running through my head the past three days, that has a rather interesting point. Every blessing is a reason to praise. In our sorrows, we should praise him still for we are still blessed by him even when we don't see it.
After all, God called us to suffer as He suffered, isn't that an honor? I know from an non-christian point of view it's a rather dubious honor. But the reality of the situation is we all will suffer in this life, but do you have a comforter who can tell you honestly "Yes, I have walked that life and gone throuhg misery"? That's the joy of Christianity, we have aknowledged our depravity, our inadequacy, and then we aknowledged the harshness of the world. And despite all that, we have a God who loves us despite the depth of despair in the world, despite our flaws. We have a father who has lived life and wants to see ours put to right, even if we have to learn it at the school of Hard Knocks, He will allow us to grow closer to him if we will let Him.
Isn't God wonderful?
In the land that is plentiful
Where the streams of abundance flow
Blessed be your name
Blessed be your name
When I’m found in the desert place
Though I walk through the wilderness
Blessed be your name
Every blessing you pour out,
I turn back to praise
When the darkness closes in, Lord
Still I will say…
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be your name
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be your glorious name"
A song that has been running through my head the past three days, that has a rather interesting point. Every blessing is a reason to praise. In our sorrows, we should praise him still for we are still blessed by him even when we don't see it.
After all, God called us to suffer as He suffered, isn't that an honor? I know from an non-christian point of view it's a rather dubious honor. But the reality of the situation is we all will suffer in this life, but do you have a comforter who can tell you honestly "Yes, I have walked that life and gone throuhg misery"? That's the joy of Christianity, we have aknowledged our depravity, our inadequacy, and then we aknowledged the harshness of the world. And despite all that, we have a God who loves us despite the depth of despair in the world, despite our flaws. We have a father who has lived life and wants to see ours put to right, even if we have to learn it at the school of Hard Knocks, He will allow us to grow closer to him if we will let Him.
Isn't God wonderful?
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Poem
I look upon the moon so far away
pale and white, a mocking sight
a spiteful hint of the coming day.
I look around the pit so deep
a dirty mire that makes me tire
of climbing up these walls so steep.
How came I to this dark chasm?
Why do I try to rise up and fly?
Why do I feel despair's cruel spasm?
How can I fall on my knee
and pray until the light of day
and yet there's nothing from Thee?
He's not abandoned me I know
His love eternal, his grace eternal
and yet I feel the biting cold of snow.
Is it life that we must spend
our time pushing up and waging
against despair of a lonely end?
pale and white, a mocking sight
a spiteful hint of the coming day.
I look around the pit so deep
a dirty mire that makes me tire
of climbing up these walls so steep.
How came I to this dark chasm?
Why do I try to rise up and fly?
Why do I feel despair's cruel spasm?
How can I fall on my knee
and pray until the light of day
and yet there's nothing from Thee?
He's not abandoned me I know
His love eternal, his grace eternal
and yet I feel the biting cold of snow.
Is it life that we must spend
our time pushing up and waging
against despair of a lonely end?
Monday, February 13, 2006
Bliss?
Ecclesiastes 1:18
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief NIV
Or in the the NASB
For in much wisom is much vexation; and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
Ecclesiastes always has some sort of fascination for me, I don't know why. These verses in paticular I keep tumbling over in my mind. Maybe it's a key to frustration I seem to regularly feel with the world and with myself (coupled with Romans 7 of course). I don't know, but it does seem to support the idea that ignorance is bliss.
The question is, are we doomed then if we want wisdom? Is happiness an indication of idiocy? I would hope not, yet this makes me wonder. Maybe I'm just moody as I write this. I would hope so anyway, as the opposite is very despressing.
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief NIV
Or in the the NASB
For in much wisom is much vexation; and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
Ecclesiastes always has some sort of fascination for me, I don't know why. These verses in paticular I keep tumbling over in my mind. Maybe it's a key to frustration I seem to regularly feel with the world and with myself (coupled with Romans 7 of course). I don't know, but it does seem to support the idea that ignorance is bliss.
The question is, are we doomed then if we want wisdom? Is happiness an indication of idiocy? I would hope not, yet this makes me wonder. Maybe I'm just moody as I write this. I would hope so anyway, as the opposite is very despressing.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Education
What a heart warming story!
Now isn't that unfair...the state of California is now saying you have to HAVE an education to get a diploma. This is my favorite part:
"The lawsuit also claims the state is denying some students their fundamental right to an equal education."
Geez, making sure they actually were educated is denying them their right to an education? What sort of reasoning is that?
I think the problem is the assumption that a diploma (or passing a class) means you're educated. Which is why the state created these exams I would assume. Thousands of kids are passing who shouldn't be, and graduating when they shouldn't be. So the state set's the bar, and then people whine. And americans continue to lament the state of their children's education, while suing that any attempt to HOLD a standard is sued as 'unequal discrimination.'
From this story you also get the data that 100,000 are failing...geez, maybe the problem isn't the test, how about the kids education? Nooo, it's the test. Can't be inflated grades, poor students, unhelpful parents, it's all the TEST's fault.
Man this is so sad. I can't even really ridicule it very well, I'm so disgusted.
Now isn't that unfair...the state of California is now saying you have to HAVE an education to get a diploma. This is my favorite part:
"The lawsuit also claims the state is denying some students their fundamental right to an equal education."
Geez, making sure they actually were educated is denying them their right to an education? What sort of reasoning is that?
I think the problem is the assumption that a diploma (or passing a class) means you're educated. Which is why the state created these exams I would assume. Thousands of kids are passing who shouldn't be, and graduating when they shouldn't be. So the state set's the bar, and then people whine. And americans continue to lament the state of their children's education, while suing that any attempt to HOLD a standard is sued as 'unequal discrimination.'
From this story you also get the data that 100,000 are failing...geez, maybe the problem isn't the test, how about the kids education? Nooo, it's the test. Can't be inflated grades, poor students, unhelpful parents, it's all the TEST's fault.
Man this is so sad. I can't even really ridicule it very well, I'm so disgusted.
Thursday, February 9, 2006
Being a real man
I've been thinking about the way man is addressed in the Bible. I'm not talking about using the term 'man' when often it can mean people in general. I'm talking about when it's definitely male specific.
For instance, Genesis 3, the fall of man. After eating of the fruit God says first to the woman:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
About 25 words, two curses (child birth, husband ruling)
To man he says:
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken;for dust you are and to dust you will return."
About 60 words, multiple (if related) curses (Painful toil for food, eating 'of the field' instead of 'of the garden', the land producing weeds to oppose him, mortality).
It implies to me that Adam is the one who got them kicked out (note the use of hte word field instead of garden) and Adam is the one who made them mortal. So really it seems to me that man was the more responsible one for the fall. Even was responsible, yes, and she got her due, but it really seems to me like Adam's sin lead to the fall of man, not Eve. Let's you know how the responsibility really fell, eh? Also, notice that Adam was specifically chided for his sin...which seems more than just doing against what God commanded, but in choosing his wife over God. He also failed to protect his wife as it says:
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
Adam was there, and did nothing. The first failure, I would say, was that of Adam, not Eve. Man, I believe, had an inherent responsibility having received the commands directly from God (Genesis 2:17) before Eve was around (genesis 2:21-22). And he failed her, then he turned around and failed God. I would even venture a hypothesis that there might have been redemption for Eve had Adam not fallen, but sorry girls, we failed you.
Honestly, I believe that. I believe that if you took any man and placed him in Adam's situation, he'd have done exactly the same thing. We are as equally responsible for the fall as Adam was. That's why we need Christ, period. Everyone of us has failed, and will fail again. And the law condemns us. It is only through Christ's blood that the curse of the Law is removed and we are redeemed. But the responsibility doesn't end there. No, Paul lays it on more thick for us to.
In Ephesians 5 Paul, like Genesis 3, addresses the women first (this time in the context of marriage):
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
About 50 words, requiring 1 thing, physical obedience as a model after the relationship to Christ.
Now the man:
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
About 140 words telling husbands to Love their wives. That's right, action, but even deeper, you must have your heart in it. And actually, ideally if a husband does this the wife's job is easy, because in his love he will do things for her in such a way that she does not have to assert herself. Notice men are also given about 5 verses of admonishment for why this is right, how it is to be done.
I think that there's an implicit push in there for men to step up to the plate and serve their wives. Kind of daunting actually, every man, I suppose, should get 'The Buck Stops Here' engraved on the inside of their wedding ring. This stuff that's kind of been on my mind with the upcoming marriage. God has shown me directly what a responsibility I have to this wonderful lady to whom I am going to forever join myself to. It is an awesome job, for my job requires heart. And Adam showed us what can go wrong if I don't. Actually, I guess I should go ahead right now and apologise to my fiance for my upcoming failures. I'm constantly reminded how human I am, how imperfect next to the perfection of Christ I am. All I can do is apologise, I suppose, and hope I can avoid as many mistakes as possible and learn from the ones I do make.
Anyway, more ramblings, I do ramble a lot.
For instance, Genesis 3, the fall of man. After eating of the fruit God says first to the woman:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
About 25 words, two curses (child birth, husband ruling)
To man he says:
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken;for dust you are and to dust you will return."
About 60 words, multiple (if related) curses (Painful toil for food, eating 'of the field' instead of 'of the garden', the land producing weeds to oppose him, mortality).
It implies to me that Adam is the one who got them kicked out (note the use of hte word field instead of garden) and Adam is the one who made them mortal. So really it seems to me that man was the more responsible one for the fall. Even was responsible, yes, and she got her due, but it really seems to me like Adam's sin lead to the fall of man, not Eve. Let's you know how the responsibility really fell, eh? Also, notice that Adam was specifically chided for his sin...which seems more than just doing against what God commanded, but in choosing his wife over God. He also failed to protect his wife as it says:
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
Adam was there, and did nothing. The first failure, I would say, was that of Adam, not Eve. Man, I believe, had an inherent responsibility having received the commands directly from God (Genesis 2:17) before Eve was around (genesis 2:21-22). And he failed her, then he turned around and failed God. I would even venture a hypothesis that there might have been redemption for Eve had Adam not fallen, but sorry girls, we failed you.
Honestly, I believe that. I believe that if you took any man and placed him in Adam's situation, he'd have done exactly the same thing. We are as equally responsible for the fall as Adam was. That's why we need Christ, period. Everyone of us has failed, and will fail again. And the law condemns us. It is only through Christ's blood that the curse of the Law is removed and we are redeemed. But the responsibility doesn't end there. No, Paul lays it on more thick for us to.
In Ephesians 5 Paul, like Genesis 3, addresses the women first (this time in the context of marriage):
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
About 50 words, requiring 1 thing, physical obedience as a model after the relationship to Christ.
Now the man:
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
About 140 words telling husbands to Love their wives. That's right, action, but even deeper, you must have your heart in it. And actually, ideally if a husband does this the wife's job is easy, because in his love he will do things for her in such a way that she does not have to assert herself. Notice men are also given about 5 verses of admonishment for why this is right, how it is to be done.
I think that there's an implicit push in there for men to step up to the plate and serve their wives. Kind of daunting actually, every man, I suppose, should get 'The Buck Stops Here' engraved on the inside of their wedding ring. This stuff that's kind of been on my mind with the upcoming marriage. God has shown me directly what a responsibility I have to this wonderful lady to whom I am going to forever join myself to. It is an awesome job, for my job requires heart. And Adam showed us what can go wrong if I don't. Actually, I guess I should go ahead right now and apologise to my fiance for my upcoming failures. I'm constantly reminded how human I am, how imperfect next to the perfection of Christ I am. All I can do is apologise, I suppose, and hope I can avoid as many mistakes as possible and learn from the ones I do make.
Anyway, more ramblings, I do ramble a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)