Gateway Arch
I'm ashamed to say that as a St. Louisian, I had never been up to the top of the Arch. Until today, that is. It was great. The view was perfect — I'll have to post some photos, maybe I'll do that tomorrow. The view of Busch stadium was particularly stunning, since it was filled with fans in red and set against a bright blue sky.
The arch is a spectacular monument, I've always enjoyed seeing it — it just seemed like the scheduling never worked out for going up it. I'm glad it did this time!
Pastor's Computer Update
A few months ago I wrote about moving my one pastor's computer over to GNU/Linux. I feel kind of bad I never finished the story, so I guess I will now.
I spent probably about 10 hours polishing up Fedora with updates, installing software, installing Windows inside Win4Lin, and so on. Overall, I spent about the same amount of time getting things ready as I do when setting up a fresh copy of Windows XP (because you always have umpteen apps to install, you need to do a bunch of updates, get stuff like Acrobat, AdAware, etc., etc.).
I got the machine back to him at the end of February. It worked, save a problem with his Palm m500. The system simply wouldn't talk to the m500. I was going to go over and look at it, but something cut the grand Linux experiment short. I get a call “Tim, what would be causing the system to do this…” It was a kernel panic. A quick consideration of the error revealed quite clearly what was wrong: the hard drive had failed.
Apparently, it would seem, the hard drive had been working on dying, and probably killed Windows ME as well. It just happened to be “well enough” to allow me to setp GNU/Linux before it failed again. Now, I did have a disk image of my tweaked Fedora configuration, but as long as we were starting over, my pastor decided he'd like to move to Windows XP.
I suspect he would have considered sticking with GNU/Linux if given the time to use it, but unfortunately, only getting to use it for about a week before the system failed prevented him from even getting a little comfortable with it before it was lost.
So, I hauled the system back home, and Dell sent us a new hard disk (and a new CD-RW, since that drive bay was sticking a bit). I then repeated the reinstall process, reinstalling all the applications again, etc., then restoring all of the data again, and finally reimaging the system again.
sigh
So, it wasn't an unsuccessful attempt of GNU/Linux, but unfortunately a big hardware problem ended the experiment all too soon.
QOTW: TV Classics
I decided to restart the Question of the Week on ChristianSource (I posted it each week there during most of 2002), and thought I'd post it here too. Feel free to answer in the comments or post a link to your answer if you find the question worth answering on your blog instead. I'm going to try to post a new QOTW each Monday — although don't hold your breath.
TV Classics
If you think back to TV shows of at least 25-30 years ago, is there one particular show you can pick out as your favorite? Would you prefer it to what's on today? What was on five years ago? Ten years ago? Twenty years ago?
For me, I'd say that I would — without a doubt — pick I Love Lucy. That might sound like an easy out, but it really is a classic to the extent that you can see the same episode multiple times and it is still funny. Really funny. And not the least bit vulgar. If today's sitcoms truly followed the Lucy comedic style, they'd actually be worth watching.
While there is some stuff (like Star Trek: TNG and DS9) that might have provided a little competition during the 90's (for my vote that is), I basically can't think of any (fictional genre) show I'd say I'd prefer to watch over Lucy. Usually, a few times a week, I'll grab an episode off TV Land and watch it that evening (one of the few times I actually watch TV). If there could only be one show on from now on, I can't think of a better choice for it.
What do you think?
Miss'n Mormons
Anyone who knows me knows that I love a good debate. I relish and savor it. It isn't uncommon for me to drive others crazy because I love to debate and my interest in a debate will often go much longer than the other party's. I find debate both entertaining and edifying.
A few years ago, two Jehovah's Witnesses stopped at my door. Over the next few Saturdays we had a pretty good discussion, but it was somewhat disappointing. They didn't have anything to say — they just read from their “script” (i.e. the Watchtower Materials). That isn't very interesting at all, never mind my overly ambitious plan to try to convert the Witnesses (call me an eternal optimist).
But, I'm not easily discouraged either. Call me weird, but I'd been waiting for the day that another pair showed up. In black clothing. Yes, the Mormons. I knew they would eventually, and I figured when they did, it would be an interesting experience. I'd learn more about the Mormon's method of “attack” and, who knows, if God might provide a chance to plant a seed in their minds (although I am ashamed to admit that often times this most important objective is not the one on top of my mind).
So, cut to today. This morning, I get a phone call from my father. He needed me to drive over and help him, preferably within the next half hour or so. I told him I'd be right there and got ready to head off. Then the door bell rang. Sure enough — “Hi, I'm Elder John and this is Elder Joe, where with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and we'd like to spend a few moments talking to you about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Rats!
I had to turn them down and head off, I explained, despite my interest in having such a discussion. I think they were disappointed not only in getting turned down again, but also realizing I actually was interested in giving them an audience — I just didn't have time (the fact that it was pouring down rain probably didn't make them any happier about leaving either).
Oh well.
A Dozen Thoughts for the Day
12. Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die
11. Always get the last word in: Apologize.
10. Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach that person to use the Internet and they won't bother you for weeks.
9. Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing.
8. Have you noticed since everyone has a camcorder these days no one talks about seeing UFOs like they used to?
7. Whenever you feel blue, start breathing again.
6. All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.
5. Why does a slight tax increase cost you two hundred dollars and a substantial tax cut saves you thirty cents?
4. In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
3. Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
2. How is it, one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
AND THE # 1 THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
You read about all these terrorists —- most of them came here legally, but they hung around on these expired visas, some for as long as 10 -15 years. Now, compare that to Blockbuster; you are two days late with a video and those people are all over you. Let's put Blockbuster in charge of immigration.
Kerry Makes a Firm Indecision
| May 4, 2003: In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.”
ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03 | September 2, 2003 Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.”
Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03 SOURCE: FlipFlopper.com | |
March 2003: “My opponent does have strong convictions. It's just that he doesn't hold them for very long.” George W. Bush | ||
It's All Greek to Me
1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 23.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence as a comment on my blog.
5. Post the text of the sentence on your own blog, along with these instructions.
“outos En ane en arche pros ton theon”
That's from John H. Dobson's Learn New Testament Greek, which is quoting John 1:2.
What do you have?
Thoughts on Bush's Economic Track Record
The problem: Putting a price ceiling on a market doesn't work. Additionally, by limiting revenues that drug companies can make, it will encourage less innovation and thus medical research could stagnate.
Tax Cuts
Before Bush was even became president, there was talk that the Bush tax cut would only benefit the wealthy. But it just isn't true. Everyone who pays taxes got a tax cut, some just got larger tax cuts. But, isn't a $200 tax cut still good? That's like half a week's pay for a lower middle class worker — not shabby by any means.
It all comes down to percentages. If you pay more taxes, there are more taxes that you may not have to pay any longer. There's no way someone can give me a million dollar tax cut, because I don't pay a million dollars. Does that mean I should say no one should get a million dollar tax cut? No. Why should someone not get a tax cut simply because they make more than I do?
Imagine if the Bush tax cut said "everyone gets half a weeks wages/salary off their normal taxes owed." While the person I mentioned above might only get $200, a CEO might get $50,000. There is no way the former could ever get that much off because that is more than they make all year and certainly more than they pay in taxes. Yet, giving $1,000 or $2,000 off to the CEO wouldn't really be meaningful. So, tax cuts are almost always bound to be cases where the rich get a larger reduction, but that's only because taxes are based on what you make.
Personally I still advocate a flat tax system where everyone would pay the same rate across the board (except maybe the very lowest income tax payers). The thing is, not only do the rich pay more taxes if they were taxed at the same percentage rate, they actually are taxes at a higher rate making the tax burden higher than it should be.
Kerry, as David points out, talks about giving "average American" tax cuts and raising taxes on the richer Americans. The best system is to cut everyone's taxes, which is what the president has done. The economy is a big circle (getting bigger with globalization) — if you allow those on top to keep more cash, they will invest in new businesses. If you allow those on the bottom to keep more cash, they will buy more and also start businesses. The key is not to penalize anyone. If you penalize those who earn a lot for earning a lot, you lower the motivation to work hard and create the new businesses that provide for more jobs.
Price Inflation and Consumer Buying Power
Most of the universities in my area are charging little or nothing more than what they were in 2000. Some tuition fees are bound to rise as inflation occurs, but this is unavoidable. Here's the key idea, however: It is not the President's job, nor should it be the President's job, to regulate prices.
Why not prevent prices from going up? Because of what I mentioned earlier, a price ceiling doesn't work. It didn't work with oil in the 70's, it won't work with tuition now. If costs are going up (which they almost always will, again due to normal inflation), tuition must go up. Tuition might have gone up, but so have earnings. I know professor who teaches at the very same university he went to thirty years ago. At the time, his book cost just $10 for the class, but he was also only able to earn $1 an hour working. Today the book costs over $100 for his course, but college students can also get a job earning $10 or more an hour. For the most part, inflation moves everything up at a very similar rate (thus why a minimum wage will never accomplish much — when you raise that everything else goes up, thus never really increasing buying power, but that's another story…).
What we really should ask is how much buying power do we have now compared to four years ago before President Bush. The cost of living, according to reliable statistics, has been fairly stable for quite awhile. Sure, a pair of shoes that cost $19.99 in 1990 might go for $29.99 now — but you are also making more than you did in 1990.
Overall, our economy is very healthy and unemployment is at around 5.5%, the last I heard. This is a very good number to be at — you will never reach 0% unless you hire people to do nothing (like the Soviets did). There will always be unemployment as people look for new jobs, take of for a sabbatical or to spend time with family, etc. Maybe the economy isn't as good as it was in the 1990's, but I would point out that the recent decline started before President Bush gave up the title "Governor." Let me note that again, the recent decline started before President Bush gave up the title "Governor." The economic downturn occurred in 2000, while President Clinton was still in office.
What we have hear is a reverse of the effect of the 1990's. Presidents Reagen and Bush (the father) pursued various policies to strengthen the economy. In 1990 and 1991, there were some economic problems, but the economy was starting to improve by the time Bush lost. Thus we have a case that one Bush doesn't get credit for the economic improvements he did make and the other Bush gets blamed for economic problems he didn't make. But, I'm using the word "make" very loosely anyway, because the economic power of the president by himself is very dubious indeed.
Is the Christian Right Christian?
There are some good points made by Carter, but a lot of it borders on seriously misguided at best, I think. Carter suggests prejudice permeates the “Christian right,” for example, a sweeping — and, in my opinion, unchristian — generalization. Is their prejudice in the “Christian right”? You better believe it. Here's the big but: there is also prejudice in the “Christian left” and just about everywhere else.
Carter also notes that the Christian right has abandoned some basic Christian principles. I agree — but I also think pretty much EVERY Christian has. The question is, does that make the Christian right not very Christian? No.
Do you see the theme of my response? For every attack Carter makes on the right, it can also be applied to the left. And, for the most part, Carter attacks the Christian right on political issues, ignoring its strong points on theology (whereas, unfortunately, much of the mainline Christian left has been jetisoning away from Biblical theology — a bigger issue from the standpoint of salvation). The Apostle Paul faught modifications to the Gospel in his day:“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.” — Galatians 1:6-7 (NIV)
What is actually worrying is Carter's apparent hints at relativism. He talks about a person's “concept” of God and refers to his “concept of Christ.” Now, that might be harmless, but I almost get the impression in his abortion comment that he actually feels that while he opposes abortion it is only based on “his concept of Christ” and not the Christ. There is only one Christ and one Gospel — remember again Galatians 1:6-7.
Carter also talks about moderately accepting certain forms of abortion, which is disturbing — if he believes it is wrong, how can it be “acceptable”? I suppose it depends on if he thinks it is wrong or WRONG — but if he agrees that it is the killing of an innocent God created person, how can it ever be acceptable? Is murder acceptable so long as it is done within certain guidelines? I'm sure you'd agree it isn't. But if murder is murder is murder is murder, than where does it leave these “acceptable forms” of abortion in a Biblical worldview?
Also, a note on helping the poor. Carter overlooks that many on the right (myself included) don't have something against helping the poor at all, rather we feel that it isn't something done best by the government. That's what a lot of it boils down to: can the government do a better job than the Church at helping the poor (part of the Church's job)? Let's face it, government welfare has a dismal record — it seems to encourage people not to work. That's not what we want! If every dollar that is presently devoted to welfare was kept by taxpayers and was instead distributed by them to churches and charities to help the poor, I would be almost postive more good would come out of it and it would allow the Church to fulfill its job to help the poor rather than having a secular government do that job for it.
Every Christian is going to have some theological problems, but does that mean they aren't Christian? There are some theological issues I would argue are absolutely necessary to be Christian — Christ was fully both God and Man, He literally died for our sins on the cross, rose again physically, Christ alone provides for atonement and salvation, there is no God but the God of the Bible Jesus alone provides access to the Father, and other points — basically the points of the great creeds such as the Nicene Creed. If you deny the exclusivity of Christ as savior of the world, yes, I think it might be time to say you aren't Christian. If you worship Gaia and support “reimaging”-related theology, ditto that last statement. But is being against larger government programs for the poor because one doesn't believe that the government should do that kind of stuff in the same league? Is it even the same universe?
Short of the essentials — none of which Carter seems concerned about — I find such suggestions of an entire group of Christians not being Christian seriously problematic. Unchristian, in fact.
“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” —Ephesians 4:3 (NIV)
