Talking today about some widely accepted lies. Oddly enough, I'm not talking about the fact that there were a lot of people in the past who believed that the Earth was flat, nor to the crazies today who still hold to this theory. The lie I'm talking about today is something that most of us were taught as children, and probably never gave enough thought to realize how irrational it is. This is the idea that Christopher Columbus, and he alone, knew that the Earth was round and set out to prove it.
In fact, I'm sure Columbus did know that the Earth was round, he was a seafaring man, and sailors had been well aware of the true nature of the Earth for Centuries, if not Millenia, before Columbus was ever born. Often we are taught that ancient Sailors would cling to the shore line, being afraid that if they sailed too far away, they might fall off the edge of the Earth. This is not true at all, in fact, as most any sailor can tell you, the most dangerous place to be is too close to the shore, as that's where the water is most shallow.
I remember being taught that Columbus's crew were scared of falling off the edge of the World, and therefore Columbus made false entries in his log so that his crew wouldn't know where they were actually going. This is one of the most ridiculous idea's that any historian (pseudo-historian?) ever came up with. Think about it in terms of today. Is your boss the only person who knows what's going on around your workplace? In my experience, the leader, or boss, or whatever, knows different things, but, unless they were promoted from within, actually know quite a bit less about the actual workings of the workplace than do the workers. If Columbus had actually tried to trick his crew in such a way, they would have thought him a fool, since there were likely many among them who could easily navigate as well as he could. The truth is that they well understood that the Earth was round, and they knew where they were going, they were also probably well aware of the false log entries which Columbus used because he didn't want anyone else to know the route to his "new" resource rich environment.
Just the same however, is the fiasco with Global Warming. I've talked about this quite few times, so I won't dwell on it long today. Just as school history books have been complicit in the Columbus proof of the Earth being round myth, so has the news media been complicit in the Global Warming myth.
For quite some time now we have been hearing that the debate is over. That Global Warming is caused by the actions of man, and if we don't make huge sacrifices and change our lives drastically, the Earth would warm, and some unspecified bad thing would certainly happen as a result... on such flimsy evidence, and such a weak warning, I'm shocked that so many people have been taken in by it.
Strangely enough, the mainstream media is largely ignoring the fact that both Temperature evidence, as well as quite few scientists seem to agree that the trend has turned around we are starting a time of (mild) Global Cooling.
Now I'm waiting for Al Gore's next movie... you know, the one where he tells us that we have to release more carbon, and that we haven't done enough to increase Greenhouse gasses, and that if we don't get moving and get a whole lot more CO2 back in the air, we'll be in an ice age, and the Sea's will freeze, and Port cities today will find themselves hundreds of miles inland... sound crazy? A lot of people didn't think so when his alarmist movie made equally outrageous claims in the opposite direction.
All I'm wondering about now is, how long before the alarmists admit the truth... or will they ever?
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Truth War
Last week I read a book called "The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception" by John MacArthur. Another truly phenomenal book.It took me some time to figure out what I was going to say about this book for the simple reason that it would be very easy for people to get the wrong idea about this book, and that is the last thing that I want to happen with it.
This book is written to Christians. It deals with false teachings and false doctrine within the Church, and how Christians need to respond to it. MacArthur is very clear, he is not talking about starting a huge battle over every minor disagreement. He is talking about confronting and rebuking what can only be described as attacks on the Truth of God, teachings that, if accepted, would invalidate the entire message of the Gospel, and worst of all, destroy the Church's ability to win Souls to Christ.
Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
You can see here that Jude intended to write a happy letter, talking about how great Salvation is, but the Holy Spirit moved in his heart and inspired him to write about standing up against false teaching, and fighting for the Truth of God.
I'm not going to try to explain the book here, I just don't want people to get the wrong idea about it. MacArthur is not trying to start fights within the Church, he is trying to show Christians that we need to be united for the Truth. I do feel that all Christians should read this book. It has given me much to think about, and awakened me to the fact that I need to spend more time reading God's Word, and give more attention to the things of God, instead of so much of my time and attention to politics. That's not to say that I won't pay any attention to Politics, but I need to put a lot more of my focus on the things that really matter.
*************
Forgot to add, again, thanks to Christine over at TalkWisdom for recommending this book to me.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
I Got Mine
OK, so I know I've been away from my blog for a while. It's been a crazy week. I've got Jury Duty this week, which I don't mind, but I feel like they are stringing me along. I spent all day Monday at the Courthouse, and then had to call in twice yesterday, and then again at 10AM today, and have to call again at 11:15 AM today, so I'm still in limbo, not knowing what is going on. I still haven't been selected for any given trial, but I'm still in the on call Jury Pool, so, we shall see what happens.
Anyway, at the end of a previous post (Endorsement Train) I told you that you could go to http://www.heritage.org/ to get your free copy of a Pocket Constitution. I also ordered mine that day. It obviously took a little time, but my copy showed up in the mail yesterday afternoon.
It's a pretty neat little booklet too, including The Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution. Also, many times if you get a book that includes the Constitution, and even some online sources for it, you'll find that they don't include Amendments. Sometimes they will have the Bill of Rights, but rarely do they include up to date Amendments, which this one does, so that is really cool too. It is also small enough to carry around with you, if you wish to do so.
Most Americans view the Constitution as a somewhat mystical document that you need to be a lawyer to understand, but that is simply not true. The fact is that it was written just so that people like you and I could read and understand it. While it is true that reading some of the supporting documents, such as "The Federalist Papers" can be very helpful in discerning the full intent of the writers, the Constitution itself is in no way cryptic, and is fairly easy to understand.
People not only need to understand that they can understand what the Constitution says, they also need to know that doing so would give them a much greater ability to force elected officials, as well as Government Bureaucrats, to abide by it, nor would special interest groups find the mind of the American people nearly so pliable, nor would they be able to twist the wishes and intents of our Founding Fathers to meet their own ends. This would go a long way toward putting our nation back on the right track.
So, if you haven't done so already, I would encourage you to order your free copy today.
*************
Update:
So, after all that calling and everything, I was released from Jury Service when I called this morning, so at least now I know that I go back to my normal routine.
Anyway, at the end of a previous post (Endorsement Train) I told you that you could go to http://www.heritage.org/ to get your free copy of a Pocket Constitution. I also ordered mine that day. It obviously took a little time, but my copy showed up in the mail yesterday afternoon.
It's a pretty neat little booklet too, including The Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution. Also, many times if you get a book that includes the Constitution, and even some online sources for it, you'll find that they don't include Amendments. Sometimes they will have the Bill of Rights, but rarely do they include up to date Amendments, which this one does, so that is really cool too. It is also small enough to carry around with you, if you wish to do so.
Most Americans view the Constitution as a somewhat mystical document that you need to be a lawyer to understand, but that is simply not true. The fact is that it was written just so that people like you and I could read and understand it. While it is true that reading some of the supporting documents, such as "The Federalist Papers" can be very helpful in discerning the full intent of the writers, the Constitution itself is in no way cryptic, and is fairly easy to understand.
People not only need to understand that they can understand what the Constitution says, they also need to know that doing so would give them a much greater ability to force elected officials, as well as Government Bureaucrats, to abide by it, nor would special interest groups find the mind of the American people nearly so pliable, nor would they be able to twist the wishes and intents of our Founding Fathers to meet their own ends. This would go a long way toward putting our nation back on the right track.
So, if you haven't done so already, I would encourage you to order your free copy today.
*************
Update:
So, after all that calling and everything, I was released from Jury Service when I called this morning, so at least now I know that I go back to my normal routine.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
John 1
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
35Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
38Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
39He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
40One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
43The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
51And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
35Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
38Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
39He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
40One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
43The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
51And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
"The Innocent Man"
Back to the books today. I just finished reading "The Innocent Man: Murder And Injustice In A Small Town" by John Grisham.This is a truly outstanding book. Meticulously researched, and written in Grisham's gripping style. If there are any complaints about this book at all, they stem from the fact that it is so well written that, at times you can almost forget that it's a true story... almost.
Normally when you read a book by Grisham, it's hard to figure out just exactly how he feels about a particular subject, and there is some of that here, so good is he at writing in a detached style. However, there are times in this book where his feelings about this case are clear, but you'll find yourself in total agreement with him when you're reading this book.
Now, I was raised, and still firmly believe that the Police are a force for good. That we should cooperate with them, and that as long as you do not commit a crime, you will be fine. I still believe that this is primarily true, but as this book makes very clear, there are exceptions. This is the reason why there are all those rules in place that the Police must abide by. Many times over the years I have thought that those rules were silly, and indeed, I'm sure that there are some that unduly impede the Police from doing there jobs, and protect no one except for guilty criminals, however, most of them are in place to protect the innocent from Officers and Detectives, and Prosecutors who are more concerned with "solving" the case, and getting convictions, than they are in actually finding the truth.
Part of the pressure is put on by the public, fueled by all the TV Cop shows that leave people with the impression that Detectives only work on one case at a time (sometimes it looks like entire law enforcement agencies only work one case at a time) and that all crimes should be solved in one hour, with a little time off for commercials. [I read something along those lines once before, but I can't remember where, so I can't give due credit.] Sometimes things like this lead to Cops and Prosecutors who see little choice but to close cases, at any cost, and innocent people get lost in the shuffle. To be fair, most people who are convicted are guilty, and most Law Enforcement officials are good people who are out to protect the people, and to get dangerous criminals off the street.
I do highly recommend this book. It was a very good read, and an important story that needs to be heard. It's a cautionary tale, and one that needs to be paid attention to. Even one innocent person being convicted and sent to jail, or sentenced to death, is too many.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
First Time? Really?
While speaking about her husbands campaign, and how excited and involved people are getting in it and about it, Michelle Obama had this to say, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm proud of my country." Really now?
A very large portion of the mainstream media, if they are talking about this at all, are trying to make it sound like she said something other than what she clearly said. Of course, they want to make all of us who found this to be a highly offensive statement look ridiculous, and they honestly think that people are stupid enough to buy it. The first spin that they tried to put on it was from the Obama campaign, saying, "Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn’t be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change." Well, that explanation might work except for a few minor (or not so minor) points. Not the least of which is the quote itself: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm proud of my Country." Which doesn't say anything at all about any of the nonsense that the campaign in spewing. Also, it would serve us well to remember that she is an intelligent woman, whose husband his a major candidate for a major party running for the office of the President of the United States of America, so she's not going to make this kind of statement in error. Let's face it, "I'm the proudest I've ever been of my Country," is a far cry from what she actually said. To say that she didn't mean that she's never been proud of the USA in the past is ridiculous. It's specifically what she said, and she's not stupid enough to say this by mistake... and it's offensive that the press thinks that we are stupid enough to fall for it. This shows how out of touch the media is with the population in general, but it does show just how in touch the Obama's are with their base.
Now, I for one, have heard some people question how they can't be proud of their country given the status that they have already achieved, and the fact that he is on the brink of getting the Democratic Nomination for President. Not that it's such a bad question, except that it's really a softball question, and it's the kind of question that gives room for the Campaign to put out the kind of inane statement that they did, in fact, put out.
What I want to ask is this, is she really telling us that she finds nothing in the History of the USA to be proud of?
Now, I understand that there are clearly some things in the History of this nation that are not things to be proud of, however, isn't the fact that we did overcome those things cause for some national pride?
What about John Quincy Adams? The sixth President of the United States, and the only President to be elected to the US House of Representatives after serving as President, where he spent the rest of his life fighting against slavery. Isn't that something to be proud of?
What of the many soldiers who gave their lives in the Civil War? Even though Slavery was not, as is often taught, the main reason for the fighting of the War, it was a motivating factor for many to join the Union Army, and many people sacrificed greatly to bring that vile institution to an end. Can't we be proud of them?
What about World War One? Did not the United States put forth a noble effort there?
What of World War Two? Was not Hitler a sufficiently evil enemy to warrant some pride at his defeat?
What about Korea? Was it not a good thing to stop the Communists from enslaving those in the south the same way that they had with those in the north?
What of all the Americans, both black and white, who put all they had on the line for Civil Rights in the '60's? Can't we be proud of them?
What about Vietnam? Even though it was horribly mismanaged, and ended up being a loss, it was still a noble effort, and a loss only because it was a war in which decisions were made by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, and not by commanders in the field. Of course, most liberals would never feel any pride for that, or for Korea for that matter because we were fighting against Communism, and they kinda like communism. Not by that name of course, but the do like Socialism, which is nothing more than Communism with a less soiled name.
How about the fact that Women and minorities now have all the same opportunities as anyone else? Isn't that something to be proud of? Or are liberals so busy denying the truth of that statement that they don't see it?
For me, I have been proud of my country from my earliest memory. Not that I don't understand that we have had some not so proud moments throughout the history of our country, but I have always been taught, and since being old enough to really understand these things for myself, have realized that the USA is basically good. Things have not always been as they should be, but there have always been those who have fought hard to right the wrongs that they see. This does not only apply to liberals, even though they would claim it, but they have done some good in the past, no question about that, but, most of those liberals from decades past would be utterly disgusted at what is being done in the name of liberalism today.
The United States of America is a good country, a good place, and a good people. Some, like Obama, don't believe that, and want desperately to take the USA down the wrong path.
None of us knows what the future holds, but for today we know, we are from a nation whose history we can be proud of.
A very large portion of the mainstream media, if they are talking about this at all, are trying to make it sound like she said something other than what she clearly said. Of course, they want to make all of us who found this to be a highly offensive statement look ridiculous, and they honestly think that people are stupid enough to buy it. The first spin that they tried to put on it was from the Obama campaign, saying, "Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn’t be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change." Well, that explanation might work except for a few minor (or not so minor) points. Not the least of which is the quote itself: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm proud of my Country." Which doesn't say anything at all about any of the nonsense that the campaign in spewing. Also, it would serve us well to remember that she is an intelligent woman, whose husband his a major candidate for a major party running for the office of the President of the United States of America, so she's not going to make this kind of statement in error. Let's face it, "I'm the proudest I've ever been of my Country," is a far cry from what she actually said. To say that she didn't mean that she's never been proud of the USA in the past is ridiculous. It's specifically what she said, and she's not stupid enough to say this by mistake... and it's offensive that the press thinks that we are stupid enough to fall for it. This shows how out of touch the media is with the population in general, but it does show just how in touch the Obama's are with their base.
Now, I for one, have heard some people question how they can't be proud of their country given the status that they have already achieved, and the fact that he is on the brink of getting the Democratic Nomination for President. Not that it's such a bad question, except that it's really a softball question, and it's the kind of question that gives room for the Campaign to put out the kind of inane statement that they did, in fact, put out.
What I want to ask is this, is she really telling us that she finds nothing in the History of the USA to be proud of?
Now, I understand that there are clearly some things in the History of this nation that are not things to be proud of, however, isn't the fact that we did overcome those things cause for some national pride?
What about John Quincy Adams? The sixth President of the United States, and the only President to be elected to the US House of Representatives after serving as President, where he spent the rest of his life fighting against slavery. Isn't that something to be proud of?
What of the many soldiers who gave their lives in the Civil War? Even though Slavery was not, as is often taught, the main reason for the fighting of the War, it was a motivating factor for many to join the Union Army, and many people sacrificed greatly to bring that vile institution to an end. Can't we be proud of them?
What about World War One? Did not the United States put forth a noble effort there?
What of World War Two? Was not Hitler a sufficiently evil enemy to warrant some pride at his defeat?
What about Korea? Was it not a good thing to stop the Communists from enslaving those in the south the same way that they had with those in the north?
What of all the Americans, both black and white, who put all they had on the line for Civil Rights in the '60's? Can't we be proud of them?
What about Vietnam? Even though it was horribly mismanaged, and ended up being a loss, it was still a noble effort, and a loss only because it was a war in which decisions were made by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, and not by commanders in the field. Of course, most liberals would never feel any pride for that, or for Korea for that matter because we were fighting against Communism, and they kinda like communism. Not by that name of course, but the do like Socialism, which is nothing more than Communism with a less soiled name.
How about the fact that Women and minorities now have all the same opportunities as anyone else? Isn't that something to be proud of? Or are liberals so busy denying the truth of that statement that they don't see it?
For me, I have been proud of my country from my earliest memory. Not that I don't understand that we have had some not so proud moments throughout the history of our country, but I have always been taught, and since being old enough to really understand these things for myself, have realized that the USA is basically good. Things have not always been as they should be, but there have always been those who have fought hard to right the wrongs that they see. This does not only apply to liberals, even though they would claim it, but they have done some good in the past, no question about that, but, most of those liberals from decades past would be utterly disgusted at what is being done in the name of liberalism today.
The United States of America is a good country, a good place, and a good people. Some, like Obama, don't believe that, and want desperately to take the USA down the wrong path.
None of us knows what the future holds, but for today we know, we are from a nation whose history we can be proud of.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Rambo
Ok, so I know that I was said I was planning to post about Politics yesterday, but didn't end up blogging at all, but fear not (cause I'm sure you did) I'll get to it at some point.
I had a Darden Restaurants gift card from a contest at work. We looked at the choices listed on the card, and two we didn't recognize, and other than that there were "Red Lobster," which neither of us care for, and "Olive Garden," which is my wifes' favorite Restaurant, but doesn't do much for me. So she said to look and see there were any locations of the other two in our local area, but there weren't, the closest of either was over an hour away. So I Googled Darden to see if they had anything that wasn't listed on the card. Apparently they just bought Longhorn Steakhouse, which is awesome. I was so excited. I was sitting in front of the computer yelling "honey, they have Longhorn listed here, they have Longhorn listed here!!!!" So we called Longhorn to be sure they would take the card, and they said yes.
So, we decided to go see a movie, and have a nice dinner. My in-laws said they would watch the kids, so that was cool too. So I looked up the theater that is closest to Longhorn, and was again overcome with excitement as they were still showing "Rambo." I'm not sure my wife shared my enthusiasm, but she went along with it.
So, we dropped the kids off at her parents house, and they got pizza for dinner and got to go to the park, and found out Grandpa could still run! Even at a whopping 57 years of age! Ok, well the kids were surprised, but anyway, they had a great time.
So we went to the theater first, and got there with quite a bit of time to spare, and settled in to watch the inane program that they show in between movie showings. I'd describe it, but first I would have had to have been paying attention to it, and I can't say that I was. Anyway, and keep in mind we were seeing "Rambo," which is rated "R," which, in this case could be, "With Very Good Reason." So, we're sitting there watching other people file in, and what do we see? Some guy comes in with a kid that couldn't have been more than 5 years old. My jaw hit the floor. I couldn't believe it. I'd have trouble thinking of a more inappropriate movie for kid that young. But I digress.
Of course, once the inane show was over, the commercials started. Now, I've always enjoyed previews of other movies before the movie. I like them. But commercials? I mean, come on, and especially given that they showed around five of them. Then the previews finally started, and there were quite a few of them, everything from "Midnight Meat Train," a horror flick that I imagine I would sleep through, and likely will never bother seeing, all the way to the new Narnia movie due out in a couple of months, which we've been waiting for.
So, finally, at 4:25, for a movie that had a start time of 4:05, the movie finally got started.
I do not intend to give away any plot points here, as I don't want to ruin it for anyone who wants to see this movie, but hasn't had the chance yet. What I will say is that there was some foul language, but if you've seen the other Rambo movies, you would expect this, and there was action. Lots and lots of action. I would say that this was, by far, the bloodiest of the Rambo movies, but it was still a really good movie. If you can get past the language, and aren't too squeamish (my wife had her eyes closed quite a few times) I would highly recommend this movie.
I think that the "Rambo" franchise has gotten a bad rap over the years. Quite often I have heard lots of different people talk about any generic Rambo movie as the ultimate in senseless violence movies, but really this isn't true. If you are not familiar with the movies, bear with me for a moment. All four of the movies are intended to make a very valid point. The first one, "Rambo: First Blood," was meant to draw attention to the very poor treatment of Veterans who returned from the Vietnam War. The second movie, "Rambo: First Blood, Part 2," was intended to raise public awareness of POW's from the Vietnam War still being held in North Vietnam after so many years. I remember watching that one with my Dad, and the passionate response he had. At the end a CIA guy asks "What do you want us to do, Bomb Hanoi?" My dad jumped right out of his chair (we were at home, thank God) and yelled "YES!!!!" The third one was to make people aware of what the Soviet Union was doing to the people of Afghanistan during their occupation of that country. And this last one, simply titled "Rambo," is meant to spotlight the atrocities that are happening right now, today, in Burma (AKA Myanmar) and can be checked out at http://www.witness.org/ and is a very real thing.
I know that these are action movies, and they involve a lot of killing and such, and certainly, a lot of violence, but I just wanted to point out that this is not the full extent of what the movies are.
It's also interesting to note that the hero of the movies, John Rambo, played by Sylvester Stalone, always just wants to be left alone. He never wants trouble, never wants to get involved, but that option is never really left open for him, much to the chagrin of his eventual enemies. There is also a surprising Christian presence in this movie, as it is Christian aide workers that he goes in to rescue, and I'm not giving anything away here, you can see that much in any synopsis at any movie theater web site.
Anyway, I thought that it was a great movie, and am glad that I got to see it in the theater, but thinking back to that little kid (who did stay for the entire movie), all I can say is, I really hope they Scotch Guarded those seats!!!
I had a Darden Restaurants gift card from a contest at work. We looked at the choices listed on the card, and two we didn't recognize, and other than that there were "Red Lobster," which neither of us care for, and "Olive Garden," which is my wifes' favorite Restaurant, but doesn't do much for me. So she said to look and see there were any locations of the other two in our local area, but there weren't, the closest of either was over an hour away. So I Googled Darden to see if they had anything that wasn't listed on the card. Apparently they just bought Longhorn Steakhouse, which is awesome. I was so excited. I was sitting in front of the computer yelling "honey, they have Longhorn listed here, they have Longhorn listed here!!!!" So we called Longhorn to be sure they would take the card, and they said yes.
So, we decided to go see a movie, and have a nice dinner. My in-laws said they would watch the kids, so that was cool too. So I looked up the theater that is closest to Longhorn, and was again overcome with excitement as they were still showing "Rambo." I'm not sure my wife shared my enthusiasm, but she went along with it.
So, we dropped the kids off at her parents house, and they got pizza for dinner and got to go to the park, and found out Grandpa could still run! Even at a whopping 57 years of age! Ok, well the kids were surprised, but anyway, they had a great time.
So we went to the theater first, and got there with quite a bit of time to spare, and settled in to watch the inane program that they show in between movie showings. I'd describe it, but first I would have had to have been paying attention to it, and I can't say that I was. Anyway, and keep in mind we were seeing "Rambo," which is rated "R," which, in this case could be, "With Very Good Reason." So, we're sitting there watching other people file in, and what do we see? Some guy comes in with a kid that couldn't have been more than 5 years old. My jaw hit the floor. I couldn't believe it. I'd have trouble thinking of a more inappropriate movie for kid that young. But I digress.
Of course, once the inane show was over, the commercials started. Now, I've always enjoyed previews of other movies before the movie. I like them. But commercials? I mean, come on, and especially given that they showed around five of them. Then the previews finally started, and there were quite a few of them, everything from "Midnight Meat Train," a horror flick that I imagine I would sleep through, and likely will never bother seeing, all the way to the new Narnia movie due out in a couple of months, which we've been waiting for.
So, finally, at 4:25, for a movie that had a start time of 4:05, the movie finally got started.
I do not intend to give away any plot points here, as I don't want to ruin it for anyone who wants to see this movie, but hasn't had the chance yet. What I will say is that there was some foul language, but if you've seen the other Rambo movies, you would expect this, and there was action. Lots and lots of action. I would say that this was, by far, the bloodiest of the Rambo movies, but it was still a really good movie. If you can get past the language, and aren't too squeamish (my wife had her eyes closed quite a few times) I would highly recommend this movie.
I think that the "Rambo" franchise has gotten a bad rap over the years. Quite often I have heard lots of different people talk about any generic Rambo movie as the ultimate in senseless violence movies, but really this isn't true. If you are not familiar with the movies, bear with me for a moment. All four of the movies are intended to make a very valid point. The first one, "Rambo: First Blood," was meant to draw attention to the very poor treatment of Veterans who returned from the Vietnam War. The second movie, "Rambo: First Blood, Part 2," was intended to raise public awareness of POW's from the Vietnam War still being held in North Vietnam after so many years. I remember watching that one with my Dad, and the passionate response he had. At the end a CIA guy asks "What do you want us to do, Bomb Hanoi?" My dad jumped right out of his chair (we were at home, thank God) and yelled "YES!!!!" The third one was to make people aware of what the Soviet Union was doing to the people of Afghanistan during their occupation of that country. And this last one, simply titled "Rambo," is meant to spotlight the atrocities that are happening right now, today, in Burma (AKA Myanmar) and can be checked out at http://www.witness.org/ and is a very real thing.
I know that these are action movies, and they involve a lot of killing and such, and certainly, a lot of violence, but I just wanted to point out that this is not the full extent of what the movies are.
It's also interesting to note that the hero of the movies, John Rambo, played by Sylvester Stalone, always just wants to be left alone. He never wants trouble, never wants to get involved, but that option is never really left open for him, much to the chagrin of his eventual enemies. There is also a surprising Christian presence in this movie, as it is Christian aide workers that he goes in to rescue, and I'm not giving anything away here, you can see that much in any synopsis at any movie theater web site.
Anyway, I thought that it was a great movie, and am glad that I got to see it in the theater, but thinking back to that little kid (who did stay for the entire movie), all I can say is, I really hope they Scotch Guarded those seats!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
