The 12th Letter

Death by Coveting

2011-12-10T23:24:00.005-05:00

Atheism has killed more people in the past 200 years than religion, any religion, has in the past 2,000. I wanted to put that phrase up on my Facebook update but it seemed a little too incendiary. My FB isn't serious and if it is, it's for immediate pressing concerns, nothing that would cause debates - political, religious, or otherwise. Besides it's not really about the dichotomy between Atheism vs. religion, but differences in worldviews and people abusing their authority vs. true Biblical authority. As I taught in Life Group recently, our coveting is what causes wars and conflicts.

From the website The Road to Emmaus:

"The Bible states that the person who says he loves God, but hates his brother, is a liar. There are many people through history that have done horrible things in the name of Christianity, but Jesus' words, "you will know them by their fruit" tell the real story regarding their love for God and whether they follow the commands of Jesus Christ.

The second point to make is that, yes, people who claim to love God do kill, but nowhere near to the extent that the lack of religion does. According to University of Hawaii political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel, the total number killed in all of human history is estimated to be about 284,638,000. Of that number, 151,491,000 were killed during the past 100 years. The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far, atheistic Communism with a total of 110,000,000 … over 1/3 of all people ever killed! If we add to that number just two other regimes where religion of any sort was strongly discouraged, Nazi Germany and Nationalist China, the number rises to 141,160,000. Almost 50% of all the killings in human history were committed in the past 100 years by regimes that either actively promoted atheism or strongly discouraged religion. We have not considered the over one billion abortions, where Christianity seems to be particularly unwelcome. When the murders of history are tallied up, it is very clear that atheism is the most dangerous philosophy ever embraced by humanity. The most effective restraint on mankind's inherently evil tendencies is faith in God through Jesus Christ, a faith that actually follows the teachings and commands of Jesus Christ as a daily way of life.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM (all stats have come from this site)"

Architects of Ugly

2011-12-09T23:58:00.003-05:00

I read an article on the Blaze about the controversy over these towers, how they looked too much like the WTC in mid-explosion. After reading the back and forth between so many people, I didn't see any comment about what the motives were of MVRDV, the Dutch architectural firm who designed these buildings. People were either for or against and only assumed these architects' motives. After a little research, I put in my two cents:

They may not have meant to offend, but they admitted that the WTC was part of their creative process in designing this monstrosity. They said about their firm that they like pushing boundaries and to be Michael Moores of architecture. So this Dutch firm either wanted to jab at America "we're just joking but your country does suck" or was truly ignorant, "saw a pic of an exploding building and I was inspired." Much like the fashion designer who was inspired by Holocaust victim prison attire as something avante garde and yet she didn't mean to offend anybody. But it was offensive nonetheless, especially if these designers knew where they were getting their inspiration from. Aside from the obvious 9/11 connection, this is just aesthetically displeasing! I appreciate art - beauty and balance are important to me. These towers barely had either! A few of their organic looking buildings are nicely designed but for the most part, in their effort to be on the edge creatively, they fell off the cliff!

Daniel of the Year

2011-12-07T01:13:00.000-05:00

"It's not rocket science. You don't have to have a counseling degree to bring somebody to Jesus and walk them into a place of wholeness. But you do have to have a lot of patience because it's not going to get all cleaned up immediately."
"God is 100 percent grace and 100 percent truth. If we fail to represent any part of that then we fail to represent Christ."
- Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, 2011 Daniel of the Year Award Recipient

Inadvertently started something

2011-07-25T23:56:00.003-04:00

My friend Cheyenne posted a video on a Facebook update of a pro-abortion person berating the peaceful protest of pro-lifers. Cheyenne was supportive of the pro-abortionist's outrage, even though she's neutral on the issue. But she inadvertently started a discussion thread concerning the video. In italics is a friends of hers who responded to the video and then I responded afterwards:

"Without talking about the issue of whether aborting the baby was right or wrong, this isn't a very christian way to approach abortion. Even if you believe the act was a sin, it would do well to remember the addage 'hate the sin, love the sinner' and these people have no sympathy or love in them, there is a way to say you disgaree with abortion without acting like this. It's not like they just decided one day, 'hey we should have an abortion and kill a baby'. Perhaps they should have got a second opinion but, working with the information they had their child would have had a brief life of intense suffering, in my opinion the humane thing to do is kill the child. One might argue that we are 'playing god' but if you take that stance why use medicine at all? If god gives somebody cancer, don't treat them they must deserve it. Either way you are altering the 'natural' cause of events Even more puzzling is the pro life camp's stance on stem cell research the US is far behind the rest of the industrialized world (whats new?) in this promising area of research because people are scared of using non-sentient cells that would just be frozen in a lab or discarded. If medical research on stem cells is playing god, then fine, we are gods"

The Christian way to approach the abortion issue is to do so in a loving way, be it protest like this or on a personal level. Don't know about these two women, but I have been to a protest where everyone was civilized on both sides except for a few pro-abortionists who weren't even part of the event. If a person believes that aborting a baby, or for that matter assisted suicide, is an option to "prevent suffering" then it just shows a lack of understanding about the meaning of life and a total disregard of the greater possibility that the "suffering" is temporary, which is usually the case in the abortion decision (check CDC and medical records, in nearly all cases, there is only emotional "suffering" rather than an actual medical emergency). It's not a case of natural vs. preventative, but rather a case of the preservation of life no matter what vs. terminating life because of suffering, or worse, "possible" suffering. This even includes the nonsensical example where you state "why use medicine at all? If god gives somebody cancer, don't treat them they must deserve it. Either way you are altering the 'natural' cause of events." The issue is beyond the ideas of "if god gives somebody cancer" and "natural cause of events," which misses the point. The issue is "preservation of life" and the emphasis is seeing God at work through the difficulties and tragedies that we brought upon ourselves from the very beginning and still bring on ourselves today. To allow this thought process of "preventing suffering" to succeed on a federal level is even more deplorable because it will go down a slippery slope to a worldview in which government will determine life or death and will even hold the information to such a decision. To bring it back to the pertinent, there are always options besides abortion especially if you have more information and not just the opinion of those who believe in their rather limited ideas. Quickly, concerning stem cells, embryonic stem cells aren't effective in treating disease and to keep trying because the theory sounds good on paper is to waste precious resources, not to mention actual lives. Adult stem cells are still the most effective in treating a variety of diseases and ailments and the US is among other industrialized nations ahead in that respect.

Inductive Bible Study

2010-11-09T01:44:00.014-05:00

I'm reading a guidebook on doing personal inductive Bible studies. It's been a very long time since I've done any real, deep, organized Bible study and I've been quite inconsistent with my personal devotionals. I needed to get into this book so I can reinvigorate my desire to get into the Book. Not that I've lost interest, but I remember what it was like when I was on fire, struggling through, exploring new places, finding wealth in well-trodden places, searching for treasure, digging deeply, and inevitably growing.

On Credentials and Credibility in the Martial Arts

2010-10-03T23:57:00.086-04:00

"Hoping to see karate included in the universal physical education taught in our public schools, I set about revising the kata so as to make them as simple as possible. Times change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change too. The karate that high school students practice today is not the same karate that was practiced even as recently as ten years ago, and it is a long way indeed from the karate I learned when I was a child in Okinawa."

Gichin Funakoshi, 1868-1957, from his book Karate-do: My Way Of Life, 1956

All the martial arts styles in existence today were invented by people with great imagination and creativity. These founders formalized and systematized what they believed were the best methods of self-defense in order to transmit their knowledge to future generations. Some based their style on their military/law enforcement background, some based it on their dueling and fighting backgrounds, and some just made it up. Their different styles were improved upon over the years by successive teachers. New styles were created when the founder combined various different styles or just found what was effective for him. Many of these founders and teachers did not have credentials to teach, other than proving what they knew through battle, dueling, sport, or teaching ability. There were systems that were created because the founder had one minor altercation. Some founders did not even get into any physical conflict and simply had the ability to organize techniques into a good structure for ease of teaching and learning. The common denominator for these founders is the ingenuity to develop an instructional methodology and the willingness to pass on their knowledge. For the martial artists mentioned in the following, there will be excerpts of their training history from Wikipedia and other sources and my brief analysis of their credibility as a founder and instructor.

Miyamoto Musashi

"(Musashi) was apparently trained by Munisai in the sword and in the family art of the jitte (law enforcement weapon similar to the Okinawan sai). This training did not last for a very long time, as in 1589, Munisai was ordered by Shinmen Sokan to kill Munisai's student, Honiden Gekinosuke. The Honiden family was displeased, and so Munisai was forced to move four kilometers (~2.5 mi.) away to the village of Kawakami..."

"It's said that he may have studied at the Yoshioka ryu school, which was also said to be a school Musashi defeated single-handedly during his later years, although this is very uncertain. He did have formal training either by his father until he was 7 years old or from his uncle beginning at the age of 7..."

"According to the introduction of The Book of Five Rings, Musashi states that his first successful duel was at the age of thirteen, against a samurai named Arima Kihei who fought using the Kashima Shintō-ryū style, founded by Tsukahara Bokuden (b. 1489, d. 1571).”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi

The Greatest Swordsman of Japan trained in combat when he was a child. But those few years, possibly from 7 to 13 years old, were the only time he formally trained. From thirteen to thirty, he was on a warrior's journey. His training consisted of duels and, with each victory, he learned a little more about combat. Most of the time, duels were fought with wooden weapons. But they were not sparring matches and they sometimes used real weapons if the conflict had escalated to that degree. So he had to learn fast or be injured or even die.

Musashi was not recognized by any authority to teach what he learned. His skill was only known by reputation and his reputation was spread by the story-tellers of his day, sometimes even exaggerating his exploits. But the founder of the Niten-Ichi Ryu school of kenjutsu had tremendous talent and truly understood that core principles, or “the way of strategy” as he called it, is important and that techniques are the outgrowth of those principles. Through practice and testing your skill against others, you will understand the way of strategy.

Jigoro Kano

"When Kanō attended the Tokyo Imperial University in 1877, he started looking for jujutsu teachers. He did this by first looking for bonesetters, called seifukushi. His assumption was that doctors knew who the better martial art teachers were. His search brought him to Yagi Teinosuke, who had been a student of Emon Isomata in the Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū school of jujutsu. Yagi in turn referred Kanō to Fukuda Hachinosuke, a bonesetter who taught Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū in a 10-mat room adjacent to his practice. Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū was itself a combination of two older schools: the Yōshin-ryū and Shin no Shindō-ryū."

"Fukuda's training method consisted mostly of the student taking fall after fall for the teacher or senior student until he began to understand the mechanics of the technique. Fukuda stressed applied technique over ritual form. He gave beginners a short description of the technique and then had them engage in free practice (randori) in order to teach through experience."

"Kanō had trouble defeating Fukushima Kanekichi, who was one of his seniors at the school. Therefore, Kanō started trying unfamiliar techniques on his rival. He first tried techniques from sumo. When these did not help, he studied more, and tried a technique ("fireman's carry") that he learned from a book on western wrestling. This worked, and kataguruma, or "shoulder wheel", remains part of the judo repertoire."

"On 5 August 1879, Kanō participated in a jujutsu demonstration given for former United States president Ulysses S. Grant. This demonstration took place at the home of the prominent businessman Shibusawa Eiichi. Other people involved in this demonstration included the jujutsu teachers Fukuda Hachinosuke and Iso Masatomo, and Kanō's training partner Godai Ryusaku. Unfortunately, Fukuda died soon after this demonstration, at the age of 52. Kanō then began studying with Iso, who had been a friend of Fukuda. Despite being 62 years old and only standing 5 feet tall, Iso's jujutsu training had given him a powerful build. He was known for excellence in kata, and was also a specialist in atemi, or the striking of vital areas. In Iso's method, one began with kata and then progressed to free fighting (randori). Due to Kanō's intense practice and his solid grounding in the jujutsu taught by Fukuda, he was soon an assistant at Iso's school, and in 1881, at the age of 21, he gained a license (kyoshi menkyo) to teach Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū."...

"Initially, Kanō borrowed ideas from everywhere. As he wrote in 1898, "By taking together all the good points I had learned of the various schools and adding thereto my own inventions and discoveries, I devised a new system for physical culture and moral training as well as for winning contests." However, after judo was introduced into the Japanese public schools, a process that took place between 1906 and 1917, there was increasing standardization of kata and tournament technique."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigoro_Kano

"He dedicated himself to formulating a system of reformed jujitsu founded on scientific principles, integrating combat training with mental and physical education. He borrowed the "katamewaza" (mat techniques) and "atemi-waza" (throwing techniques) of Kito-ryu, holding onto those techniques that conformed to scientific principles and rejecting all others. All harmful and dangerous techniques were eliminated."

http://www.judoinfo.com/kano4.htm

In the late 19th century, Jigoro Kano trained in ju-jutsu for three years from age 18 to 21. At 22 years old, he created the new system he called judo, as the safer way to train in ju-jutsu and to help in character development. In his own words: "By taking together all the good points I had learned of the various schools and adding thereto my own inventions and discoveries, I devised a new system for physical culture and moral training as well as for winning contests. This I call Kodokan Judo"

At the time, most of the Japanese arts were becoming "-do" arts, (using martial arts for lifestyle change and enlightenment rather than combat) and Kano was one of many caught up in the atmosphere of change during the Meiji Restoration. He showed his openness to change and to other cultures when he learned a western wrestling technique to defeat his training partner. This was only the beginning because Kano continued to refine his system for the rest of his life, even after judo was standardized.

Being a professional educator, he acknowledged the need for consistent goal-setting and created the first ever belt rank system to give students immediate goals to strive for. There were three sets of colored belts at first - three white, three brown, and three black. Since then, the belt ranks expanded to include more colors and even spread to other styles, most notably karate-do and tae kwon do. He became a martial arts legend by following his own life goal philosophy - to make a positive contribution to the world.

Gichin Funakoshi

"Funakoshi had trained in both of the popular styles of Okinawan karate of the time: Shōrei-ryū and Shōrin-ryū. His own style was influenced by kendo distancing and timing."

"He changed the name of karate to mean "empty hand" instead of "China hand" (as referred to in Okinawa); the two words sound the same in Japanese, but are written differently. It was his belief that using the term for "Chinese" would mislead people into thinking karate originated with Chinese boxing. Karate had borrowed many aspects from Chinese boxing which the original creators say as being positive, as they had done with other martial arts. In addition, Funakoshi argued in his autobiography that a philosophical evaluation of the use of "empty" seemed to fit as it implied a way which was not tethered to any other physical object."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gichin_Funakoshi

"This beginning was a highly personal, yet formal ceremony in which Funakoshi is said to have handed out lengths of black belting to his pupils. Still there is no evidence that Funakoshi himself had ranking in any budo under the dan/kyu system.

"Actually, Funakoshi was greatly influenced by Jigoro Kano, aristocratic founder of judo, and originator of the dan/kyu system. Kano was a highly respected individual, and Funakoshi prided himself on being an educated and "proper" man who rightly believed that he was acting correctly. Kano's system was not only being applied to judo, but to other budo as well under the aegis of the Butoku-kai and the Japanese Ministry of Education. Funakoshi, then, just adopted the order of the day: a ranking system officially sanctioned by Japan's greatest martial arts entities. Funakoshi's own rank was of no consequence, since it seems that belt ranking was really just something for the students, not for headmasters.

"After the ravages of war in the Pacific, the surviving karate leaders had to begin anew. With the Butoku-kai administration shut down for years to come, each karate group was on its own. The acknowledged leaders of each faction, as well as individual dojo chiefs, gave out dan ranks based upon all original sanctioning by the Butoku-kai or mandates inherited directly from the ryu's founder.

"Rushing in to fill the vacuum left by the Butoku-kai, various dojo coalesced to perpetuate the art and legitimize its members' ranks.

"Usually in a legalistic and officious way these groups would simply adopt or adhere to some even higher authority or granting agency to further legitimize their actions. Recognition by the Japanese Ministry of Education was the ultimate sanction for individuals and groups in these times. Also new associations -- both in Japan proper and in Okinawa -- appeared. These became the grantor ranking authority, much in the way the Butoku-kai had acted previously. These new organizations were to set the pattern and be the original source for today's ranking. As with the single-style clubs, the head instructors often assumed the rank for which they were qualified, based on criteria they wrote themselves."

http://judoinfo.com/karateranks.htm

Karate, like most other martial arts, was created out of necessity. Over several centuries, the native fighting styles of the Ryukyu Islands and the influx of Chinese styles from merchants, travellers, and royalty, contributed to the creation of Okinawa's karate. Some of those earlier masters trained in different styles of fighting for only a few months. Some even learned a fighting style taught to them by someone they just met who beat them in a duel and the lesson would only last a few days! Karate at that time was just a cultural combat art form with three main branches in Okinawa, named after the towns they were from: Naha-te, Shuri-te, and Tomari-te. Karate started turning into it's modern version because of the Meiji period's legacy of change and during the tumultuous Taisho period of Japan in the early 1900s.

Gichin Funakoshi and other karate masters during the turn of the 20th century, presented karate to the Japanese Ministry of Education to gain credibility. Funakoshi learned karate from two teachers in Okinawa. Those teachers in turn learned from a man who integrated Chinese ideas into karate. So, Funakoshi constantly changed his art in order to make it more accessible to the masses. He presented his martial art system to the Ministry of Education, people who did not know anything about karate other than what was shown them. Funakoshi's goals, like Kano's, focused on the holistic development of the student. He turned karate-jutsu (karate mainly used for combat) into karate-do (karate mainly used for self-development). The Ministry of Education was convinced that it would be good to teach karate-do to the youth and by their decision "legitimized" karate-do on official documents. Thus Japan officially accepted this new martial art from their southern neighbor, Funakoshi's Shotokan karate. Many karate-ka, or karate practitioners, during this time branched off with their own styles of karate.

Helio Gracie

"When Gracie was 16 years old, he found the opportunity to teach a Judo (at that time Judo was commonly referred to as Kano Jiu-Jitsu or simply Jiu-Jitsu) class, and this experience led him to develop Brazilian/Gracie Jiu-Jitsu. A director of the Bank of Brazil, Mario Brandt arrived for a private class at the original Gracie Academy in Rio de Janeiro as scheduled. The instructor, Carlos Gracie, was running late and was not present. Helio offered to begin the class with the man. When the tardy Carlos arrived offering his apologies, the student assured him it was no problem, and actually requested that he be allowed to continue learning with Helio Gracie instead. Carlos agreed to this and Helio Gracie became an instructor. Helio realized, however, that even though he knew the techniques theoretically, in fact, the moves were much harder to execute. Due to his smaller size, he realized many of the judo moves required brute strength which did not suit his small stature. Consequently, he began adapting Judo for his particular physical attributes, and through trial and error learned to maximize leverage, thus minimizing the force that needed to be exerted to execute a move. From these experiments, Gracie Jiu-Jitsu, formally Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, was created. Using these new techniques, smaller and weaker practitioners gained the capability to defend themselves and even defeat much larger opponents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helio_Gracie

"Helio and Carlos Gracie learned the sport from Japanese teacher Mitsuyo Maeda, who had settled in Belem, Brazil. Though Carlos was allowed to learn the art, Helio, who often suffered from dizziness and fainting spells as a youth, was not allowed to participate, although he would often attend classes to watch. One day when Carlos was absent from teaching class, Helio filled in as the instructor and began what would become a life spent in the jiu-jitsu world."

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28913997/

The surprise here is not that Gracie taught at a young age, but that he didn't really practice Judo - he only observed it! Then his brother made him an instructor right after his first attempt at teaching. No belt, no rank, just observation. His experience came by training and teaching simultaneously. So, modern MMA was the result of the Gracie’s determination to hold a martial arts tournament to prove their style’s effectiveness. The development of Gracie Jiu-jitsu was the result of the enthusiasm of a boy who had keen observation but also had the talent to execute techniques that he had just learned and had the innovation to make the art he was learning even more effective.

Bruce Lee

"Lee's first introduction to martial arts was through his father, Lee Hoi Cheun. He learned the fundamentals of Wu style Tai Chi Chuan from his father. Lee's sifu, Wing Chun master Yip Man, was also a colleague and friend of Hong Kong's Wu style Tai Chi Chuan teacher Wu Ta-ch'i.

Lee trained in Wing Chun Gung Fu from age 13–18 under Hong Kong Wing Chun Sifu Yip Man. Lee was introduced to Yip Man in early 1954 by William Cheung, then a live-in student of Yip Man. Like most Chinese martial arts schools at that time, Sifu Yip Man's classes were often taught by the highest ranking students. One of the highest ranking students under Yip Man at the time was Wong Shun-Leung. Wong is thought to have had the largest influence on Bruce's training. Yip Man trained Lee privately after some students refused to train with Lee due to his ancestry.

Bruce was also trained in Western boxing and won the 1958 Boxing Championship match against 3-time champion Gary Elms by knockout in the 3rd round. Before arriving to the finals against Elms, Lee had knocked out 3 straight boxers in the first round. In addition, Bruce learned western fencing techniques from his brother Peter Lee, who was a champion fencer at the time. This multi-faceted exposure to different fighting arts would later play an influence in the creation of the eclectic martial art Jeet Kune Do."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lee#Controversy_over_Jeet_Kune_Do

Last but not least, Bruce Lee, the most notable martial artist in recent history, was never certified in any martial art! Lee was a scrapper when he was young, occasionally getting into fights with other children. He formally trained in wing chun for five years in his teens and learned other Chinese forms informally. He was a high school boxing champion and learned Western fencing techniques from his brother. The bulk of the references in his posthumous international best-seller, Tao of Jeet Kune Do, are boxing and fencing books.

Lee simply read the books and applied the principles he learned when he trained with his students and other martial artists. He had no teacher's certification in any of the arts he learned, not even wing chun! Instead, he created his own approach. Jeet Kune Do is Lee's own development in the martial arts and not a martial art style itself. The thoughts and concepts of JKD may be passed down, but it is merely a name to describe Lee's personal martial art practice and life philosophy. He was confident in his own abilities to break free from the hold of "styles" and wanted to liberate people from the “classical mess.”

Cows, Constitution, and Commandments

2010-08-13T20:47:00.000-04:00

I don't usually care for forwards, but this one was sent by one of my students who doesn't really have a political bone to pick. Yet he shows promise by agreeing with this message and also by saying things that reflect a more conservative bent:
Think about this:
1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments

COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.

THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq ... Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a government building is this --you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of politicians .... it creates a hostile work environment.

Four Categories of Martial Arts

2010-08-12T01:46:00.007-04:00

from snorgtees.com

The martial arts have been categorized every which way. Any new way is merely a variation of another way. The following won't be any different, but it provides a quick explanation to understand different martial arts styles and what they generally offer.

Traditional
Otherwise known as Classical. These are martial art styles that have been passed down through the centuries or maybe even in the past century. They have not changed much since their creation. Many Asian martial arts are like this - some styles have manuals with pictures from the past century where the poses and ideas are almost exactly the same as their modern versions. Traditional styles were created by people who systematized the kind of fighting from that particular culture and time period or from an individual's way of fighting.

Hybrid
These include most martial art styles like modern karate. Gichin Funakoshi, founder of Shotokan Karate, said times change the world changes, martial arts must change as well. Many of the modern branches of karate and kung-fu are merely combinations, variations, and improvements of older styles. They generally retain many of the same movements. This also includes the XMA phenomenon, where quite a lot of the moves resemble the classical arts. Modern Hybrid includes most MMA practitioners' approach to training, where they take the strengths of any system to incorporate it into the sport, and yet the different systems are still distinct. For instance, in the stand-up portion of the fight, the competitors look like Muay Thai fighters, then on the ground they look like collegiate wrestlers or BJJ students.

Blend
This includes the more elite mixed martial arts, most of JKD, Krav Maga, etc.,. Even though Bruce Lee's approach leaned toward the Progressive category, the present state of popular martial arts is more concerned with gathering the practical and effective techniques and ideas from various martial art styles and adding them into the student's repertoire, which is one way of describing Lee's approach. From there it is the student's responsibility to blend it into his own style. Or in the self-defense category, students practice the most effective techniques generally culled from many different approaches.

Progressive
This is where Bruce Lee intended to be, to see the totality of combat and to practice the art of expressing the human body. That means there are no set techniques or formulas. How you get there will differ from person to person. Progressive martial arts emphasizes the principles of combat and self-defense and focuses on the unique development of the practitioner. It is studying the art of efficient body movement for effective combat, only limited by human physiology and physical laws of motion.

Turtle speed

2010-08-11T22:17:00.001-04:00

Slowly but surely, I'm completing all my unfinished blog articles. I have about a dozen articles left. For the most part, I'm keeping them short and sweet. Most people don't like reading really long articles anyway, at least I don't. I try to make my articles short, like the way good speeches are compared to mini-skirts: long enough to cover the essentials, short enough to get your attention. So once I'm done with those articles, which I hope to do in the next two weeks, I'll begin my long journey of retro-fitting most of my lessons from youth group and Next Level.

Next Level lesson 8/3/10

2010-08-03T23:45:00.017-04:00

I told them to keep up with three activities for the coming month: pray for me, go to church, and read Galatians to Colossians.

The lesson for the day was a quick overview of what I wanted to teach over the course of two weeks: previously, I taught about the importance of love as the greatest aspect of Christian living. Today I went over the idea that they need to have a learning attitude and to live out what they've learned. School may have disillusioned them about the importance of learning, but it is vitally important to keep studying and growing. Then I told them to live out and apply what they've learned, from me and from their personal study of God's word. The only way for them to grow and change is to intentionally apply what they learned to their circumstances and experiences.

Hume-ongous faith!

2010-01-11T01:17:00.006-05:00

Whoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 10:32

I can only hope I get the opportunity to confess Jesus Christ publicly like this, on TV, in front of millions. It's not often I get to do that even on a small scale these days. Thanks for the encouragement Mr. Hume. Keep it up!

It was a different world

2009-12-25T01:01:00.002-05:00

If 1973 was like life on Mars, then 1983 (or whenever this was) wasn't any more different.

John 17

2009-12-23T01:30:00.005-05:00

I gave the kids in youth group an assignment, one of many to start practicing how to study the Bible and have a devotional. I told them to give me a list of 10 ideas they learned from John 17, at least two of which are something they will apply to their lives. I gave it to them last week and none have done it yet. Well, since I'm the leader I might as well take the lead with it. And when I tell my students to do something quantifiable, I take the opportunity to do double the amount just to show it can be done.

John 17

When Jesus prayed, He lifted His eyes to heaven because He was having a conversation with God.
Jesus knew that His time has come to fulfill what He came to earth for.
The Father is glorified in the Son.
All power is given to the Son from the Father.
The Son has authority over all human beings.
The Father is the one who gives to the Son all who will have eternal life.
God chooses who He will save.
Salvation is given to those who believe in what He did.
Eternal life is knowing God the Father through God the Son.
God the Father and God the Son who He sent is the only true God.
Jesus glorified God on earth.
Glorifying God means giving attention to God, pointing to God, and reflecting God.
Jesus completed the task He was assigned to do.
Jesus knew exactly what He had to do because He was in line with God the Father.
Jesus first acknowledges the work of God the Father before asking for something.
Jesus showed He submitted to God the Father by being obedient all His life.
Jesus asked to be glorified with the Father once again.
Jesus existed before time began.
Jesus revealed who God truly is to the disciples.
God had given them to Jesus.
The disciples kept the word of God with them.
Having the word of God, the disciples were moved along by the Holy Spirit to write out what God told them.
The disciples walked with the Word of God as well.
The disciples know that God the Father gave them the Word Made Flesh.
Jesus gave the disciples the words God gave Him.
The disciples believed that God gave Him to them.
Jesus is the Truth.
Jesus intercedes for the disciples, not the world's system.
Jesus and God are one.
Jesus knew He was responsible to keep the disciples for God's purpose.

30 thoughts by verse 11, not bad. There are a lot of good stuff after that, but I'll just stop it there. Then I told them that they should include at least 2 ideas to practice, so here are 5:

I should always listen for God's leading.
Being obedient to what I already know is just as important as knowing a lot.
I have a responsibility to keep those I lead in God's name and not to lead them astray be it in word or action.
Knowing that God gave me those I'm now in charge of, I should constantly present them to God in prayer.
I need to be conscious of realizing the joy I have in Jesus and not allow my circumstances to change my attitude.

The Beginning of Wisdom

2009-11-01T01:18:00.005-04:00

I heard that the Bible says "Fear not" 365 times. The idea was originally mentioned by Joyce Meyers and then popularized again in the movie Facing the Giants. Here's what I found, including variations. I listed the version and number of times it appears in that version:

Fear Not
KJV 63
NASB 4
NIV 1

Do not be afraid
KJV 0
NASB 46
NIV 65 (Don't be afraid 24)

Be not afraid
KJV 26
NASB 0
NIV 2

Do not fear
KJV 0
NASB 57
NIV 18 (Don't fear 1)

Fear God
KJV 10
NASB 18
NIV 12

Fear of the Lord
KJV 30
NASB 26
NIV 22

Fear the Lord
KJV 32
NASB 31
NIV 27

Apparently not anywhere close to 365. Was a nice idea. I guess I'll have to go back to the concept that if God says something once, He means it. I can rest on that. Time to look up all those references, though. I'll need a reminder every day of the year.

PMABM Newsletter #12

2009-10-25T00:50:00.006-04:00

I'm sure you'll appreciate this video.

I'm doing Contact Flow with my instructor Matt Kovsky, co-author of the book Attackproof, which is required reading for Level 3. Contact Flow is the staple exercise in Guided Chaos, which helps you train every aspect of five major principles for effective self-defense: Body Unity, Looseness, Sensitivity, Balance, and Economy of Movement.

Study this video closely (or as closely as you can with this low-resolution garbage). Other than enjoying seeing me get pummeled, what can you learn from it? What do you see me doing wrong? What do you see Matt doing right? I made a ton of mistakes and I've learned a whole lot from watching this video. I've also learned a lot from watching Matt and seeing many of the Guided Chaos principles effortlessly expressed in his movement.

(Due to privacy issues, I had to take down the video, so I have posted an official Guided Chaos video instead to show what Contact Flow is like.)

Philippians 4

2009-10-10T01:39:00.001-04:00

I was reading about the Stoics, how they would seek an inner calm: "The Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, rather they sought to transform them by a resolute 'askēsis' which enables a person to develop clear judgment and inner calm."

This is different from the Bible's peace that passes understanding. Stoics used their own strength and understanding, but clear judgment is not just a highly developed reasoning skill, but reasoning based on what God says in His word. Inner calm is not emotional stability or a placid feeling concerning decisions, but a resting on the knowledge and the assurance that He's there and He's sovereign, and truly has all things in His control. Everything in life, people and circumstances, can make the soul unstable, frazzled, or uneasy, but there is a rest, a peace, when we bring to God all that make us anxious.

The Upstart

2009-10-02T12:52:00.004-04:00

Would've been nice if this truly happened. In reality, Einstein didn't philosophize like this until at least in his teens, when he started his thought experiments, and by then he was more into reasoning out math and physics than God. It's still a good story and a good introduction to the discussion about God's existence.

And if I remember correctly, a typical teacher of that day would've given a student like that a verbal if not an actual smacking.

Hippie, diaper, halo Christ

2009-10-01T00:54:00.003-04:00

A friend told me about Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church, how he is quite the controversial church leader. I looked him up on Wikipedia and this excellent quote was in the Criticism section:

"There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity." — Mark Driscoll, Relevant Magazine

I am now a big fan.

1 Kings 3

2009-09-07T00:58:00.004-04:00

In 1 Kings, God asked Solomon in a dream what he wanted. Solomon responded by asking for wisdom in governing the nation. The response pleased God so much that He gave Solomon health and wealth as well, the things he didn't ask for.

That account made such an impression on me when I was younger. I thought back then, would I have asked for wisdom as well and not something that would just satisfy me temporarily? So ever since then, I asked for and prioritized wisdom and the pursuit of wisdom over most everything.

Pursuit and prioritizing is one thing, consistently living it out is another. That's been the toughest challenge. I gained a lot of knowledge in Bible school and college in such a short time that I came out of those institutions feeling like a small child trying to fit in his dad's large overalls. So now it's the issue of recalling and even relearning much of what I learned in the past and live it out with each decision I make. Tall order, but by God's grace, I can do this

Acts 15

2009-09-05T03:34:00.007-04:00

Near the end of the chapter, Paul wanted to revisit the towns where he and Barnabas preached the Gospel. Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them, but Paul didn't want to bring him along because he abandoned them on a previous mission. Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement about it and they went their separate ways.

I like knowing that God is in my decision-making, even when there is a lot of conflict or even bitter disagreement between me and my brother or sister in Christ. Paul and Barnabas both thought they were right and the other wrong. God used both decisions and used it to glorify Himself. God uses any decision I make for His glory. He's also the one who prompted me to make such decisions, so I really shouldn't be surprised that He should take the credit. Now obviously, this doesn't mean that I can sin, that's all me and not Him. He merely places the decision before me and beckons me to do what pleases Him, even if it may disagree with a fellow believer. (I'm not about to get into a Sovereignty of God discussion here.) Even then, I know God works through our sin as well. Simply put, I should strive to be more like Jesus. My prayer is that I don't sin and that whatever I do or don't do will be pleasing to Him.

Ezra 3

2009-09-02T16:11:00.001-04:00

He is good. His love to Israel endures forever.

Israel sinned as a nation for about 200 years before being taken and exiled by Assyria. Judah followed and even though they had more righteous kings, it was not enough to hold back the inevitable: God allowed Babylon to destroy Jerusalem and take its inhabitants. 70 years later, God placed it on a pagan king's heart to allow the Jews to go back to their land and rebuild the temple.

I'm thankful that God is forgiving. Even though He chose me for Him, the sin I commit on a daily basis is ever before me. The closer I get to God, the more I see the stains and I'm amazed by His mercy. I could easily have paid the consequences of my sin, and I have on some occasions, but He is good. He is just and merciful and I'm so thankful for His mercy. I won't ever be plucked out of His hand, because what I do or don't do has been covered by the Blood and I've been sealed for the day of redemption. I do have to seek Him constantly to live a life that glorifies Him.

Help me God to seek You daily, minute by minute. I don't want to displease You. I want You to take me and mold me. Conform me to You.

John 15

2009-09-01T01:54:00.002-04:00

Obedience. Jesus, God the Son, was in complete obedience to God the Father. Obeying Jesus is obeying the Father. Obedience and Joy go hand in hand. He chose me, I obey, I bear fruit, and I become His disciple. He commands me, I obey, His joy remains in me and I will have complete joy or true fulfillment. His command: love one another. Simple statement, but one of the hardest principles to practice. By His grace, my fruit will remain.

John 15

2009-08-31T00:30:00.003-04:00

Just like the previous devotional entry, I picked a chapter full of precious jewels.

For this one, I focused on verse 15. He's made known to us all that the Father has taught him. There are no secrets with God. He won't speak deceit or lies. He is straightforward since He only speaks one language - truth. And so should I. I should first and foremost be upfront and honest with God. Then, one of the hardest, is that I should be honest with myself - I have to ask myself the tough questions, or else someone will do it for me: where am I faltering in my relationship with Jesus? What can I do to mend bad or strained relationships? Who can I build bridges with in order to share the Gospel? What can I do to contribute to the Body of Christ? What I can I do to provide for my family? How can I best represent Jesus?

I have to answer these and many other questions honestly and to change or grow to glorify God.

John 8

2009-08-27T02:40:00.003-04:00

This was quite the debate between Jesus and the religious leaders. In the end, the religious leaders found whatever excuse they needed to try to get rid of Jesus. Verse 28 gets my attention, though: Jesus does nothing of himself, but only what the Father taught him and he isn't alone because Father God is there with him and Jesus only does what pleases the Father. Awesome challenge for me! If Jesus, God the Son, was so in line with the Father that he did nothing of himself, where does that leave me? I know I'm not in line with the Father in many areas of my life. I'm glad He allowed me the opportunity to believe in Jesus. Now it's all about consciously acknowledging God's presence and His involvement in ALL areas of my life.

Engkrateia

2009-08-27T02:38:00.001-04:00

I began a program for myself that would allow me to practice self-discipline once again. It started in the physical aspect: I'm to do a progressive regime that would start slowly so my body can become accustomed to it, with each cycle matching the number of days with the number of reps. So that means, since yesterday was the first day, I did 10 push-ups, 10 squats, and one pull-up. Then the second day, today, I did 20 push-ups and 20 squats and two pull-ups. I'll do the same tomorrow. Then after that I'll do 30/30/3 three days in a row. Then I rest for a day. I start the day after that with four days worth of 40/40/4. I'll take one day rests until after the 60s, then I'll take two day rests after each cycle. After the 90s, I'll rest for two days, then I'll do the 100s, but this time, I will rest for one day after day 5. By the time this is all done, it'll be the end of October. I hope to be ripped by then.

And every day I will do 30 min cardio and 100 reps of any ab exercise. I'm thinking about adding a few more weight training routines as supplemental to all the exercise mentioned so far. I'm making all of this as manageable as possible while still challenging myself.

Likewise, with writing, even though I'm not to spend all my time blogging, as suggested by my wife, I would still like to log experiences and thoughts on a consistent basis. Doing so would allow me to think I'm doing something daily and consistently. I don't need to get overboard with writing, but at least I should write a little something on both of my blogs. I'm also on a program of writing what I learned in my devotionals to Em. Might as well write it in my 12th Letter blog.

I'm looking forward to developing more self-control and discipline because it will spill over into other areas of my life and the outcome will be quite beneficial to me and to others in my life.

Religion

2009-08-25T03:17:00.002-04:00

There are only 5 references to the word "religion" in the Bible for the NIV

Acts 25:19
Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive.
Acts 26:5
They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.
1 Timothy 5:4
But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.
James 1:26
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.
James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

...and five for the KJV.

Acts 26:5
Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Galatians 1:13
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
Galatians 1:14
And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
James 1:26
If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Most have negative connotations.

And for the word "religious," there are 6 references for the NIV

Amos 5:21
"I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies.
Amos 8:10
I will turn your religious feasts into mourning and all your singing into weeping. I will make all of you wear sackcloth and shave your heads. I will make that time like mourning for an only son and the end of it like a bitter day.
Acts 17:22
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.
Colossians 2:16
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
Hebrews 10:11
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
James 1:26
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.

...and 2 for the KJV.

Acts 13:43
Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
James 1:26
If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

Most have negative connotations as well.

What You Can Live Through

2009-08-17T18:49:00.008-04:00

Mayor Barrett of Milwaukee fought off an attacker and was injured in the process. He was just leaving the Wisconsin State Fair with his family when an elderly woman called out for help from a man harassing her and her grandchild. Mayor Barrett stepped in to calm the man down and just when he took out his cell phone to call 911, the man attacked the mayor with a metal pipe. The mayor fought back by punching the attacker in the face and fracturing his hand in the process. The suspect ran off and the mayor was sent to the hospital, still conscious and conversational.

Now that's the way to defend your city!

Chaos Theory Part 2

2009-07-08T18:23:00.004-04:00

Guided Chaos training is the closest to fully realizing what Bruce Lee sought during his life. I say closest because I believe even Guided Chaos can be improved upon. My training in Guided Chaos allowed me to see way beyond the typical JKD practitioner. Instead of taking separate ideas and attempting to blend them, John Perkins took the idea that effective combat movement is the goal and not the blending of practical moves from different styles. The focus is on effective combative movement only limited by physical laws of motion and physiology. There is no need to memorize techniques, there are only the principles of movement and knowing how to use the body's weapons to incapacitate another person.

When I finally went to a Guided Chaos class and I put to practice what I only knew theoretically.

The closest I see to Guided Chaos in the JKD community is found in the Dog Brothers, Alive JKD, and . Outside JKD I can only see Systema and Krav Maga modern "formless" interpretations of traditional artsas the only

Inosanto's approach, Krav Maga, most MMA sports, and hybridized systems of traditional styles, all try to blend to achieve formlessness:
The method - they teach the essence of different styles and try to find the most practical way. The question they ask is, how can it be assimilated to suit you and to effectively incapacitate another body?
In Guided Chaos, formlessness is at the start:
The method - they teach how the body moves effectively in combat. The question they ask is, how can you use your body structure, and whatever weapons, with physical laws of motion to incapacitate another body?

And yet, even after all this, I feel like I'm sluggishly behind. I may have come to a martial arts enlightenment, but my training has been at an all time zero. I haven't trained as much as I've wanted these past six years. I've practiced a lot, I've also taught a lot. But my training has been few and far between, my progress has been stunted, not to mention feeling like a slob compared to how I was ten years ago.

Also he had a tendency to speak in Eastern mysticist terms, rather than give a straightforward explanation of his approach.

Some even think of JKD as a separate style itself, which is quite the opposite of Bruce Lee's philosophy.

Chaos Theory

2009-06-21T23:27:00.000-04:00

Oh, my word, the beak and head seem to be the only parts outside of the egg. The rest of the body is still stuck inside. I'm talking about Jeet Kune Do at this point in its development. The JKD teachers have the right idea, that JKD should be formless and yet assume all forms and that you have to be like water, my friend. But what they do in practice is still reminiscent of something from the 1970s. The JKD student still goes through a core curriculum through Jun Fan JKD, which they tend to be very dogmatic about. Or a style sampler blend, like Inosanto's JKD Concepts.

JKD is the product of the marriage between Eastern martial tradition and Western practicality. Bruce Lee learned as much as he could from different martial arts. Likewise the modern JKD teacher provides the knowledge of different martial art approaches. The student then takes all these approaches and assimilates whatever works for his or her particular body type and personality. All good and well, but the progress is impaired when the student goes back to the partial, that is, they keep training the separate ideas. The Jun Fan JKD people practice the core curriculum that Lee developed and then take in other styles to build on top of the core. Or for the more enlightened, they strip away to the most essential of the core and the most essential of other styles. And then the Inosanto approach, the core is practiced along with other styles. For example, the typical training schedule for that kind of JKD school would be: MMA Mondays, Jun Fan JKD Tuesdays, BJJ Wednesdays, Muay Thai Thursdays, FMA Fridays, open-sparring Saturdays. It's almost as if breaking free of them and fusing all of them would be dishonorable to the traditions of the elders.

Inosanto teaches that there are common threads of movement in many styles, and he states on his web-page that "movement is universal, no one single style or system has it all." Good, I agree. Then I realized why he teaches styles separately when he continues saying, "students learn what works in a particular situation, against a particular opponent, and when another technique or series of techniques would be more practical and effective." He still focuses on particular techniques? He associates those techniques with particular situations? Wow, I had hoped he would be beyond this by now.

Bruce Lee had the right idea when he sought the "totality" in martial arts, the formless form, the ultimate to simple and functional. He did his best to bring together the principles of different styles and meld them into his own, but he died at the beginning of his journey. His followers also have the right idea, to meld all the styles into a personal style and make it adaptable. But here's the catch: in the blending, they still conform to their training in separate systems, and even if they don't, they still answer a technique with a corresponding technique.

In a way, I'm glad I didn't fully complete my training in JKD. I had to end my training out of necessity, but by then, I was already questioning what I was learning. Why am I practicing the partial? Why is it that I'm practicing specific techniques? Can I truly adapt to anything thrown at me? It's good that JKD is more realistic and practical, but why is there so much emphasis on keeping the different styles separate rather than teaching what all of those styles have in common? Why not work it all together into a person's particular body type in the very beginning rather than doing the traditional approach of finding the formless in the form?

To be continued...

What I cannot do

2009-06-03T05:28:00.004-04:00

In my effort to live a life for God, I trip up more than I want. My sin is so ever clear to me as I move even closer to Him. Sometimes, I sin so much that I feel like I'm laying down an invisible wall, brick after brick, that separates me from Him. By His grace, that wall will never grow, no matter how often I add to it. At that point, I have to ask what Chambers asked: "Do I really believe that God will do in me what I cannot do?" I cannot live for God without His grace and I can only live by His grace. Can I believe that He will make me more like Jesus, something I definitely cannot do?

The Staggering Question by J. Oswald Chambers

He said to me, ’Son of man, can these bones live?’ —Ezekiel 37:3

Can a sinner be turned into a saint? Can a twisted life be made right? There is only one appropriate answer— "O Lord God, You know" ( Ezekiel 37:3 ). Never forge ahead with your religious common sense and say, "Oh, yes, with just a little more Bible reading, devotional time, and prayer, I see how it can be done."

It is much easier to do something than to trust in God; we see the activity and mistake panic for inspiration. That is why we see so few fellow workers with God, yet so many people working for God. We would much rather work for God than believe in Him. Do I really believe that God will do in me what I cannot do? The degree of hopelessness I have for others comes from never realizing that God has done anything for me. Is my own personal experience such a wonderful realization of God’s power and might that I can never have a sense of hopelessness for anyone else I see? Has any spiritual work been accomplished in me at all? The degree of panic activity in my life is equal to the degree of my lack of personal spiritual experience.

"Behold, O My people, I will open your graves . . ." ( Ezekiel 37:12 ). When God wants to show you what human nature is like separated from Himself, He shows it to you in yourself. If the Spirit of God has ever given you a vision of what you are apart from the grace of God (and He will only do this when His Spirit is at work in you), then you know that in reality there is no criminal half as bad as you yourself could be without His grace. My "grave" has been opened by God and "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells" ( Romans 7:18 ). God’s Spirit continually reveals to His children what human nature is like apart from His grace.

God loves variety

2009-05-10T23:46:00.001-04:00

Yesterday, I went to the Christian Homeschool Association of Pennsylvania convention for the Truth Project training seminar. During break time, I walked around the convention vendor booths to peruse what they had to offer. Ever since I met homeschooled students at WOLBI, I was convinced that homeschooling was an excellent option. Those kids were highly intelligent and well socialized, unlike the unfortunate stereotype that homeschooled kids have a narrow-minded and limited education and that they are socially inept. Now it's the issue of figuring out what I can do to prepare Em and myself to homeschool our child. My schedule right now in second shift can work, but we'll see what actions I need to take these next few years to make things work smoothly.

Walking around the convention, I was amused to see the great number of Mennonites. I knew there were going to be a good number of conservatively dressed Christian groups, but I should've expected that there would be upwards of 80% of the attendees to be of those groups. I was in the middle of Amish country in Harrisburg, so I should've expected it. I'm sure there were Independent and Fundamentalist Baptists as well, since about a dozen vendors were Baptist. There were also some normally dressed people and some hicks. I only saw a few who were tattooed and pierced, with a punk or gothic look (I'm sure a BJU rep was trying to witness to them).

That's the beauty of Christianity - our variety. We have an incredible amount of freedom to express our devotion to Jesus, be it the highly structured and regimented like the Mennonites and some Baptist groups, to the decentralized Brethren groups, to the often rowdy Charismatics. Variety is merely the result of individualized thought, even in those who are more uniform in their lifestyle and outlook. Anti-conformity or non-conformity is very Christian and Biblical in its origin. And to be precise, we are not to be conformed to this world, be it the evils of the flesh or the religious structures of man. We are transformed by the renewing of our minds. By doing so, we are then conformed to Jesus Christ, the Word of God, the ultimate Non-conformist.

All in the mental

2009-05-10T18:56:00.000-04:00

These past few months, I've been doing my best to keep up with my workouts and watching my caloric intake. I want to look good for the summer, but this year, I just don't have the energy to keep up with what I eat, let alone do any exercising. So when I read about the Gabriel Method, I was intrigued. I did a little bit of research and found that the Method is mostly an exercise in mental control. I acknowledge that the mental side of staying fit and healthy is important, I just never thought of it as the main aspect of reaching physical goals. Some visualization, some mental reprogramming results in portion control and natural caloric expenditure through daily activity. Basically the non-diet and exercise program to lose weight.

No, I won't be buying the Gabriel Method book and related products any time soon. But it is a good reminder that while I'm working on my physical, it is necessary to develop myself mentally, in the sense that I can change myself by reprogramming how I think about myself. Success or failure is usually dependent on what the mind is trained for, anyway. Might as well envision myself as cut, fit, and healthy. Easier than doing a hundred push-ups or running 5 miles.

Beacon in the Darkness

2009-03-30T22:08:00.010-04:00

From 830pm to 930 pm on March 28, 88 countries and 4000 cities turned out the lights as a demonstration of concern to fight Global Warming.

I didn't.

My house was the brightest on the block. There were a few houses with a couple of lights on, but many turned off their lights around 8:30. I was watching a documentary with my family at that time and had to pause it so I could turn on all the lights in my house.

Many say that Earth Hour helped to save money and cut down costs. Of course it cut down costs, people turned out the lights! I'm into saving a few bucks on energy myself, which is why I turn on lights only when necessary. But to say that turning off lights will help bring down CO2 emissions is utter nonsense. There are those who have calculated that lighting a few candles during that hour created more CO2 than the energy used to turn on light bulbs. Whether or not it made a dent in the levels of CO2, the fact remains: humans are not contributing to global warming or climate change or whatever they call it these days. Every 50 years or so, a new group of scientists or a new study points to this or that to "confirm" a change in the environment. One of these days, I hope the majority opinion will finally accept the truth that these changes are natural and cyclical. Not holding my breath, of course.

Earth Hour only proved to me that there are way too many people who bought into the Gore sales pitch of human caused climate change.

Does anyone else think this Earth Hour business is hilarious?

Stuff I Like

2009-03-25T22:49:00.005-04:00

Stumbled onto this blog while spell-checking: Stuff Christians Like. While reading the guy's entries, I was inspired to return to heightened playfulness in my writing, which leads to creativity. That's the stuff that allows people to read really long blog entries. I get turned off by articles that go for more than a few paragraphs, unless it's a subject I'm really interested in at the moment. But since I follow several blogs, I only have time for short entries. That's the reason my more serious blog, the 12th Letter, has on average two or three paragraphs. Most are only discussion starters - they're meant to be controversial, not comedic. But now that I've been reminded, I'm inspired to go the way of Glenn Beck: a fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This guy Prodigal Jon has written over 500 articles in two years! That's inspiring enough! But one article caught my attention, entitled Good enough for the church (Or God's Love Letter to Artists). Prodigal Jon wrote about the importance of the artists and craftsmen that God gifted for building the Tabernacle, so much so that they were second to the priests. Such a great reminder of what's important to God's heart. I remember reading that part of Exodus back in high school, that God assigned skilled artists and builders to create His Tabernacle, the precursor to the Temple. Back then, the only thing I could claim as my well-developed skill was art - illustrating, painting, sculpting, and calligraphy. So as a kid reading that, I thought, "Wow, God uses even the lowly artist." God didn't choose the strong, the intellectual elite, or even the politician - He chose the artist! Artists and builders are important to God's heart because His first act was in expressing Himself in the creation of this universe.

Two Cents Left

2009-02-27T19:06:00.008-05:00

To conclude this discussion on legitimized spending sprees by the Obama administration, here's Mike Huckabee on naming this particular bill.

Isn't it ironic?

2009-02-12T21:30:00.009-05:00

How stupid is it to close Guantanamo Bay? Obama will do a whole lot of back-pedaling.

"We ain't rich yet, but we will be because of Barack Obama!"

Saw a little bit of the Image Awards. Many liberals in the crowd. Interesting how they celebrated Lincoln who was Republican and was not very well-liked during his administration, by both North and South. Lincoln helped to create the Republican party which was based on an abolitionist platform. He also helped to bring about legislation that eventually freed the slaves. Most black people now are Democrats who honor Lincoln and yet don't realize their roots of freedom in the Republican party. All they saw were Democrats John F. Kennedy, who asked for Civil Rights legislation, and Lyndon Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Act to law in 1964. The public school system does not teach that Republicans made the necessary decisions that led up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the first in 1875 with Senators Charles Sumner and Benjamin Butler, then in the 1950s and '60s, led by Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen. The Republicans and Democrats worked together to bring about this much needed legislation, but eventually, the Democrats were given credit for the work simply because it ended up on their desks!

I'm not a big fan of either party, but the Republicans are the closest to representing my views. Or at least they were, somehow they lost a big chunk of their spine and core during the Bush years. The Republicans better start representing the conservatives again and truly bring back the "Party of Lincoln," instead of just going along with the popular trend or what can bring in the most votes.

PMABM Newsletter #11

2009-02-07T00:33:00.003-05:00

In my effort to look for something from my work at TV-13 on Youtube, I found this video from TV-13 in Michigan:

Mariah Moore, the Eskrimadora. Also known as the American Valkyrie. One thing's sure, this ain't a fat lady singing. More like a young lady swinging - sticks and blades. She's now my new little hero. I don't know about you, but at that age, if my ribs broke in a sparring contest, I would've questioned why I was practicing martial arts. But she kept on going and even won a championship with broken ribs! If a 15 year old girl from the Midwest can take it, there's no reason why you can't.

After watching her videos, I've been motivated to get off my gluts and work on my skills. I'm also looking forward to teaching and coaching again. Did you get that part of the video, that she trains six days out of the week? I recently told Joe one of my motivational/perspective phrases: I'm not obsessed with martial arts, which is why I only train six days out of the week instead of seven. What I mean by perspective phrase is that I won't make martial arts such an obsession that people are left by the wayside and yet I should make the time to practice daily to seek mastery. Balance is the key to anything you do in life, even if you're only known as a martial arts expert, or whatever expert.

I wish I could train six days out of the week. I train as much as I can, though. To be good at anything, it takes a whole lot of conscious effort, discipline, and many, many trips outside of your comfort zone (and maybe even a depletion of funds). By doing so, you develop a good work ethic, which allows you to be good at what you do, which helps motivate your work habits and the cycle continues. You may get to the point that you even like the struggle, but even if you don't, it's best to make the conscious effort to get out and do something. That's my other motivational phrase I've been using recently: Do something, anything! Developing a good work ethic is what makes champions like Mariah.

This promotional video is a little cheesy, but it gets the point across. Mariah seems to be into the modern demo aspect of FMA as well. Watch some of the moves she makes. She does a different style of FMA, but do you recognize a few things?

Also, watch her training and competition videos when you get the chance.

Intro to Dating and Relationships with PD2

2009-02-05T20:32:00.000-05:00

We were at the HUB for youth group. Pastor Deb (aka PD2) gave the lesson. Her youth group tends to be more activity based, so for the entire hour, we were playing a quiz style game while she gave the lesson on sexual purity. This was our introduction to our dating and relationship lessons for the next couple of months.

PD2 separated us all into three teams, Faith Alive youth group being on one team and most of her youth group split into two teams. She would get us to do a Bible drill style game and whoever read the verse first gets a question to answer. If they don't answer correctly, she moves on to the other teams. In the end we placed second after nearly an hour of playing. During that time, we went through several key principles:

Sex should be reserved for marriage.
Don't focus on the physical in the dating relationship.
Girls should wear modest clothing.
Guys should control themselves and be careful at what they look at.
Don't even kiss or make out because it will cause you to sin in one way or another.
Honor God by respecting the opposite sex.
Whoever you date could possibly be another's spouse in the future.
When you're tempted with sexual sin, FLEE!
Take a stand for sexual purity in this sex-obsessed world.

Near the end, PD2 handed out a box of chocolates for us to eat. A few of the pieces were bitten into. Then we checked the second layer and they too had pieces bitten into. By then, I realized it was a metaphor. She used the half eaten chocolate pieces as an illustration of what it's like when someone already has had sex before marriage. It was hard to think about eating the chocolate when someone else has eaten it already.

Got some change?

2009-01-18T23:37:00.003-05:00

Obama presidency,
aka Clinton presidency part deux
aka Clinton's third term with a twist
aka Clinton administration redux

"Change is Good" video by Stuart Shepard to give a better explanation.

PMABM Newsletter #10

2008-12-30T03:29:00.008-05:00

Check out this video of Balintawak arnis training from the '70s. Any of it look familiar to you?

You can tell the teacher is the pudgy one (much like me) and the student is the one with the semi-afro looking hair. The teacher has better balance and evades when necessary while the student is all over the place. If I take video of you now (after we refresh our memory and review what we've learned so far) and then take video of you a year from now, assuming you train consistently, you will be pleasantly surprised to see the change in how you move and in what you do.

I'm looking forward to it.

And for those who want to see the Balintawak arnis I learned, here it is. This is only one aspect of Balintawak training. It's actually a very self-defense focused martial art, as demonstrated in the old video. The old masters didn't teach any of it as sport. They taught with the idea that someone was trying to kill you with a knife or a machete and you had to deal with it quickly.

In our veins

2008-12-10T00:32:00.009-05:00

Given: men fight. Doesn't matter what kind of fight, be it intellectual or physical, there is a willingness in all men to do battle. Among the physical fighters, there are four kinds (and they aren't mutually exclusive): one is the brawler, who was most likely abused as a child and hasn't gotten over his daddy or mommy issues. The second is the one dimensional fighter, who only knows fighting and really never developed any other skill, or if he did, it doesn't pay for the bills and so he may fight for a living. The third is the trained fighter, who learned a fighting art, may professionally fight for a living, and is also well-versed in other skills. Then there's the fighter who comes from a warrior culture where fighting isn't just something they do - it's in their blood, it's part of who they are. Warrior culture isn't simple to define, but there are a number of characteristics:

1) The people group inhabit a strategic location that's been invaded and fought over for generations that a readiness for war has become part of their cultural makeup.
2) They have well-developed cultural fighting arts.
3) They are known for their tenacity in war.

In Filipino culture, all three parameters were satisfied in the past. Throughout their history, no matter how often they were beaten down, Filipinos always fought back. There were no less than 50 revolts from various tribes or groups against the Spanish during their 300 year domination over the archipelago. The last time Filipinos showed their warrior spirit was during World War II. With help from the Americans, the Filipinos fought hard to expel the Japanese and liberate prisoners of war. Much of that warrior spirit disappeared after World War II. These days, Filipinos are known for their other side: their hospitality, their fun-loving, peaceful nature. And they are also known for other skills like singing and dancing. The Muslim insurgencies in the southern Philippines are more about finances or simple terrorism, rather than a reflection of the warrior culture.

The only place the warrior culture lives on is in the martial arts community. After World War II, many of the surviving masters brought their knowledge to America. These days, the Filipino martial arts thrive, generally lumped under the names kali, escrima, or arnis. They were popularized by the Canete family, Bakbakan International, Dan Inosanto, and many others who have preserved the traditions of various family styles. Through these people and schools, the warrior culture is undergoing a resurgence. But instead of the unfocused brutality of the past, the new generation of the warrior culture will have a better perspective, a culture that won't perpetuate violence. This is the generation of the peaceful warrior, who will use martial skills for the benefit and the protection of others, not just the protection of the immediate group.

Tribal Heritage

2008-11-27T00:31:00.011-05:00

The History channel has an ongoing series called Gangland. After watching a few episodes, I was reminded how people are still very tribal in nature no matter how civilized the society. There's a running theme through these shows, a tendency for the disillusioned to identify with a group and, with that acceptance, the relinquishing of individualism in order to conform to that immediate group's culture, to be part of a family. In their need to conform to that family structure, the members will bypass their already fractured moral development to honor the group's simple moral code - survival and strength.

Is it any surprise?

2008-11-25T19:25:00.001-05:00

Obama reneged on his tax cut promises? Shocking. And not many in the media are complaining. Not many people know about it either. If they do, they simply disregard it because change is more important. Change change change. Nothing but words. Talk about the Barack hypnotic effect. We'll see how this plays out, but things like this are expected. There will be a whole lot more like this in the next few years. Maybe in the next few months?

Zero on Zawahiri

2008-11-24T19:34:00.009-05:00

I heard that someone responded to Al-Zawahiri's racist attacks against Obama? This person said Al-Qaeda have lost any moral authority to say anything after the recent racist epithet against the President-Elect. Wow, an American actually acknowledged that Al-Qaeda had any moral authority before this? They're a terrorist group! They have no moral authority or political credibility! If they insult Obama or Bush or any American, then so what? The only time anyone should listen to them is if they make death threats and they seem to like following through with those!

What I'd like to say to that so-called terrorist expert: Don't Americanize Al-Qaeda! Don't even acknowledge them by responding to their insults!

Those hypocrites!

2008-11-18T19:36:00.004-05:00

In the gay rights debate, only one side is truly intolerant.

The Brave Catherine Vogt

2008-11-13T21:02:00.005-05:00

Photo by Nuccio DiNuzzo, The Chicago Tribune

From the Chicago Tribune, "Tolerance Fails T-Shirt Test" by John Kass, as pointed out by Michelle Malkin.

Intelligence Quotient

2008-11-12T00:35:00.008-05:00

"I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused." - Sen. Barack Obama responding to Billary Clinton's comments, March 2008

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama starts to change his anti-war tone in the next few months. After meeting with the CIA, the military, the DOD, and Bush, I can only imagine him getting hit with what's truly happening in the Middle East. At least he'll learn what the President knows and why Bush had to do what he had to do. During his term as Senator and during his campaign, Obama visited many countries, including those in the Middle East, but I would love to see the look on his face once he learns what's going on beneath the surface.

Electoral Craziness

2008-11-07T12:21:00.001-05:00

My wife and I were talking about how the Electoral College worked. I needed to refresh my memory, since both of us were talking about something we haven't studied since 2000 and I was pretty sure we were both wrong on certain things.

So, here's a brief explanation:

No, seriously:

Too bad!

2008-11-06T19:55:00.001-05:00

Darn, too bad McCain didn't win the election because it would've helped to weed out those who are ungrateful to be an American. If only the "exodus" idea in this article were true, it would've helped to solidify the number of real Americans in this country, and those who think they're too educated and progressive can go to their desired refuge (or cage). I prefer my freedoms, thank you very much.

Just because Obama won doesn't mean I should leave the US. I believe this is the most unique nation on Earth and I'm not about to hand it over to leaders who like to govern like the rest of the world's leaders. We can still change this country for the better after his term ends. One of my co-workers said, "It can't get any worse than what it is now." I beg to differ - this country has the potential to be brought to its knees with someone like Obama at the helm. The beauty of America is in its core ideals of liberty based on Judeo-Christian principles. If we keep to this core, America can get back to its feet after 2012. Most likely it will take a little more than four years to undo his damage, but there will come a day when government's tentacles will retract and we can get back to living like free Americans again.

I hope the voluntary weeding will begin by then as well.

I Submit

2008-11-05T01:25:00.009-05:00

Oh well...

Within the next four years, many people will develop a nasty case of buyer's remorse. Obama's campaign had quite a successful marketing strategy. Riding on a Bush-bashing media wave, the tone was set for their winning sales approach. They emphasized the imagined deficiency of the customer's life in a Bush administration. Using an already biased media, they capitalized on the "change" they could offer and branded Obama as the agent of change. It didn't matter what that change was, as long as it didn't have anything to do with Bush. No specifics on the promises, just promises, just words said from the podium to fill that imagined need. Also, because our society has been moving towards government dependency and entitlement, any promise Obama made was more palatable to the general population.

Obama's marketing team also took advantage of his packaging, that he would be the first Black President, that he is more intelligent and articulate than Bush, and that he's young. They've also priced him well: tax cuts for the middle and lower class, tax hike for the rich, and relief programs for the poor. As the candidate with the most money spent on a campaign, it's no wonder that he would win.

I'm disappointed in McCain's marketing strategy. Then again, I really can't blame him. There were way too many factors against him. His campaign wasn't smart enough to deal with the media's bias and the culture's already ingrained antipathy towards Bush. Then again, Bush's public relations team did not do a good job at all in defending him well these past eight years. Instead, they allowed the liberal media to walk all over them. Bush took the high road, but at a great price. Most people don't take the time to research politics - they just watch or read what's readily available. Of course, now everyone will have to pay the price and those who elected Obama will realize it sooner or later.

As the new Commander-in-Chief, I have a duty to submit to Obama's authority. I won't agree with him, but he will be my President. I'm hoping that his progressive views would allow him to be more malleable over the course of his term. If so, it is imperative that Christians and conservatives rise up and make a huge effort in letting him know that we've not left the building. We're now more emboldened than ever to bring actual change to our nation, our society, and our culture.

It will only be four years. I can only hope the damage won't be too extensive.

First Responder

2008-11-04T23:40:00.004-05:00

My wife's brother was the first to respond to the letter we sent out. His response is the comment in the "Important Election Reminder" entry. This is my response:

Excellent response, Jesse! Thank you for contributing! I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to discuss. Know that in my response, I have no animosity towards you or anything against you. This is merely an open discussion where we will allow our views to be known and done with utmost respect for each other. I mean, how often do we talk about more in-depth issues anyway? I love good discussions and I hope you do too. I find them challenging and exciting and will either solidify or change our perspectives.

First, I'd like to say that I too believe that no political candidate is the solution to the ills of society, nor are they supposed to be depended on to provide the means to create a better world. Yes, God is the one who places whoever He wants on the political stage. No matter how much we vote, it's God who has the final say. And, like you said, "as Christians we should be involved in everyday life through conversations that challenge our thinking, through helping those that need help, and through talking to our elected leaders about issues we feel are important." But as Christians, we have a duty to be part of the society we live in, to be salt and light in the world, even in matters of political duty. We're going to have to disagree on this election's level of importance. Yes, the world will go on and things are cyclical, but the decisions that will be made by Obama will have consequences that are unacceptable to me. (Warning: this one's a little long.)

Let's talk specifics: Between 1999 to 2003, Obama voted "present" or "no" for the bans on partial-birth abortions, born-alive protection and related issues, which is nothing more than political strategy. A "no" vote wouldn't be politically expedient, so most of the time he voted "present." The bills banning PBA provided for the life of the mother and for the health of the mother, contrary to Obama's beliefs. PBA actually increases the likelihood for a woman's health to deteriorate. To ban the procedure altogether would be better for the woman and the child. Medically speaking, there is no need for PBA. Women who have had it did not have health- or life-threatening causes, but they elected to have the procedure. Those with non-elective reasons cited depression as their "health-related" cause. The only threat was emotional! They simply didn't want to take on the responsibilities that go with the baby. He may say that PBA is wrong, but it has not and will not ever come out in his policy decisions. The reason why he didn't support the ban was because he believes in a woman's right for reproductive choice. He didn't look into the medical issues involved and so made the decision in ignorance. If he truly knew about the medical issues with the convictions that he had and still decided against banning PBA, then he did it out of political maneuvering and is simply disingenuous. I do give him credit for at least allowing the possibility that abortion laws may change, but he also promised to pass a Freedom of Choice Act, which will only continue to increase the abortion rate in this country. So he's either lying or just saying things for the sake of political expedience.

And of course, abortion is only the symptom, but it is not rooted in poverty or even lack of education - it is rooted in cultural acceptance through effective marketing. Planned Parenthood has been very active with this since the 1940s and others have followed suit under the banner of "women's rights." Margaret Sanger even wrote "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Yeah, you can find that in publicly accessible archives. (Birth-control advocates try to minimize the meaning of what she wrote in that letter, but in context, Sanger was still talking about limiting the population of the poor.) Christians are already caring for those who have to deal with the abortion question. And there are Christians who go through legal means as well, who want to curb or even overturn Roe vs. Wade. A whole lot more is going on than what the media has presented.

"We've had a pro-life president for the last 8 years and the number of abortions has not decreased one bit."

I'm going to have to disagree with that statement. Roe vs.Wade was such a powerful decision that no president can decrease the consequences of that ruling. At least G Dubya did his best to restrict abortion, starting with the 2003 Partial-birth abortion ban. He gladly signed it into law, among other things he tried to do concerning abortion. In fact, I'm in the middle of writing a response to the Burnside article you sent. I'm not sure where you get your information, but I'm relieved to know you took that piece with a grain of salt because Mr. Miller sounded like he didn't do too much research as reflected in his answers. My article will be posted soon.

Concerning the poor, Jesus said we'll have the poor with us always. In context he spoke of his upcoming crucifixion, but I'm sure he was also talking about one plain truth: there will always be poor people, both spiritually and economically, no matter what time period or culture. And the government is not responsible for them, we are. Jesus exemplified this by helping the poor as an individual without the need for government intervention. And he didn't approach local government to force the rich young ruler to give. Paul even instructed wealthy individuals to give directly to the poor. He didn't say to give to government so they in turn can give to the poor. We already have some government programs to provide for the poor. But no matter how many programs are made to alleviate poverty, they will not get rid of the problem. Individuals and private industry have historically been the most successful at alleviating poverty, not government. It's good that Obama is going to follow through with Bush's faith-based initiative of rewarding those who fight poverty. Government should work with the private sector to deal with poverty and motivate them to do so. But it is not good if Obama thinks his Robin Hood economic policies will improve the situation. The faith-based initiative to fight poverty is already a given for McCain.

Quickly, on taxes: 70% of income tax money already come from those making $150,000 or more, which is only about 10% of the population. And always be wary when politicians promise more of your own money. The government programs he proposes may help the poor, but guess where all that money is coming from? Government programs only increase taxes and it doesn't help everyone in the long run. It's a temporary salve, if it's even needed, and must be replaced by private sector activities or else it increases the power of government.

On war: War is horrible. But, that's the government's job, not ours. They wield the sword and God gave them the power to do so. (There's the issue of the US being a radically different country than any other country in history, but that's another issue.) We can protest the war and I know for darn sure Christians were split in many ways because of it. There wasn't a monolithic stance from the evangelicals, I can assure you of that. I support it because it's a just war and there have been significant developments since its inception. The media made it out to be another Vietnam when it clearly isn't. (That's also another issue.) Annually, nearly 1 million babies in the US are killed in abortion since 1973 compared with about nearly 700,000 killed total from both sides in the Afghanistan/Iraq wars since 2001. Both are horrible, but the rate of the former is absolutely unacceptable. At least in Afghanistan and Iraq, the death toll decreased dramatically in the past two years. I can't say the same about abortion.

"Citizenlink does not have a corner on truth."

I agree, Citizenlink doesn't have a corner on truth, but they do have a lot of facts which reflect truth. And we only provided those resources to make it easier on the email recipient. I use lots of resources from both Christian and secular, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. After doing the research, my vote, even though I'm reluctant, goes to McCain because Obama's history and promises do not reflect my values. McCain isn't much of a choice either because he only recently grew a spine when it was clear he was going to be the Republican Presidential candidate. Before, he wanted to please everyone with the facade of "unity" and "reaching across the aisle" which is synonymous with another phrase - "selling out." Between the two, though, I believe McCain will make the decisions with the consequences that I can handle.

Obviously you're voting for Obama, but I'm just asking you to continue to look a little deeper into the issues than what you've read so far, even after Nov. 4.

545

2008-11-03T11:33:00.003-05:00

This is a nice quick summary of the true responsibilities of politicians. This is not meant to be a poli-sci research paper, so specifics of how things are done are not mentioned or explained in detail. The article is also old, most likely from the mid to late '80s, but the principles are legitimate and the examples can be replaced with present politicians and issues. In the end, the blame really rests on the voters who didn't do the necessary research into their political representative and who didn't quite get how this country works.

The 545 People Responsible For All Of America's Woes

by Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O'Neill (Pelosi) is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon (Iraq), it's because they want them in Lebanon (Iraq).

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

(This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper)

Important Election Reminder

2008-11-02T17:42:00.003-05:00

My wife decided to write an election reminder for the people in our lives. I thought it was also a good way to introduce my blog, rather than just doing a general invite like I originally wanted.

Hello all,

Election day is almost here, and we want to take this opportunity to share with you our beliefs regarding this election. As we all know, so many issues of great importance are facing our country right now. For us, the most important issue is preserving life at all stages. Because we believe in this so strongly, we are requesting that you cast your ballot for the candidate that is most closely pro-life, John McCain.

In America, we legally kill about one million babies per year. While we have great compassion for those facing a difficult situation, the one who is innocent should not be forced to make the ultimate sacrifice by losing their life before they were even able to speak. There are so many resources and alternatives available to a woman besides abortion that should be promoted instead. While there are many very important issues at stake, such as taxes, international issues and healthcare, how the next President's policies affect our personal finances, international relations, etc are secondary issues compared with the abortion issue.

The following resources explain in more depth why we have made this choice. We understand that not everyone may agree with us, and we respect everyone's opinion. The only thing we ask is that you take a few minutes to read the articles and watch the videos and inform yourself before voting. Every vote counts, and we are privileged in this country to live in freedom and to have the right to vote.

Thank you and God Bless!

Article: Obama's Abortion Extremism by Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000008450.cfm

Video: Vote Your Values (4 mins) http://www.citizenlink.org/videofeatures/A000008556.cfm

Website: General election information and more http://www.citizenlink.org/

If you'd like, please forward these resources to others!

Invitation and Instructions

2008-11-02T16:58:00.006-05:00

I planned to send this to a number of people through email, but my wife decided to write an election reminder email and we thought it was best to put a link to my blog from there instead:

Hello there!

You are cordially invited to my blog, the 12th Letter. I thought I'd give a formal invitation to more people on my address list, so if you received a link to my blog already from a previous message, then I thank you for being patient with me.

I'm inviting you because I don't get to talk with many of you and I would like to hear your thoughts on certain issues. Of course, if you would rather not comment publicly, I wouldn't mind getting private comments through email. I discuss many topics in my articles, but the majority of them concern politics, philosophy, religion, science, and martial arts.

I want this blog to have a civil atmosphere, so please respond respectfully to other commentators. You can definitely make your position known, especially since I write about the more incendiary topics. Yes, I have very opinionated articles, but like any editorial or op-ed, it's supposed to stimulate thought and discussion. I'm fully aware that there are some of you I invited who do not have the same belief system I do or you may have the same belief system but have different nuances to it. I'm applying the principle "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" and know that this is all about reasoned discussion among the people in my life, which is something I enjoy and I hope you will too.

If you want to make a comment, click on the title of the blog article. The next page will show the article by itself with a comment box on the bottom.
1) Post your comment in the comment box.
2) Click on the "Select Profile" drop-down arrow, and select "Name/URL," write your name, and click "Continue."
3) Click on "Post Comment" then you'll have to pass a simple anti-spamming check window: Enter the word verification password they provide and click on "Finish."

If your comment is long and you don't want to lose it, my suggestion is to write it on Word or Notepad first then copy and paste into the comment box. The simplest way to post a comment is to email it to me and tell me that you want it posted in response to a particular article.

And if you want to receive updates in email form, just respond with a reply and I'll keep you on the list. Or, if you want to do a feed or a subscription, there are different RSS feeds on the sidebar and Atom is at the very bottom of the blogpage.

Hope to hear from you!

Read my friggin' lips

2008-10-31T18:59:00.003-04:00

Since the Presidential race is all about the economy now, might as well make a comparison between the two proposed tax plans. To be fair, I'll provide two links, one from a more conservative site and another from a more liberal site.

Do you prefer an uncontrollable, growth-oriented economy or do you prefer a controlled and secure, slow-moving economy? Do you prefer government's hands off the money (or as little as it should) or do you prefer government to control the money?

Research fast! You only have 4 days left!

A Supersession discussion on CNBC?

2008-10-27T12:37:00.013-04:00

Ann Coulter discussed theological issues on TV that isn't easily understood by the masses. I don't want to make an indictment on people's intelligence, but not too many are educated in theology with its different terminology and its definitions. In an interview with Donny Deutsch on CNBC, she did not do well in defending the Biblical position on the Jewish-Christian relationship. She sounded so ill-informed about Christianity and it was clear to me that she was also influenced by more liberal theologians. I'm a fan of Coulter so to hear her fumble like this is disappointing. Here are some parts:

(Emphases by Foxnews.com. Parentheses mine.)

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —

DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

(And that is one example of how NOT to invite someone to church!)
...
COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —

COULTER: Yeah.

(I admire people who are direct and I'm glad she answered succinctly, but she should have been more specific. She should have said, "No, we don't throw Judaism away, Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. And besides, Judaism and Jewishness is cultural and does not have anything to do with how a person becomes a Christian."

...

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners —

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there's no —

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself —

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

(Ooh, ouch, never say "Jews need to be perfected" in a post-Holocaust world. The exact theological term is "fulfilled" or "completed." And even then, she had to make a huge qualifying explanation of what fulfilled means or else it would also be misunderstood. And she had to say that the NT talks about all mankind, including Jews, needing the perfection of Christ because we can't be perfect on our own. And then she would've had to say that Christ is the perfect one, not us.)
...

COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that's what you said — don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK —

COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.

(Ugh, once again she should have made the distinction between Judaism as being a culture and Christianity as being a decision regardless of culture. No, I'm not a perfected Jew. I have the inheritance of Abraham, the promise of Jesus, given to both the Jews and Gentiles, but the majority of Christians are Gentiles, not Jews. Fulfilled in Christ, yes, but Jewish, no. Jews who believe in Christ, now those are the fulfilled Jews. And following the Law isn't what God asks from anyone in order to get into heaven. As far as I can tell, Falwell wouldn't make the boneheaded error of saying that Jew or Gentile would go to heaven by following the Law. I'm sure he was a better theologian than that. If Coulter was so upfront about her Christianity, she should have said that it is only through faith in Jesus, His atoning sacrifice and victorious resurrection, that God sees as acceptable, nothing else. She seriously needs better training.)

...

As Christians, we have a message that is already a stumblingblock to the Jews. We have to communicate it well enough so that we don't give them a reason to reject our message. What we do, who we are, our attitude, our behavior, our bad misunderstanding of Biblical principles should take a backseat. If they are to reject at all, they should reject only Jesus Christ, not Jesus plus newbie Christian with a bad attitude. The Christian should be loving and truthful, that's it. Coulter did not represent Christ nor the Christian perspective well in the interview. We've all made the mistake of not representing Christ well, I know I have on several occasions. But because she's a public figure, she bears a greater responsibility for her words. I can only hope she makes up for it in some way in the future.

Sneaky Usurpations

2008-10-24T13:17:00.008-04:00

"Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last."
- Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964

I'll let Ronald "The Great Communicator" answer the question on Healthcare. This was done in 1961, supported by the American Medical Association.

A few quotes from the recording:

"Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program..."

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project..."

"All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won't decide, when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do."

A few of his specific examples were old school, but the principles are still sound. Now compare those principles with the healthcare plans of McCain and Obama and see whose is less sneaky. Research quickly! There're only 11 days left.

PMABM Newsletter #9

2008-10-24T01:12:00.003-04:00

Weigh in on this:
Fight Club for Geeks
The video is just below the article.

Some things to think about: Where do you draw the line between realistic training and animalistic brawling? Is there a line? How do you train for reality as safely as possible without taking away the "reality"? And it's good to train with improvised weapons, but is there a line to that as well, as in, when does it get just plain silly? Magazines are understandable, but toilet seats? Baking pans? Keyboards even?

Compare their group to the Dog Brothers. Here's the video from PMABM Newsletter #2. Which group do you prefer? Is one better than the other? What are some aspects that both share? This is a little harder: what are their differences? And is this truly reality training? When two (or more) fighters face each other for planned, ritualistic combat, does it prepare them for the surprise attack, which is what happens in real-life? Is it possible to blend the two in some kind of training exercise? Will self-defense training and sport training always be on two totally different worlds? Can you even consider their training as sport? And as I already stated: is it even self-defense?

Here are more videos from the Silicon Valley fight club.

12 Days till the Election!

2008-10-23T00:27:00.004-04:00

This takes some time to watch, but I'll list it all down. Also, comments in parentheses by kathy of Conservative Thoughts.

On the twelfth day of Christmas, the liberals gave to me:

* Twelve senators failing (12 Democrats up for re-election in 2008)
* Eleven percent approval (Lowest rating ever)
* Ten paychecks burning (Because of Democrat record tax hike)
* Ninety thousand freezing (Amount of money found in Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) freezer)
* No more secret ballots (Big Labor payback for union bosses)
* $700 billion in new spending (Paid for with the largest tax hike in history)
* Six troop funding cuts (Playing political theater with the safety and security of our nation and our troops)
* Hillary’s Woodstock Museum! (What better way to spend a million dollars?)
* Four bucks a gallon (Not a single energy bill passed to help lower gas prices)
* Al Franken ranting (Angry Hollywood liberal)
* Two liberal Udalls (Mark in Colorado and Tom in New Mexico)
* And a tax hike for every family! (Thanks Democrats)

I'll have a few of my own 12 Days as well.

And in the darkness, bind them

2008-10-22T17:04:00.005-04:00

I have now crowned The History channel as the new Discredit the Bible channel. Earlier this week I saw a documentary on the Lost Books of the Bible. The main book in question was the Testament of Solomon. In it, the narrator referred to the account of Jesus casting out a demon from a man.

A few scholars interviewed attested that, while in the middle of an exorcism, Jesus said, "One greater than Solomon is now here," talking about himself. The narrator asked, "Why did Jesus say this while in the middle of an excorcism?" Both scholar and theologian then began to answer the question. They believed that Jesus was referencing the Testament of Solomon, a rejected book of the Bible. Even though the Testament was a Christian era book, its story was accepted in Jewish culture in Jesus' time. The Testament told the story of King Solomon when he fashioned a spiritually empowered ring and forced Beelzebub and his demons to build the Temple in Jerusalem. In the documentary, there was this cheesy scene with a Middle-eastern looking king commanding these demons with a bright ring on his finger. One of the scholars recited the Elvish poem from Lord of the Rings, so that it sounded like the Testament story was some proto-Tolkien Jewish myth. Scholar and narrator proceeded to say that Jesus was referring to this story about Solomon and that Jesus himself believed it to be true. "So why was it taken out of the Bible?" they asked. At that point, I turned off the TV because it was just that dumb.

I read the passage in question found in Matthew12:22 - 42 and Luke 11:14 -32 and I chuckled. There was a whole documentary, including a book, that was based on a misreading of Scripture? I guess that's typical of what the world has to offer. In the passage, Jesus exorcised a demon and the Pharisees condemned him for it, saying Jesus was using Beelzebub to cast out demons. Guess what? The Pharisees were the ones who believed the Testament of Solomon was true, not Jesus! Jesus responds with the "house divided against itself cannot stand" answer. And even after Jesus performs the exorcism miracle and gives an intellectual answer, they had the audacity to ask him to perform more miracles for them. It's at that point when Jesus spoke of Solomon (and Jonah), but in context he was talking about the Pharisees' lack of belief that he was the prophesied Messiah. He said "the queen of Sheba herself will condemn this generation for not believing." But he said this in the same conversation after the exorcism, so when Jesus said that he was "greater than Solomon," he was most likely playing on the Pharisees' stronger belief in cultural folklore than in the Messianic prophecies found in the Tanakh.

Nobody Messes with John McCain!

2008-10-21T03:46:00.013-04:00

Hi, I'm Hayden Panettiere and I'm hot enough to say anything and have dumb-schmucks believe me. In all my 19 years on this Earth, I know all that there is to know about American politics. My home-schooling has trained me for the intellectual rigors of commenting on the Presidential race. I'm well-versed in international politics also, having fought those evil Japanese fishermen and their dolphin hunting. I was even awarded by those wonderful animal freaks from PETA.

Now that we've established my credibility, I'd like to say that I will only vote for a Presidential candidate who will treat his position as on-the-job training, so he could develop to his full potential. I hope you would vote for a man who has a questionable U.S. citizenship status because that only means he'll do well in international relations. I mean, I would be very diplomatic with foreign world leaders as well who want to destroy whole countries! I'd pander to their needs any day!

I want a leader who allows me to suck on the teats of government as it carries me from the cradle to the grave. Since I am a citizen, it is my right to be told by the government what I can or can't do and I want my new President to afford me more of those rights. Change is what we truly need in this country. Over time, I can only hope that this change would take as much money from me as possible so that there will be no more rich people and everyone will be middle-class. As citizens, we should be entitled to the best that the rich have to offer and give it to anyone making less than $50,000, including dead-beat dads who don't like to work because they get too much unemployment.

I know my choice for President will do his best to change America. And we will be there to unite with him as he runs it into the ground!

A Nice Proposal

2008-10-10T13:00:00.013-04:00

Here's a common-sense approach to taking care of this whole bail-out debacle.

I don't usually like posting e-mail forwards, especially when the math is wrong, but I thought this was quite an interesting proposal for the bail-out. I wish it was this much. Hey, if the gov is going socialist, why not go for broke (like every other socialist country)? Really, if the entire $700 billion was used, it would come out to about $5,900 per fed tax payer. May not be half a mil, but it's better than a grand that a certain Presidential candidate is proposing:

A Better Bail-out Plan
by Troy LaMana

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We Deserve It Dividend'. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bon-a-fide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00...

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your
family?...

(Or $3,000 to $6,000 out of the $700 billion if the math was done correctly. Or, assuming they give to those who pay their taxes, which is about 59% of the entire population, then it would be about $5,900 for a single person, $11,800 for married.)

Interesting thought, but I know it wouldn't happen.

King and Crisis

2008-10-02T23:17:00.011-04:00

Who caused this mortgage mess?

People like to play the blame game, especially in a crisis. I'm not into playing blame games, I'm into investigating the truth. Several factors come into effect in incidents like these. No one side, no one person, is the cause. To think that any one person (or Administration in many people's minds) caused this mess is to betray petty, narrow-minded thinking. There were a number of significant nudges and pushes that inevitably brought down the house.

Someone recently noted that "the single biggest piece of legislation that has led to the financial collapse we're seeing now is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. It was rushed onto Bush's desk a few days after the Supreme Court appointed that clown to the Oval office." Once again, petty, narrow-minded thinking. The person who said this has such hatred for Bush that he can't even see past his psychosis. A little fact check goes a long way in not sounding like a wild-eyed liberal doofus: President Clinton was the one who signed CFMA 2000 into law, not Bush. And even then, CFMA 2000 was merely icing, not the cause of the problem. We can go all the way back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, but that was only the nudge. We'll have to find something recent and more directly connected to the crisis.

An article by Steven A. Holmes from September 1999 entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lendin g" mentioned several key ideas to the origins of this crisis. The New York Times is not the most conservative newspaper, so for it to have mentioned a Democrat party connection to the mess is at least being truthful and fair to the issue.

Some of the more interesting parts (emphases mine):

"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits...

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry...

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants."

(Side note: the economic boom of the 1990s was the result of Reaganomics. Politics 101 - Each Presidential administration receives the blessings or the curses of a previous administration's actions. The Clinton admin boom years were merely the result of Reagan admin's actions.)

So, really, the question is: What caused this mortgage mess? The cause was the culture of the time, an overcorrection if you will, of people's behavior, otherwise known as political correctness. Because of the strong desire for racial equality, especially after Rodney King and the L.A. riots, there seemed to be this nationwide need to be respectful to your fellow man. Racial discrimination is evil and being disrespectful to others is never good, but the response going the opposite direction was so extreme that the nation fell off the other side of the horse. Too much kumbaya, not enough common sense. In ignorance, government followed suit and equated risky lending with racial equality. Note to government: It's good to work on racial equality, bad to be stupid with money. Too little too late, unfortunately.

Now about the bailout: Do I agree with it? No. Is it necessary? Maybe. I absolutely hate it when government meddles with private sector business, even quasi-private like the FMs. But both parties took the chance nearly ten years ago and now we're all paying for it. As McCain said, this is only a tourniquet. Who would've known that government wasn't sure what would happen if it pointed a loaded gun at its foot then pulled the trigger. We'll see if Adam Smith's principles work even with massive government intervention like this. Can the invisible hand of a free market be led by the folly of statesmen? Ready to roll-over, Mr. Smith?

I guess it's time to sit back and see how another invisible hand will guide this process along.

Palin for President!

2008-10-01T11:39:00.007-04:00

At first, I thought, What? An Alaskan governor? A virtual unknown? John really blew it this time! And who's he trying to pick up, Hillary voters? That will definitely make me not want to vote this time around.

I was disappointed enough that McCain was chosen as the GOP pick, I lost hope when I heard the announcement for his VP pick. I even told my wife how disappointed I was in how this was all turning out. Just before Palin got up for her acceptance speech, I was really skeptical and was ready to critique every line. A brunette Hillary the way McCain is a wannabe Democrat, wonderful!

After a ho-hum introduction about her life, she started to give a number of zingers against Obama. That got my attention! And then she kept going! This is definitely not Hillary! Instead of criticizing her, I found myself cheering her on! Not only that, but I started to see why McCain chose her. Hm, open-mouth-insert-foot time. Talk about a good first impression! I've always been for people who do what's right and go against the world's culture, or in this case, who go against power-hungry, money-grubbing politicians. I'm glad she didn't make many promises. What I got from her speech was an attitude of defiance against the status quo, who would take back America from those who think that greater government involvement is the answer.

Forget McCain! I'm voting for Palin.

Now with my new found energy for the election, I've been following it more closely. What got me was when Katie Couric interviewed Palin a few days ago. Couric asked Palin which Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with besides Roe vs. Wade. Palin began to work her way through an answer, but she started to fumble and then regained her composure by focusing on those decisions that supported the power of the States rather than the Federal government. She didn't bring up an example, which I can understand. Who keeps a list of Supreme Court decisions in their mind anyway? And even then, the only one I could think of off the top of my head was Brown vs. Board of Education, and that's one I agree with! (Given a little time, I recalled a couple more, but I was hazy on what they specifically talked about.) When I looked at Couric's face, I knew she wanted to make a fool out of Palin. This was most likely Couric's way to get back at Republicans after the whole Biden fiasco when he said that people saw Roosevelt on TV during the Great Depression. Now that was an actual mistake on his part, he volunteered to look like an idiot! Couric simply had it in for Palin and got her back. Cheap shot!

If I was in Palin's position, I would've responded like this:
"Hm, at this moment, I can't recall any, although I do remember studying many cases in high school and college. I've been busy as a mother and as a governor, I haven't had time to refresh my memory. Since I'm not one to play trivia games especially in interviews, I'll just have to get back to you on those. What I do know is that I disagreed with those decisions, like Roe vs. Wade, that gave more power to the Federal government and took away the power of the States and the people, a clear violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments..."

I can only hope Palin keeps up that tough yet classy attitude.

What I felt like saying

2008-09-16T16:00:00.003-04:00

I've stopped debating with the evolutionist because he was not the challenge that he made himself out to be. Also, I don't have much time to do email debates at this point in my life. I didn't send my response because it seemed too obnoxious and I didn't want to lower myself to his level. But sometimes it's fun to get down and dirty. This blog will be the only place I will put this response.

The evolutionist:

Here is a quick write up on fossil formation. I think it goes a long way on explaining the shortage of certain types of life in the fossil record.
http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html

What I wanted to send, but thought was best not to:

I used to read this kind of information when I was nine years old! If you were serious about this link, then you've just betrayed your lack of scientific training. This is not the kind of information that you'd give to serious, science-oriented adults. Yes, it's easy to fool children with the idea that decomposing bodies in the water are buried over a period of time and then become fossilized. If you didn't catch it earlier, there is no shortage of fossils, just a shortage of fossils that support evolutionary theory.

I've come to the conclusion that you don't seem to read too well, that you don't catch context and details. You assume too much or at worst, twist things irrationally. To debaters, that's usually a sign of desperation. At this point, I won't continue on the grounds that you are plugging your ears and saying lalala, intellectually speaking that is, and I also have to lay off from this discussion indefinitely because of my busy schedule. I'm not conceding, of course. Believe me, I enjoy this stuff. I just find it frustrating to seriously discuss matters, not because you stump me. Far from it. I find that you are uninformed of the issues and intricacies involved in this debate and I'm not one to teach the basics to my opponent. You've proven to me that you're a neophyte and, sadly, one that's totally indoctrinated by an emaciated public education system.

Once again, I have nothing against you. I'll play games with you, I just won't discuss serious scientific issues with you.

Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 4)

2008-08-23T15:55:00.002-04:00

The evolutionist:

If you want specific replys to some of the issues raised here, we will need to break it up some. But I will try to address the items below. Intelligent design and creationism are one in the same. The same people are involved in the same organizations. The only difference is that some of them shy away from saying God when they reference an 'intelligent designer'. Find me one of these 'scientists' who would be comfortable with the the 'intelligent designer' being called Allah, and I will believe you. In fact, I think I would be much closer to believing that you believe in 'intelligent design' if we agreed from on use the term Allah whenever we reference the 'intelligent designer'.

I have re-read every e-mail you have sent me, and there was no link to anything, so I don't know what you mean when you say I have not looked into 'the resource' you suggested. Unless you want me to read entire book you mentioned. Which I have not done. As to the two websites. The Discovery Institute and AllAboutGod. And guess what, two of the three links you sent me lead right back there. The third one was PBS. Which was very useful (I read all three). It exactly coincides with what I was saying about punctuated evolution, and how it is perfectly compatible with Darwin's thought, and with current evolutionary thought. Thank you, I hope Peter read it too.

I am confused at your conclusion since this article clearly reinforces my original statement. In fact, it says that speciation can occur in a matter of tens of thousands of years, which thought anyway but didn't want to freak you out with that suggestion. The 1 million years was enough to get you foaming at the mouth. I will get back to you on how fossils are formed. I need to find some good articles on the subject, because my memory of stuff I have read before isn't specific enough to tell you right where to go. Although I think it would be as easy for you to find as me. I am just going to go to some scientific organzation websites and some science journals and see what turns up from a general search.

Imperfect fossil record. Let me get this right, you will only accept evolution when we have a 'perfect' fossil record? That is what you require? Because if you can accept only perfect historical evidence, than we might have all kinds of problems here with the bible. There are many, many transitional forms of fossils. I will find some articles about that too.

Please don't pull up the same Darwin quote that Pete did. That only makes it so obvious that the objections come from the same small self-referencial community. Again, that quote is a rhetorical question that he answers in the book. For confimation, please refer to the same article you just sent me on punctuated evolution.

Me:

Thank you for your response, it was slightly more courteous and I appreciate it. I was almost finished writing my response when I began to read some of your exchanges with the others from this past week. I think I may be repeating some things. Hope you all don't mind. Warning: this one's long:

G. Simpson's phrase "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind" is not merely one man's thought, but the very basis for your naturalist materialistic presupposition. I'm in the middle of writing a comment to your "Viewpoints" response to Pete which should help us get down to the root issue.

The Discovery Institute and AllAboutGod. That's funny, I don't normally use those two websites when I debate. I didn't know about AllaboutGod until I started following this thread. I simply wanted to show you there are scientists who believe in Intelligent Design. But it's understandable that DI pops up: it's because they're the lead organization of this movement. And if you're still not convinced there are credible scientists who believe in ID, here's an official list (and I doubt all are creationist Christians):
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Sorry to use DI's website, but just wanted to show you that there is an actual growing list and there are many more scientists being added as we speak. Even from the Muslim world. Here are a couple of Muslim scientists who believe in Intelligent Design:

Dr. Iqbal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffar_Iqbal - unfortunately, you may see his name on the dissenters list on DI, a site you don't like. But you wanted ID from the Islamic world, so here's one. More will be added soon by the way.
Dr. Torla Hassan http://research.iiu.edu.my/cluster/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=27 and I'm sure most of the professors at that Islamic school are ID supporters/creationists. As a default, Muslims are creationists.

Intelligent design and creationism are one in the same. The same people are involved in the same organizations.

Now you're simply being obstinate. It seems you're not very careful with what you read. In your stubborness and haste to defend evolution, you get a little sloppy. Once again, you make it obvious you don't see the differences between ID and Creationism. Please read more about these differences. To start you off, I'll give you a website, not related to DI or AllaboutGod, just to be fair to you:

The definitions are to the middle of the page to the right under the title Who's What? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm

Let me make this as simple as possible: just because some websites have links to DI and use each other's information, does not make them the same entity. And also, it seems you haven't read into the biography of at least one of those two ID scientists. Dr. Sternberg is an evolutionist who believes there was an intelligent first cause, and that's it. I didn't check to see if he is a Christian or even a creationist, you can help me with that if you want. But I know he is open to the idea that Nous began all things. As far as I can tell, that's not all too Christian, because there's more to God than just the Great Mind. Dr. Sternberg is a fellow with ISCID and a signatory for DI's dissent from random-chance evolution but is not affiliated with creationists and still considers himself an old Earth biological evolutionist. From your statements, you have programmed yourself to believe ID is a cover for creationism or at least that it's a variant called neo-creationism. It may have been started by a Christian, but it is definitely not Christian. Many people are confused about it because there are so many different ways to go about intelligent design. A Hindu can be an ID supporter as easily as a Christian. Or, agnostics like Darwin and Berlinski. And just because a PA court defined ID as a progeny of creationism, doesn't mean it's true. Just shows state courts aren't the most reliable places to define movements of scientific thought. If you can't make sense of it yet, please accept it for now. As we continue to dialogue, I hope it will click for you. Let's continue with more important points.

Constantly varying speciation is true below the order level, that's observable, a reason why most creationists will say microevolution is science-based theory, since Darwin was mostly talking about his observation of change in species. I can't agree on what he couldn't observe or find in the fossil record of a major phylum shift, which was more of a guess on his part. But then again, the term "species" (and sometimes genus and family) isn't even agreed on among evolutionists. I hate using wikipedia, but this sums it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

And here's another from the American Scientist:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2005/7/attacks-on-taxonomy

Please make sure to carefully read the links I send because you seem to be missing out on certain details which doesn't help your argument. I'm even willing to place the excerpt in this message if that will help. I just wanted you to read it in context.

It exactly coincides with what I was saying about punctuated evolution, and how it is perfectly compatible with Darwin's thought, and with current evolutionary thought.

Well, yeah, no kidding it's not going to be drastically different from evolution because punc eq is still evolution! I was pointing out the differences of emphasis from Darwin to today, which you didn't catch. Remember, the link I gave you about punc eq was only a short summary, not the complete explanation. Punc Eq is a change or improvement from Darwin's assertion, "of slow and gradual modification, through variation and natural selection. New species have appeared very slowly, one after another, both on the land and in the waters." It's the assertion "slow gradual change" vs. "rapid burst" that you missed. You may have missed this part: "In many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record has lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete (aka imperfect, Darwin's term). That is certainly true in many cases, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are small (this sentence is an assumption and a cop out that Darwin made, although he was hoping for more evidence). But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation (emphasis mine), which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind."

And 150 years later, there is still a lack of a fossil record. Unlike most evolutionists, Gould at least questions the theory when it's challenged by the evidence, which is why he and Eldredge presented punc eq. One of the many disadvantages to their theory is that higher percentages of deleterious mutations occur within a smaller population. (For reference please see M. E. Soulé, et al, "No Need to Isolate Genetics," Science, Vol. 282 (1998), p. 1658, who points out the grad/punc difference by saying "No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Some of Soule's ideas runs counter to other evolutionists, though, and that's a whole other issue I'm not about to get into.)

More from other scientists: Todd's article "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship," American Zoologist, vol. 26, no. 4, 1980, p. 757

"All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?"

From Wesson's Beyond Natural Selection (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991) p. 45.

"The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."

I'm sorry to disappoint you on the Darwin quote, it was from a chapter in OotS. I must have missed Pete's email on that. I'll give you another one if you'd like:

"If then, there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life. We ought only to look for a few links, some more closely, some more distantly related to each other; and these links, let them be ever so close, if found in different stages of the same formation, would, by most palaeontologists, be ranked as distinct species. But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory." (emphases mine)

Your comment about his statement being a rhetorical question is not accurate. In OotS, you will see that Darwin was being open about the possibility of a lack of evidence to alter his theory, what a good scientist should do. Of course, Darwin tried his best to reason away this lack in the two or so chapters after, and does something very unscientific: because the evidence doesn't clearly support his theory, he says the evidence must not be correct or is imperfect. He makes the mistake that evolutionists today tend to do - they place theory above observation (or wait indefinitely for the right evidence to come along, which may not. "But evolution must be true" and the circular reasoning goes round and round). As G. Simpson said, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything...or at the very least, they are not science." And that's one of many reasons why I don't believe in evolution - it is not science but a worldview.

Here is an even better quote. I made sure not to look at DI, AllaboutGod and my sources for this one, but from the book itself: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." These days, Darwin, who was an agnostic, could be technically labeled as an ID theorist, and some of them are agnostics and atheists.

And I gave you five links last time, not just three. The two links on fossilization are not connected to those dreaded "two websites." You may look for others if you'd like, but you will most likely find similar results. Don't worry, I don't freak out at suggestions, I merely respond with good reasoning.

I have re-read every e-mail you have sent me, and there was no link to anything, so I don't know what you mean when you say I have not looked into 'the resource' you suggested. Unless you want me to read entire book you mentioned. Which I have not done.

I wasn't talking about a link, I was talking about the Journal of Paleontology, which I mentioned in a previous email, but didn't specifically point out which issue. But thank you for being honest about not reading Darwin's book, if that was what you were referring to.

In fact, I think I would be much closer to believing that you believe in 'intelligent design' if we agreed from on use the term Allah whenever we reference the 'intelligent designer'.

Harty har! Cute phrase. But if you're serious, then you assume too much. I'm a creationist. ID is a different entity. No, the term God will suffice. If you knew the differences, the nuances, and the connotations, you'll understand.

In summary:
1) ID is different from Creationism.
2) There are legitimate and credentialed scientists in all three camps with their own journals.
3) Darwinism is still without good transition forms between phyla.

Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 3)

2008-08-23T12:45:00.001-04:00

The evolutionist:

The whole business about fossilization.Flora and fauna occur at radically different densities and of radically different types in different age rocks. Exactly as predicted in the evolutionary model. The part you left out about your evalution was the nature of the rock itself. Some types of rock are formed through creative destruction. It is broken up, remelted, puverized or otherwise completely reformed through geological processes. Other rock layers, formed through other processes, then presearved in its original state through shear luck, are presented to us intact. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have the right condition for fossilization to have occured millions of years ago when they were formed. These layers are indeed dense with life, while others, those that come to us through a destructive process, contain no traces. Just as would be predicted. I do not agree with the scenario you laid out before for fossilization, because it does not take into account this geological process.

Me:

Finally, I get the chance to do this again. Whoa, didn't realize you guys kept going, but here's my response to what Erich wrote last week. Hope you don't mind:

Geomorphism is good and fine, it's observable and can be tested (with the exception of age, which both camps differ). As I stated, though: How did the fossils get there? Not, how was it "preserved through the eons," but how did it get fossilized in the first place. There are so many fossils that were caused by permineralization and compression that "shear luck" can't really account for it. Besides, the "radically different" sentence about rocks is a given for both models (once again, with the exception of age). Geomorphism is a given. Please account for how the remains got there and instantiate your claims. And don't say that dinosaurs buried their dead!

And here's an excerpt from Raup's 'Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology' (and just in case you think this is from Creationist literature this is from Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29, pp.24-25)

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."

I'll include this train of thought in the next email.

Define discipline

2008-08-19T19:51:00.013-04:00

About a week ago, I heard a complaint made by a student from another school about my martial arts school. He said that our school is not the place to learn discipline and that it's best to go to his school instead. I'm not one to jump at every complaint made about me, especially if it's not legitimate. I'll take it into account, but I don't let those things bother me. But just in case my students need an idea of how to respond to people who make those comments, this entry gives an answer. Apparently, whoever made the complaint wasn't practicing discipline with his words:

My school does not teach traditional martial arts so it will not have the same formalities. Bowing and lining up in rank order is a fine practice. It's a good visual aid to a form of discipline, but it is not the discipline itself. One major philosophy in our school is practicality, so you will not see these forms like you see in traditional schools. Instead, there is more of an emphasis on personal responsibility. The teacher motivates the students to take initiative for their martial arts training and have the students pursue their own personal goals while maintaining the attitude of mutual respect. Both the teacher and the student work together to reach those goals and concurrently learn how to work with others to reach their goals.

Through the martial arts, students learn to abide by a code of conduct based on respect for the teacher, fellow students, and the art form. This is done through consistent direct communication of what is expected of them, which is all good and fine. But from my experience and observation, when the sensei or coach tells students what to do, and they do it, it's only discipline for that particular activity. The student did not necessarily transfer that discipline to other areas of life. The hope of "do what you're told" is that the habit of doing that activity would transfer to other areas, but that isn't always the case. In fact, for the most part, students become dependent on someone to tell them what to do rather than take initiative to do what's needed for them personally.
(There are those who come to resent the more demanding authority, also.)

"Over-reliance on extrinsic motivation leads to learned helplessness and learned dependence. Learned helplessness is a state in which the individual does not believe that she is capable of influencing important outcomes in her life. The more students’ behavior is determined by others’ directions and external inducements, the more the students will lose their sense of self-determination and self-efficacy" (Ylvisikar, Hibbard, and Feeney, Online).

Only few actually learn to internalize those discipline concepts and transfer them to other areas of life. I guide students to what they need to do and from there, they choose to do it. Instead of just telling them what to do, I take the extra step of letting them know how it applies to other life activities and to persistently persuade them to be more intrinsically motivated. They will choose to do what is demanded of them.

A second point to our method of discipline is that our school does not adhere to Confucian-influenced hierarchy. We do teach discipline, just not in the traditional Asian martial arts sense of the word. We respect the instructor because he is willing to give his knowledge and time to train the student and he is the authority in matters of coaching in the martial arts and various parts of life. In Confucian philosophy, the basis for respecting the instructor has more to do with filial piety, or ancestor worship. People are intuitively aware of a spiritual reality and most if not all cultures are naturally inclined to be superstitious. This means that "spirit" to the Confucian is not just the ideals, essence of philosophy, and personality of a dead person, but "spirit" means the soul, the very life-force of the person that continues on after death. Instead of submitting to authority out of simply respecting them because you seek their knowledge and experience, in Confucian-influenced societies, submitting to authority has more to do with respecting those "spirits", thus keeping order in a collective or else incur the wrath of your ancestors and the government. I have endeavored not to include any hint of Eastern spirituality or even hierarchy structure based on Eastern spirituality in my martial arts philosophy.

The best answer, of course, was made by one of my students:
"You've never practiced with us, so how would you know?"

Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 2)

2008-08-15T17:38:00.002-04:00

The evolutionist:

Intelligent Design is just a stupid cover term for Creationism. There is no scientific 'Intelligent Design' movement. Look into it, and it all leads back to the same two web sites run by non-sicentist Christians organizations pushing literal interpretation of the bible. And they are not "growing". The "many articles" again all lead back to the same place. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years. In the context of the age of the earth, this a mere blink of the eye. This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.

Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant. Or wait! Maybe the THOUSANDS of scientists that looked at this issue have all missed the explaination you have given below. Yeah, that;s it! That's the ticket! You have a grasp of the requirements for fossilization that TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientists who spend their whole lives studying this issue have not figured out! I strongly suggest you write an article for a real sicence journal (i.e. one that is not published by the same two web sites run by the same non-scientist Cristian organization pushing literal interpretation of the bible). This kind of new insight into the truth is exactly what the science world is always looking for. Except for the Satanists in the scientific world, who will work undercover to squash your ideas to keep their minions in line.

Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right. That would, indeed, require supernatural intervention of the Satanic kind.

Me:

Ah, it seems you've been listening to the National Center for Science Education who are on the defensive these days.

No, ID isn't a cover term. I had hoped you wouldn't say that because it would tell me you aren't knowledgeable of the intricacies involved in this hotly debated issue. If you've ever read anything from them, you'll see that not all are creationists. They have a variety of views and not all even acknowledge the God of the Bible. So unfortunately your statement disappointed me there. And yes, there are scientists in the intelligent design movement, but are just branded by the media as ignorant and vilified by the evolutionary dogmatists, who have a loud voice but no real evidential support. I guess you like to listen to good marketing. (My favorite evolutionary sales pitches are found on the Discovery channel.) It seems you really haven't taken the time to look into the resource I suggested. Don't worry, they're not the "two websites" that you keep harping on. What are those websites anyway? Yes, I use "two websites," but I also use several other websites and sources. Once again you have no backing to your claim that those "two websites" only employ "non-scientists." Your argument is weak. Please take the time to buttress your statements like I do mine.

Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant.

Please explain because you begin with an assertion but fail to give good follow-up reasoning. Your statement is incomplete. I know we're only having email discussions, but you can still provide examples like I did. My reasoning is based on scientific logic and observable phenomena. Yours? Sounds like parroted statements made by the more militant evolutionary dogmatists who, like you, say that evolution is true without good enough support to their statements. I'm also disappointed because you didn't honor me by responding with an example using scientific methodology, no matter how small, or even a good counterargument without resorting to unnecessary diatribe. And if you want credibility, here are a couple of Intelligent Design scientists, not to be confused with "non-scientist Christians" Jonathan Wells http://www.iconsofevolution.com/author/ and Richard Sternberg http://www.richardsternberg.org/biography.php

Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years.

This is another unsubstantiated statement. And yes I'm aware that evolutionists think it could be up to 1 million years, but not too much longer. They don't have the fossil record for it, which is why some even think it's much faster, even down to the tens of thousands of years. I don't usually like using websites like these as a resource, but make sure you look into this quick summary of punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html
Or if you've read anything by Gould you'll recognize this phrase when talking about punctuated equilibrium and the "imperfect fossil record" statement that Darwin had to fall back on in the 19th century: the imperfect record statement "still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly." I know he said that in the 1970s but it's still relevant today. Even though he was coming from an evolutionary standpoint and, in context, wanted to explain punctuated equilibrium, the fact remains, even by evolutionist standards: there are no good transition forms.

This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.

Darwin proposed gradualism and uniformitarianism, well-informed evolutionists these days accept otherwise (although that side is varied and a few try to synthesize). Darwin himself wrote in The Origin of the Species: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." For those who compare the fossil record and Darwin's theory, the record wins and Darwin's theory needs changing. It has been changed and revised since the 19th century by the way.

Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right.

Concerning my fossilization example, here are two sources to counter your not-too-well-cited and albeit, overgeneralized and weak statements: (No, they're not from those "two websites" and bold words are mine.)

From the New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fossil
"Permineralization fossilization - for permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process...Most dinosaur fossils that are found are permineralized."

From UCMP at Berkeley: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossils/
"There are many conditions that contribute to the formation of fossils. The most common include the possession of hard parts, such as a skeleton or shell, and a rapid burial after death. Besides being tough and hard, the organism must come to rest in a place where it can be buried before it decays or disintegrates. If the organism is not buried deeply and quickly, aerobic bacteria will reduce it to rubble."

I used to go to NYC's Museum of Natural History quite often and they display lots of fossils in a chaotic jumble. You will either accept that there was a massive burial of many different flora and fauna over "several geologic eras" or you will accept that there was only a small and limited amount of fossilized remains. The evidence of course points to the former. And no, not too many evolutionists will accept the simple fact that fossils with complex structures are found in all strata.

Oh, and I have both The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man in my personal library. I've read both (absolutely dull). Have you? From what I've read of your comments so far, it seems you have not. And it's disappointing that you haven't kept up with the most recent research, in the evolution camp, in the intelligent design camp, and in the creation camp.

And please, try not to get upset. I have nothing against you and I hope you have nothing against me. I'm having fun with this and I'm sure you are, too. I mean, it's highly entertaining to hear you talk of Satan and conspiracy theories, but it doesn't have any bearing on our discussion right now. We'll talk about spiritual issues, too, no doubt about that. But if you think this discussion is a joke and you'd rather not share in serious scientific inquiry, then I would have to bow out, since I can't waste my time. I need you to be a professional, science-minded adult while we discuss.

Let's get ready to rumble!

2008-08-14T17:50:00.001-04:00

This is a continuation of an email debate in the entry "Into the fray." I was in the middle of their conversation when I started to contribute my thoughts and arguments. I'll try my best to include previous emails, but I'm starting at the most recent conversation where the evolutionist was responding to Pete:

I addressed this in the other e-mail. Darwin's theory AS HE PROPOSED IT is valid. It is the working theory of all biology, as he proposed it. Nowhere will you find a repudiation of Darwin's original theory as he proposed it other than amoung the Creationists. Who don't believe it the original or what they imagine to be its modern version. Find me a real article saying that the theory has changed in any significant way from what Darwin said, and I will gladly chuck my 'faith' in what I have just said into the deep blue sea.

There is this one difference. If I find you reams of evidence repudiating the Creationist/Young Earth view, you would not give it up. The entire Scientific community stands against this idea, and you reject it. Tell me again who is clinging with a death grip to their irrational beliefs?

Me:

Hello all!

I guess I have a little time to respond to the most recent exchange. Once again, these are notes I made specifically to Erich's comments:

I addressed this in the other e-mail. Darwin's theory AS HE PROPOSED IT is valid. It is the working theory of all biology, as he proposed it. Nowhere will you find a repudiation of Darwin's original theory as he proposed it other than amoung the Creationists. Who don't believe it the original or what they imagine to be its modern version. Find me a real article saying that the theory has changed in any significant way from what Darwin said, and I will gladly chuck my 'faith' in what I have just said into the deep blue sea.

There is this one difference. If I find you reams of evidence repudiating the Creationist/Young Earth view, you would not give it up. The entire Scientific community stands against this idea, and you reject it. Tell me again who is clinging with a death grip to their irrational beliefs?

Yes, Darwin's theory is still being used today by evolutionist scientists. It is a working theory of those biologists who believe in it and would like to prove it (some researchers) or who are in the taxonomy related areas, not of the entire field of biology. It's in paleontology where evolution is used. For the most part, biologists in the field and in different industries don't deal with how something originated, just how something works at present. Darwin's original theory is now being repudiated among non-creationist scientists. You may have heard of the Intelligent Design movement - they are a growing number of scientists looking deeply into the mechanism of evolution and realizing the dearth in the theory's scientific plausibility. There are many articles showing that the theory has evolved to varying branches. Just look up articles in the Journal of Paleontology; I read those in place of sleeping pills. The most noteworthy is punctuated equilibrium, which is a departure from Darwin's original idea of phyletic gradualism, or slow, gradual change. The reason why this developed is because of a severe lack of transitionary forms in the fossil record. In fact, this development in evolutionary thought of rapid change in animal morphology is merely a step closer to help disprove evolution altogether. And I know there are people who have written reams of articles repudiating the creationist view, starting with Huxley. They simply don't want to accept it mainly because of pride but also of the ramifications if creationism true. They will deny the evidence even if it leads to the creationist or, at least, intelligence model.

Evolution I take on faith as much as I take just about any scientific theory. So if you want to say I have 'faith' in gravity, than yes I have 'faith' in evolution. As to it being "proven", the case is never closed on any scientific theory. That is the whole point of science. So, no, the case is not "proven" for evolution....or for gravity. And yes, information is forever changing and shifting, and damn glad of it. And yes, evolution is a theory to explain the workings of God. But God didn't write the Origin of the Species. So you can call evolution the creation of man, much as gravity is. Gravity existed before Newton identified its workings, mathmatetical underpinnings, and named it, but we have no proof that it existed before Newton, we just assume it.

I have faith that gravity exists because it's verifiable through repeated experimentation, as I mentioned in a previous email. The theory is law. I have faith that electromagnetism exists because it's verifiable through repeated experimentation. The theories proposed, mostly by Faraday, is law. I cannot physically see gravity nor electromagnetic forces, but they exist. But I don't have faith in evolution because it is not verifiable. Much like trying to prove the authenticity of historical papers, you have to use circumstantial evidence and deduction. Dating methods can give you an idea of when it was written, but you can only bring it down to a range and it can be unreliable. At least with historical documents, sometimes the writer mentions something that gives a good hint for the date. With evolution, there's more guesswork than science so the evidence does not prove the theory. What both creationists and evolutionists have to do is make an inference on what happened in the past using the scientific method, which includes observation and experimentation of present day processes to achieve consistent results. I know that's a very basic foundation and was mentioned in previous emails, but it bears repeating.

And evolutionary thought goes back to antiquity in ancient Greece, when a philospher proposed the idea that man came from animals. If anything, he could have been easily influenced by some Asian origins myths of animals becoming humans over a period of time, which are just as ubiquitous as origins myths with a creation theme. And if you're familiar with world myths, they are quite different from the Creation account of the Bible.

Your standard of proof is unreasonable. Evolutionary Theory predicts a certain set of evidence should exist. Evolutionary Theory predicts that certain processes should be in evidence today. Evolutionary Theory predicts that a certain set of parameters must exist and have existed in the past. All three of these conditions are met. There is abundant evidence about the abundance, variety, and transitory features organisims that existed in the past, there is abundant evidence of the workings of the processes in todays world, there is abundant evidence that the set of circumstances that are required exist and existed. I don't understand. WHAT KIND OF "PROOF" ARE YOU DEMANDING?

This is certainly far, far more rigourous than what "proof" you are demanding for the existance of the truth of a literal interpretation of the bible. In fact, it is clear that the events of the bible can only be explained by 'supernatural intervention'. If that is your idea of "proof", than you are right. Evolution cannot produce proof of 'supernatural intervention'. so it does not meet your standard or your concept of just what the Scientific Method is.

So far, you've not given at least one piece of evidence to support the statements in your first paragraph. You'll need to substantiate it with examples. From my understanding of your dialogue with Pete, I think he means specifics and good evidence.

Let's try this example using your statements and a compressed version of the scientific method. For example, from the creationist model: processes evident today - flora and fauna buried quickly are more likely to be fossilized than those left to decompose in the open, flora and fauna have complex structures from tiny bacteria to large animals; prediction - there are billions of fossilized flora and fauna through compaction in a chaotic mess because of a major catastrophe, flora and fauna with complex structures are in all levels of geological strata.

From the evolution model: processes evident today - after a period of time, death and decay of flora and fauna with some burial amounts to a limited number of fossilized remains, flora and fauna are in its completed or nearly completed form (with the assumption that there were previous less complex versions); prediction - a limited number of fossilized flora and fauna captured in pits or buried accidentally, flora and fauna gradually or punctually increasing in complexity with each successive geological strata as per Lyell and Darwin.

Find - billions of fossilized flora and fauna compacted in a chaotic mess, flora and fauna with complex structures in all levels of geological strata.

Conclusion: the evidence leads to a creation/intelligence model. Yes, this is a simplified version, but this kind of comparison reasoning with the available evidence is growing among open-minded scientists and they are causing quite a maelstrom in the scientific community; it's evolutionary dogmatists versus open-minded evidentialists, scientist vs. scientist - a glorious battle!

Into the fray

2008-08-08T00:49:00.004-04:00

Haven't been in a debate in a long time! My friend Jay games with a few people who are evolutionists. For the past month, his gaming friend Pete, a fellow creationist, has been doing well keeping up a good dialogue with the evolutionists. After following their discussions for a couple of weeks, I asked both Jay and Pete if I could contribute. When they said it was ok, I jumped in! It's exciting! It's the same feeling I get when I spar. I just love a good fight! Haven't sparred in a few months, so might as well go at it on an intellectual level. Of course, like sparring, this debate has a purpose - to bring my opponent to the truth. (Regular font is my response, italics is the evolutionist.)

Hello gentlemen!

I've enjoyed your lively discussion so far and would like to contribute as well. Here are some notes I took while catching up on the exchange. And to Erich or anyone else who doesn't hold to the Christian worldview, please understand that I like to be courteous in debate and discussion, and if anything I write sounds rude, I seriously don't intend it to be. These notes are all responses to Megahurtz's comments, all in italics. I have nothing against you, although you did bring some interesting opposing thoughts to the table. I hope I get the chance to dialogue more with all of you:

I read these articles, and also looked up the sources. It's not very convincing. They all appear to come from the Creation Science Institute. Further, the reseach papers referenced in the articles are either taken out of context, impossible to verify, or lead back to the Creation Science Institute. The authors, and for that matter the members of the board of the Creation Science Institute also do not appear to be scientists. Some of them are PhD's, but PhD's in what? The "degree's" of these people all are impossible to trace. Having an advanced degree is all well and good, but one can have a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving, and I don't know that qualifies you to comment on the dating of fossils. The main thrust of all the articles was debunking Carbon 14 dating. Well, duh. I know about the problems with Carbon 14 dating from just my general reading in science articles. There is also a passage in there that seems to claim that we should discount all the other scientific methods because God put some kind of 'burst of radiation' into the rock at some point or another. Come on, guys, this is akin to believing in Magic. If is BS to change the rules of the physical world just because the facts are inconvenient. And what about ice core samples from the poles, in which a person can COUNT the number of years in snow layers that go back hundreds of thousands of years. Did God just change the rules of snow fall, too? This is just skimming the surface of the problems in the articles you sent here.

I don't know of the Creation Science Institute, never heard of it. I know that the Institute for Creation Research have scientists with PhDs in the hard sciences. If I remember correctly, you can't be a teacher or a writer in their organization without at least a Masters in some hard science. And, no, I'm not one to rely on articles if I can't find their sources. Ice core samples aren't reliable in dating the Earth's age. I've seen a Discovery channel show oversimplifying this "evidence" for Evolution. Snow falls more than once a year, water freezes over more than once a year, and compaction occurs with each passing year, and it's also dependent on which part of the Earth as well. (I'm aware you said Antartica, but some of those factors are still applicable.) Also, WW2 planes have been found under 200 ft of ice in Greenland that, through the evolutionary model and layer counting, should be several thousand years old.

Doesn't your chain of reasoning lead us right back to what Viper said? "The bible says that all who seek God will find Him". Therefore, anyone who hasn't found Him, isn't seeking Him. Therefore, they are Non-God-Seekers. So we can bomb the s*** out of them, or burn them at the stake, whichever is more convenient. If you doubt that this is how this chain of reasoning goes, just read todays news, or look at your history books. There are no shortage of Demgogues who follow this line to the conclusion above, I have no wish to tacidly support them.

Yes, they are non-God-seekers. But you've jumped to a nonsensical conclusion, or simply a violent exclusivist conclusion, which is not of the Bible and not of God. This is why it's important to find the Truth in answering the question: which one is the true God? Hope we already established that God exists, of course. After thinking about it more and working through it, I hope you find that the God of the Bible is the one true God. And after searching the Scriptures you'll find that God is love and the only thing we can do with those who don't want to believe is to shake the dust off our feet and go to the next town, or come back and show God's love through service. God will deal with those who do not believe, I simply show and tell of Jesus.

I'm just following the line of reasoning you laid out. To me, it doesn't matter how that line of reasoning was arrived at, whether through literal reading or metaphorical reading. I'm sorry if I have a tough time believing that the people who have carried out evil in the name of God were all in the metaphorical camp. I strongly suspect they would all think they are taking the bible about as literally as it can be. I suspect that the fanatics of the Inquision would gladly kill me for my views as 'not pure enough'. I don't think they would say, "Huh, I guess you are right, the earth is billions of years old, despite the whole 6 day thing in Genesis. Thanks for pointing that out, Accused Heretic ".

When it comes to "religious fanaticism" it's not so much an issue of literal/metaphorical, but political. The political leaders of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church used their authority and religious traditions and superstitions over the course of 1,000 years as a means to subjugate people. If some of those leaders of the past actually read their Bibles, they would find that the true kingdom of God is a spiritual one, not of this world. There is a very complex and rich history of church/state relationship and to lump it all as "religion/religious institutions = evil" betrays a lack of understanding, or at least overgeneralization through lack of information. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, it's not the Bible, but sinful people who don't read the Bible and who don't understand the message of Jesus Christ. Justification for the Inquisition is not found in the Bible. As the Bible points out, ex-communication is the harshest way we should deal with heretics.

And if you are a religious fanatic, the next step is - Its perfectly fine to help 'not good' people see the error of their ways, even if that involves a Grand Inquisitor. See? This road leads to categorizing people, which leads to (as in all of history) persecuting people. Remind me to never, ever vote for an Evangelical Christian. And I don't want to be part of a church that advocates this line of reasoning. I don't believe you are a religious fanatic, I just believe your line of reasoning leads to rationalization of religious fanaticism.

There is a difference between the Bible's message and political authority using religion to control people. I suggest you read Chuck Colson's God and Government, one of the best books on church and state relationship through history. Also, there is a tremendous difference between the Bible and the Koran. I've read many parts of the Koran and the overall message is drastically different from what the Bible teaches. One section I like pointing out is Surah 8:12, where Muhammed suggests that the best way to deal with an infidel is to lop off his head. Now that is religious fanaticism taken to a deadly extreme. In fact, if you read more of the Koran, you begin to get the message that it's not extreme or fanatic to kill the infidel - it's expected! How's that for evil! The Bible of course reads otherwise - love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Nowhere in the Bible will you ever see the phrase "Kill infidels wherever you find them, and drive them out wherever they drove you out" in response to persecution. That's Surah 2:191 by the way. So really, the question is: where is the person's foundation? Is it based on the sacrificial love of the one true God? Or is it based on murderous hate from a false god (not just Allah, but also self-centeredness, pride, and power - the triune godhead many people bow to)? That's the issue concerning "fanaticism," what is the root?

As to the Pitdown man thing. Are you saying there have been no frauds in math, chemistry, engineering or computer science? Oh please. Because some people present a fraud in a certain field does not invalidate the whole field. Check your Logic on that one.

When the majority of the "evidence" for gradual change in human evolution are frauds, yes, it invalidates Macroevolution. And since there has never been good evidence for transitional forms between species, then yes, it invalidates the theory. Not the field of biology, just the theory of Evolution. Usually the frauds in the sciences are among the theorists, but 2+2 will always equal 4, the water molecule will always have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, gear ratio is predictable, and I'm on a usable computer.

This is not sarcasim. These people all had to be trained in the theories of Darwin, or at the very least have to believe that the earth is billions of years old to do their job. Just try to find a Geologist who thinks the world is 10,000 years old. As to Professors, I mean those who are teaching either Life Sciences, Earth Sciences, Astronomy, Astro-Physics......The list goes on. You can certainly do the Geologist job believing in young earth, it's just that it would be your dirty little secret that you wouldn't dare tell anyone. Why? Because the next question from their fellow Geologists would be "Why do you believe that". Now you would be trying to explain the 'flaws' of dating of rock to people who really know what they are talking about. And that's when the laughter would start. Again, if the article you sent could convince anyone who knows what the hell they are talking about, it would. Scientists, by nature, are sceptical, questioning, open-minded people who believe in facts, believe in truth and are perfectly willing to rock the boat to make a name for themselves. Science, perhaps more than any other human pursuit, is built on the supplanting of the old and imperfect with something that fits the facts better. This is why I take the articles you sent with a huge boulder of salt. And frankly, even I saw problems with those articles, I just didn't see any point in bringing that up.I am not trying to question anyone's intelligence. And that seems to be the problem I have encounted before when discussing this with young earth believers. People get all huffy, instead of keeping it on a debate plane.

I've met geologists who believe in Creation. One was my youth leader at church when I was 14, around the time I discovered that Creation is true and Evolution is false. He worked with other geologists who believed in one or the other and they were professional enough to respect each other's views, although the majority were Evolutionists. I met more Creationist geologists in college. Interestingly, I believed in Evolution by faith when I was 8, and then I was shown that Evolution had an incredible lack of evidence, not to mention that it's paltry science, at 14. There are thousands of scientists who believe in Creation and do their jobs well. They are growing especially because scientists these days question Evolution and take a good look into its mechanism and have correctly concluded that it is not science nor is it a good base to their scientific work. They just don't get media coverage. In fact, there were a few hundred Creation scientists at a convention in Pittsburgh this past week presenting even more evidence for a young Earth. I suggest you watch the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and follow the research of a few Intelligent Design scientists interviewed in that film. Not all are Christians or Creationists, by the way. They just go to where the evidence leads, even if it's a 180 from Evolution.

I believe there is a problem with some understandings here.Gravity is a theory. There is no 'proof' that it exists. All there is is a prediction of what should happen in a given experiment that corresponds with what occurs in the world. If I set up an experiment where I drop a ball, and predict that it will fall, and it does - all this does not 'prove' gravity. It only reinforces that my theory is good at predicting events.Now evolution predicts certain outcomes, and that certain evidence should exist. And, indeed, both of these requirements are fulfilled. As you pointed out, 'micro' evolution is easily demostrated. All that is required for 'macro' evolution is a few million years. Since it is impractical for us to set up an experiment that lasts a few million years, we look for evidence that nature has already done this for us. And we have found vast, vast examples of all types, including plenty of transitional species, fulfilling the prediction of what kind of evidence we should find.This, in a nutshell, is why Evolution is on the same footing as Gravity in the scientific world. If someone has a better theory (other than "magic"), than let them have at it. Until that time, all serious scientists will continue to work with the most workable tool around for interpreting the physical evidence that exists and the workings of the biology we see around us......Evolution.

First, gravity is a phenomenon. There is a theory of gravity and through simple repeatable experiments you can demonstrate its existence. By doing so, theory becomes law. Not so with Evolution. And Evolution needs more than just "a million years." It needs good evidence like transitional forms. And there are no transitional forms. The ones Evolutionists use are questionable at best. They are not definitive evidence. Evolution is as highly regarded as it is because of propaganda and marketing, and through a series of events, caused it to be accepted by the elite scientists of the past century (not the majority mind you, but those with power and/or a big mouth). The majority of the great scientists of the past were Creationists like Kepler, Mendel, Carver, and Pasteur. Since they believed the world was created, they concluded that things would work in reasonable and fairly predictable ways. And scientists these days looking into the workings of biology and biochemistry are finding a growing amount of evidence disproving Evolution. A good book for this is Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. That's it for now.

Comment Wars

2008-07-30T12:46:00.003-04:00

I was looking through Youtube videos and I lingered at one of an apologist defending the faith. In the comments area, there were a number of people who kept mocking the teacher on the video and also mocked Jesus. There were only a few who tried to defend the teacher and rose up to challenge the mockers. For the most part, the Christians responded with reasoning that the unbelievers definitely did not understand. The more intellectually inclined unbelievers waved them off as ignorant, religious indoctrinated sheep.

Only one or two Christians responded with good step by step reasoning to help the unbelievers, or outsiders, understand. But the mockery continued. I started to make comments of my own. After submitting a few, I soon realized that it's a waste of time debating with mockers and outsiders on Youtube. The verse, "there will be mockers in the last days who will walk after their own lust" rang loudly in my head. I simply stopped making any more comments. It's better to speak with an outsider on a more personal level, anyway.

PMABM Newsletter #8

2008-07-15T23:49:00.002-04:00

Next up in our study of different styles - Tai Chi Chuan. In Chinese, Tai Chi Chuan means "supreme ultimate fist." The progenitors of the style were Taoists who used the idea of opposing forces working in harmony as the philosophical basis for their art. As Taoists, they incorporated the idea of chi, an indefinable energy flow of the universe. The reason they believe it was the supreme is because the movements were the manifestation of yin and yang and the practice was a representation of the universe's workings.

I don't subscribe to the idea of chi and, no, you're not at one with the universe when you practice tai chi chuan. But there is good use of physics and strategy in this approach to martial arts. In our practice of contact flow, I emphasize yielding and rooting. Those ideas come directly from tai chi chuan. In being sensitive to incoming energy in the form of a strike, you give way, yield, and use that energy to counterattack. In the book, Tao te Ching, one phrase sums this up: "The soft and pliable will defeat the hard and strong." Only by consistent practice can you truly come to understand how to be more sensitive, and know when to yield and when to strike.

Watch for what I'm talking about in these vids:

This guy does a different style of tai chi chuan, but the underlying theory is the same. Also, interesting contrast between the solo form and the partner sets:

A few more applications to traditional tai chi chuan moves:

I like the two on one set in this:

The "D" Word

2008-07-06T19:01:00.001-04:00

"Like in The Karate Kid, where Miyagi forces Ralph Macchio to wash his cars and paint his fence and sand his deck. Miyagi gets everything fixed-up, ship-shape, and sparkling like a new penny. Ralph Macchio learns some new moves the only way you ever truly learn anything on this earth: through endless, moronic repetition."
- from the article "Mom's Home" by David Eddie of Mack Daddy AOL Canada Life and Style, July 1, 2008

"More often than not, excuses are simply lies that we tell to ourselves to abate the sharp sting of acknowledging our own shortcomings." - Damian Ross

I've been teaching the youth group kids about spiritual discipline. Discipline in general, with a focus on the spiritual aspect. The reason why the kids don't make it a priority to live a holy life is because they simply haven't disciplined themselves to doing so. Understandable, they're kids, it's rare to find a truly spiritually disciplined teen. Hey, even adults have a tough time trying to discipline themselves. But we're all working on it. And that's why it's always best to start when you're young, when bad habits aren't totally ingrained yet. Much harder for an adult to change habits. And that's where I started off, with bad habits, moral and amoral. Only by God's grace and His strength can bad habits be changed. Yes, there's will-power, but I'd rather depend on God's power - works much better than just weak old me doing the work. And besides, it'll count for eternity if I give it up to God.

To the left of the whiteboard, I wrote "bad habits" and in the middle I wrote "good habits." Between those two phrases, I drew an arrow pointing to the right and underneath I wrote "DISCIPLINE." It takes discipline and a whole lot of work to go from one to the other, and I emphasized God's strength referencing Philippians. Bad habits are both the immoral and amoral but unproductive. Good habits can be both moral and amoral but productive. The discipline will take them out of their comfort zone, which is the only way to get better. From there, to the right of the whiteboard, I wrote "better habits," which are more aligned with spiritual habits. I then extended the arrow of discipline and told them to keep growing and the way to do so is to read God's word, be mindful of their thoughts and actions, and to be around fellow believers as often as possible.

The Marketing Genius

2008-06-27T22:49:00.002-04:00

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

"I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying."

"We've been to 57 states... I think one more to go."

"This is the greatest nation in the world, and I'm here to change it."

No, thanks, Barack. Let's not.

My dad is an insurance salesman and I was trained in sales as well, so I can spot a sales pitch from a mile away. Barack is nothing more than a salesman, a clever marketer who is willing to pander to people's needs, real or imagined. But a little research and some soul-searching should lead to the inevitable conclusion that Barack's like a balloon: full of hot air, carries little weight, and with enough time, will deflate, along with his fantasy for hope and change. People who applaud someone promising that government will provide both will have a severe case of buyer's remorse.

Truth Be Told for Black Gold

2008-06-18T18:01:00.000-04:00

The oil issue isn't hard to figure out: We need to begin using oil that can be produced from US sources. We can be independent of foreign oil if we simply rely on our resources in ANWR and the continental shelf.

Of course, the liberals, and just plain greedy people, play their little games, impeding our progress. They submit to the whims of radical environmentalists who are already successful with their infiltration of "Going Green," a very socialistic program.

We should continue to develop alternative energy sources, which is generally done by private individuals and industry, but in the meantime, we can still use the oil we have in this country and we have a lot!

Our responsibility

2008-05-22T19:53:00.009-04:00

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
- President Abraham Lincoln

"If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight!"
- Patrick Henry

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams

The Ignorant Savage

2008-05-16T17:45:00.004-04:00

Tony Perkins was on AC 360 on CNN today with gay activist and author Dan Savage. At one point, so-called neutral and objective Cooper asked Perkins about the 1948 CA law that "redefined" marriage. Cooper was referring to the California Supreme Court case Perez vs. Sharp that called into question the anti-miscegenation statutes of that state and inevitably repealed them. For years, even going back to the birth of this nation, laws were passed to prohibit interracial marriage. Perkins began to answer by saying that interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage and that it is still one man with one woman for life. Savage then barraged Perkins with nonsense questions and comments since most likely he knew Perkins was logically correct. So to prevent Perkins from answering, he and Andy switched the direction of the discussion.

I want to complete what Perkins started: The CA Supreme Court did not redefine marriage by allowing interracial marriage. In fact, they reinforced the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman for life, and that this time, the person's ethnicity is not an issue. It's gay marriage that redefines marriage. It is not one man with one woman for life, it is one sex with the same sex for an undefined length of time. By going away from the "one man with one woman for life" definition, it's not marriage anymore, and that's true for heterosexuals as well.

By allowing marriage to be simply an amorphous "love contract," it denigrates the institution and it will destabilize the basic building block of society, which is the family. It's hard enough to hold a marriage and a family together. Things will only be made worse if outside forces begin to change it. In America, if gay marriage is allowed, the next wave of marriage redefiners will try to make their case in no time, and I think in order these will be: polygamists, then pedophiles, then beastophiles or some other polysexual sickness. It's obvious polygamists will try their best, especially with this whole FLDS fiasco. They seem to be thriving in this country unchecked. Then pedophiles and pedosexuals would follow since NAMBLA and GLA are growing as well. If we don't nip it in the bud, America may truly become Sodom and Gomorrah.

Successful Project

2008-04-30T22:00:00.002-04:00

The Project Success program ended for the year and I had to submit a summary of my part in it. This is also used to request for additional funds so I can provide my services next year.

"The martial arts program I offered to Project Success had a two-fold purpose: to teach students how to effectively defend themselves and to teach students how to think progressively. They were taught many things that I would teach in my school and, even more so, much of what I taught them was geared for their age group.

"For the first purpose, I did not teach a traditional approach to martial arts by having them memorize technique sequences. Instead, I focused on natural reactive movement that is instinctive and intuitive, enabling them to learn faster. But there is more to self-defense than just fighting back - it is having an awareness of the surrounding environment. To introduce the children to this idea, the first few lessons included a reaction drill to be aware of the slightest touch on their shoulder and to react to it as quickly as possible. I also had them do a real-world evasion exercise, by running from "danger" and to go to a "safe spot" across the gym. I even included an imaginary street for them to look both ways so they can get into the habit of being watchful. I also suggested an out of class exercise to notice what was going on around them and not to allow their minds to wander. At the same time, the children learned how to strike with greater power by utilizing full body momentum.

"To fulfill the second purpose, we recited the progressive affirmation after each class so that the students would learn to think positively and successfully. When I went over the rules for the class in the beginning of the program, thinking positively was an important rule, second only to mutual respect. I gave a practical example: they should not say the word "can't" especially when it comes to learning martial arts. I always emphasized that they can learn, change, and grow, in martial arts and in any other endeavor they choose to do. These are the same phrases I memorized and recited at the end of each class when I trained in karate several years ago:
I will develop myself in a positive manner and avoid anything that would reduce my mental growth or my physical health.
I will develop discipline in order to bring out the best in myself and others.
I will use what I learn constructively and defensively, to help myself and my fellow man, and never to be abusive or offensive.
There were a few sessions where the children and I had a short discussion on the meaning of these phrases as well.

"Over the course of the five months, I taught the children many other aspects of martial arts. There were a few more real-world exercises, like quickly verifying a "friend" from a "foe," getting away from grabs and holds, and even doing a flash card drill with license plate numbers. They learned many strikes as well, using all the available ridges of the body, like edge of the palm, elbows, knees, and kicks.

"We trained as much as we could during that one day out of the week and compressed as much information as possible in those sessions. The students were progressing along and were learning quite well. From what I hear, they enjoyed the program so much that those who will be in the elementary school next year would like to continue training."

PMABM Newsletter #7

2008-04-10T09:19:00.005-04:00

For this newsletter, we'll look at a video of another style I learned. Yes, it is none other than the very first style I formally learned - Matsubayashi Shorin-Ryu Okinawan Karate. Here's a memorized kumite (sparring) exercise:

Even though I don't teach forms and the only memorized movement sequences I teach are in the earlier levels of training, I don't discount them. We can still learn something from them. They were a valuable training aid to martial artists of old and they were an aid to me in the beginning of my development. I concluded that kata or forms were only one of many ways to transmit martial arts principles and teaching methods expeditiously and concretely.

A few ideas garnered from karate: karate chops ARE effective; kicks should be kept low; don't roundhouse kick; torque when you strike; stepping should be natural; breathe out when you strike; belt rank is not applicable in kumite; make the strike go from point A to point B as efficiently as possible; train the ridges of your body to hit well; train the rest of your body to take hits well.

And here is the founder of the Matsubayashi style, Shoshin Nagamine, in his late 80s doing the first black belt kata or form exercise:

Talking about old guys who can still move, here's a bonus video of Johnny LaCoste in the late 1970s. Johnny was one of the many grandmasters of Filipino Martial Arts. Here he is in a rare video with Dan Inosanto when Dan was just starting to incorporate Filipino Martial Arts in his Jeet Kune Do. I would love to be in my late 80s and still be able to move like these guys did. Watch from 2:50 to about 5:40. And if you want to see a crazy kali solo drill, it's starts at 6:36.

Renaming channels

2008-03-31T22:35:00.002-04:00

I now call the Discovery channel "The Discredit the Bible channel." There were so many shows in just the past few weeks that questioned the legitimacy of the Biblical record and only explained the Bible through the naturalistic perspective. It's bad enough they have shows that present Darwinian evolution as a given "scientific" basis which all other sciences spring from. Worse when they present the Bible's events through that perspective. Darwinian evolution is incredibly limiting and scientifically nonsensical when used to explain the present physical world.

Also, I've renamed the History channel "The Revisionist History channel" and the Learning channel "The Leery of What I'm Learning channel."

Complainers

2008-03-19T12:01:00.009-04:00

Five years ago today, I was living in Cincinnati, OH, and working for GE Capital. It was raining on and off that day and it cleared by the time I left to go home. I turned on the TV and all the news channels were reporting that US and Coalition Forces were beginning their first phase in invading and freeing Iraq.

The war was controversial in its outset. Why Iraq? Why not keep it in Afghanistan? There were no reports of Bin Laden being in Iraq. Why waste time, money, and lives going after Hussein, who didn't even plan the 9/11 attacks? Back then, most people relied on Bush's promise to find WMDs. After five years, there doesn't seem to be much to show for all the energy put into the war. And Bush even considered it a mistake. Why keep going? We should pull out now and find the real terrorists! And then impeach Bush.

Arguments like these only show an uninformed and narrow view of the war. Many have already forgotten why we went to war in the first place. What didn't help was the mainstream media constantly focusing on the failures of the war. And many people don't make the time to do a little research to find the truth. The mainstream media already had a built-in antipathy towards Bush, so they try to find anything that would discredit him, even going so far as suppressing the truth.

Here's a reminder from the article "Why We Went to War in Iraq" by David Horowitz (emphases mine):

"...The first – and last – rationale presented for the war by the Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war was not the destruction of WMDs but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or regime change.

"This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of these, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm – or else. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and America went to war three months later...

"Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam by force when he expelled the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear violation of the Gulf truce. This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.

"The Authorization for the Use of Force bill – passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses – is the legal basis for the president’s war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent to the battlefield. The Authorization bill begins with 23 “whereas” clauses justifying the war. Contrary to Gore and the Democratic critics of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to stockpiles of WMDs. On the other hand, twelve of the reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein...

"On March 17, two days before the invasion, Bush issued an eleventh-hour ultimatum to Saddam: leave the country or face war. In other words, if Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq, there would have been no American invasion. It is one of the most revealing features of the Democrats’ crusade against George Bush that they blame the war on him instead of Saddam.

"If its offer had been accepted, the Bush administration would have left in place a regime run by the Ba’athist Party and headed by Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz or some comparable figure from the old regime. The idea was, that without Saddam, even such a bad regime would honor the truce accords of 1991 and UN Resolution 1441. This would have led to Iraq’s cooperation with the UN inspectors and the destruction of any WMDs or WMD programs that Saddam may have had – without necessitating a war...

"Since war was not the president’s preference – first, last or otherwise – the United States did not immediately attack. Instead, the White House spent three months after the December 7th deadline trying by diplomatic means to persuade the French and Russians and Chinese to back the UN resolution they had voted for and to force Saddam to open his country to full inspections. In other words, to honor the terms of the Gulf War truce that they – as Security Council members – had ratified and promised to enforce."

In addition, there have been a significant amount of evidence showing that WMDs have been found. Hussein had enough yellowcake uranium that, if refined, would have been able to make nearly 150 nuclear bombs, besides all the other chemical weapons he had. All he would have needed was a little time and a whole lot of distraction to set up the factories to manufacture the weapons. And there should be no surprise that Hussein and Al-qaeda are connected in some way. They have been involved with each other for over a decade up until '02.

Anyone who misunderstands the reasons for the war are victims of their own forgetfulness or heavily influenced by media bias against Bush.

PMABM Newsletter #6

2008-03-14T03:43:00.004-04:00

To continue our discussion on different martial arts I've experienced, here is a nice demonstration of silat, one of many Southeast Asian martial arts. This first video is a demonstration of both Filipino kali and silat, influenced by Dan Inosanto. He teaches the blended Maphilindo style of silat, but it's not too different from the purely Indonesian style I learned. You don't have to understand the commentators to appreciate this demonstration. If you understand Italian, then great!

This second video is more of what I trained in called pencak silat mande muda. This is part of a seminar taught by Pendekar Suwanda (pendekar means instructor). It was incredibly fun to learn since I was able to tie up my partner into a pretzel in myriad ways. This style helped catapult me to a greater understanding of contact flow and combative movement. No, it doesn't have any superficial connection to contact flow, but we'll go over some of the moves in class to help you see the shared principles.

And one more video: once again, look for the similarities in combative movement. Can you see hubud movement in there? Are you able to pick out what's effective and what's just dance-like? Do you think this can work in high speed? Do you think this can work with a sociopath coming after you?

I Heart Huckabee

2008-03-05T13:24:00.008-05:00

Darn...

Huckabee dropped out of the race. And he was so good too! An incredibly gifted speaker, a natural comedian, and an overall fun-loving guy, which is not typical for a presidential candidate. I don't agree with his immigration stance, which is too much like Bush's, but for most everything else, he was closest to representing me. Oh, well, maybe I'll see him run again in 2012 or 2016 (whoa, those years seem sci-fi strange to me).

Just saw live coverage of Bush endorsing McCain. Ugh, that's too bad. I mean, both Bush and McCain are moderate anyway, so it only makes sense that they would team up. And I understand Huckabee throwing his support over to McCain, also. Strategically speaking, it would make sense to back one candidate especially if you want your party to win. I may be Republican, but I'd rather be associated with conservatism. Republicans in government are a little too moderate for me these days. Once again, it's one of those "lesser of two evils" votes. But with all the conservative radio pundits badmouthing McCain, I wonder who is truly less evil.

In the end, we'll see who God puts in the White House and then I'll have to accept it. I'll make my voice known if I need to.

Crappy News Nonsense

2008-03-04T14:15:00.004-05:00

When we moved into our new house a month ago, the cable line was still on from the previous occupants. I told RCN to get rid of the cable because I knew I'd waste too much time in front of the dumbtube, especially with all the crap I have to do. RCN said they were on it. So, I'm watching as much as I can now before it cuts out. But man it's depressing! I'm usually on the news channels or documentary/learning channels. Talk about lack of truth and objectivity! I'm not saying there isn't any, but it sure is rare. I feel sorry for people who accept much of what these channels talk about as fact. And not only that, but the old adage "blood sells" or "sex sells" doesn't give me feel good vibes. News producers, we know the world is a wicked and violent place full of bloodshed and tears. We're very aware of the evil and the crap that happens in the world. Even though it varies in one form or another, it's still the same bad news. Is there a possibility you can report good news as often as the bad? That would be so refreshing, I would very much appreciate it. I'm sure a bunch of other people would too.

PMABM Newsletter #5

2008-02-15T22:59:00.008-05:00

I want you to be familiar with the martial arts that have influenced my development. You're learning many of the principles from these arts, so it only makes sense to have a more in-depth knowledge of them.

Here is an Inside Martial Arts video on the Burmese martial art of Thaing, Kasheen style. I trained in a more common version of Burmese martial art called Bando, although Bando and Kasheen Thaing are both the same thing, just from different parts of Myanmar. When you watch the video, compare the similarities of combative movement in Thaing to what I teach you. Think about the underlying principles. Also, watch out for what the speaker says about the sport aspect of training, why he feels it's necessary. But, as I've said many times, even though combat sports is part of your training, it has its limitations. If the sports aspect is your only focus, it may hinder you from developing good self-defense skills, which is why contact flow and other types of non-sport self-defense training is important.

And this second video is quite interesting. Amusing actually! It's a self-defense film from the UK in the 1930s. Even then, watch out for principles of combative movement and compare it with what I teach you. Is it good self-defense? Is it bad? What techniques are usable? What goes a little too far? What is just stupid?

Remember, BASD is closed this coming Monday, so no Project Success DSD martial arts.

Rid yourself of B.O.

2008-02-06T13:16:00.009-05:00

Obama seems to have the best chance at winning the Democratic nomination right now. It's a no brainer that he'll have the majority of the black vote. It still amazes me that the party that advocated slavery ended up being the party with the most black voters in recent times. The party that fought against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is now the party that wants to hold the black vote, not so much out of racial integration, but to keep the black people in line. Read up on the history. It's the January 27, 2008 article entitled Democrats and Racial Politics: From Jim Crow to Barack Obama by Frances Rice.

And for a little reading pleasure, here's Barack's oh so spiritual journey - as you read it can you just picture Barack as one of those Nation of Israel depictions of black Jesus, with a bright gold halo atop his closely cropped nappy hair?

Roe and Doe For Sho'

2008-01-22T23:05:00.001-05:00

“The more people learn about Roe v. Wade and what Roe v. Wade has actually done to our country, the more people oppose the provisions of Roe v. Wade... That is the primary reason that groups like Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women and other pro-abortion organizations want to get out this disinformation — they don’t want people to know the truth about Roe v. Wade.”
- Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, in an interview with Family News in Focus

This is Sanctity of Human Life week. To know how to fight abortion on demand, you'll have to know what you're up against. Read up on Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton.

Here is a summary of those decisions included in the explanation of answers from the Roe IQ test:

1. Under Roe, the Supreme Court gave free reign for abortion in the first trimester, but seemed to rule that abortion could be restricted significantly or prohibited in the second and third trimesters. However, the court said that later regulations must allow for abortions needed to protect the woman's health. Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton (issued on the same day as Roe) defined maternal "health" as: "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." These factors are so vague and open-ended that almost any reason can be and is cited to allow abortion in the second and third trimesters. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973); Roe, 410 U.S. at 164; Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-5; Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).

2. A woman can have an abortion for practically any reason during her pregnancy, as long as the abortion is deemed medically necessary as defined by Doe v. Bolton as "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973); Roe, 410 U.S. at 164; Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-5; Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).

3. Under Roe and Doe, there were no restrictions on how late into pregnancy a woman could have an abortion or what abortion method could be used. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).

4. Before Roe, the issue of abortion was decided by state legislatures and some states allowed abortion in certain circumstances. A Supreme Court decision overruling Roe would return the legalization and regulation of abortion back to the elected legislatures, as it was before. Prior to Roe, 30 states had laws criminalizing abortion. In 2006, USA Today, using data from Planned Parenthood's research arm, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, speculated that if Roe were overruled; 22 states would impose "significant" restrictions on abortion; 16 states would maintain the status quo of abortion available on demand; and 12 states would impose some restrictions on abortion. Pro-life groups have estimated that abortion would be legal in 43 states if Roe were overturned. (SOURCE: Susan Page, "Roe v. Wade: The Divided States of America," USA Today, April 17, 2006, Americans United for Life, Defending Life 2007, p. 59).

5. While various sources place the number of abortions anywhere between 40-48 million, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would approximate the number of abortions performed since 1973 to be 40,944,029. (SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Abortion Surveillance – United States, 2003, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 55, No. SS-11, November 24, 2006).

6. Although 78 percent of Americans favor parental notification laws and 72 percent support parental consent laws, under Roe, there is no required parental notification, regardless of age. In several cases after Roe, the Supreme Court cited Roe to strike down state laws that tried to ensure parents would be involved if their minor daughters had abortions. (SOURCES: Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991); Opinion Dynamics Poll, April 27, 2005).

7. Under Roe and Doe, there are no apparent restrictions on sex-selection abortions. Instead, Doe's protection of abortion for a woman's health explicitly includes "emotional, psychological, [or] familial" health, which would allow a woman to decide that having a child of a particular gender would be unhealthy for her or her family. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).

8. Fewer than 1 percent of abortions are done because of rape and incest. (SOURCE: A. Torres and J. Forest, "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives, 20:4 (July/August 1988, 169-76; A. Bankole, et al., "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries," Family Planning Perspectives, 24:3 (August 1998), 117-25, 152).

9. None of the founding documents contains the phrase "right to an abortion." The "right of privacy" that was used to justify Roe, came out of the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, when the court wrote: "The 'right' of privacy is based on the Bill of Rights [which] have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." A penumbra is defined by the Encarta Dictionary as a "partial outer shadow that is lighter than the darker inner shadow umbra, e.g. the area between complete darkness and complete light in an eclipse." (SOURCE: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).

10. The answer is Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the court's most liberal member and former counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. (SOURCE: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade," North Carolina Law Review, 63 (January 1985); 375-386, at 376).

11. Finland does not allow abortion on demand but only under certain circumstances such as life of the woman, as well as rape and incest. [including "health" may be confusing in light of Doe; this change is still consistent with the reference graph] Great Britain does not allow abortion on demand, or for rape and incest. Abortions for other reasons such as the life and health of the woman are only legal in the first six months of pregnancy. Ireland only allows abortion if the life of the woman is in danger; abortion is illegal under all other circumstances. Mexico only allows abortion during the first trimester, and then only under special circumstances (life of the woman, rape, incest, and birth defects). Abortion in the United States is legal for practically any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy. (SOURCE: "Summary of Abortion Laws Around the World," www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm).

12. Roe does not specify who can or cannot perform abortions. SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).

Answered in Genesis

2008-01-22T23:04:00.000-05:00

I was browsing through friends blogs when I stumbled onto this one by Jud N.:

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Questions in Genesis

According to Genesis 1, plants were created on day 3, animals on day 5, and man on day 6. According to Genesis 2, man was formed before the plants (and possibly before the animals, too). Genesis 1 makes clear that male and female were both created on day 6 (i.e. before day 7). Genesis 2 seems to imply that Adam lived some time on earth alone, most likely longer than 24 hours. Can anyone help resolve these quirks? You'd think Moses could have gotten his facts a bit more clear, after all, the Holy Spirit was helping him, right?
EDIT: I've enjoyed the bit of discussion so far, and hope to keep it up, so I did a bit more studying over lunch, and the "straightforward / literal" reading of Genesis 2 in the original NASB not only says Adam was created before plants, but before the animals too, and on the same day that God made everything else. Now it seems we're all mixed up with respect to the Genesis 1 chronology. Regarding whether or not Adam and Eve were made within a 24 hour period, I certainly don't want to limit God, but it does seem that Adam would be limited by time, right? If we're to believe the natural, "literal" interpretation of the passage, that Adam actually gave names to all the animals, it's pretty hard to believe such a task could have been completed in a literal day. I'm genuinely curious if there's an answer to these problems from the "literal history" camp. Anyone want to take a crack at it?

There were a dozen commentors before me. I responded with:

"Adam worked for 12 hours with a half hour lunch when he named the animals. He was denied the two 15 minute breaks because the worker's union wasn't invented yet.

Are you seriously asking or are you just asking to spark a discussion? Do you still have the notes from freshman Bible class in Cedarville? You should find the answers there, including Genesis. (But if you're like me, then you threw them away midway through junior year.)"

Today I responded again:

"I guess you were serious. I was half-asleep when I read your Edit. Since you want an answer, here's the quick version:

Foundation: When you read the Bible, always keep in mind "context." That's the very first rule in Bible study as well as learning Biblical languages. Also, since our Bible was split into chapters and verses in the 13th and 16th centuries respectively, you don't want to rely on that to separate thoughts and ideas - an entire book has to be read as one. Next, boring dan was right in saying that Gen 2 doesn't take into account the chronological order because it merely repeats what was written earlier and that now the writer is giving details about Adam and Eve. Finally, with an old manuscript like the Bible, you have to understand the audience: Moses was writing to Israelites during the journey to the Promised Land.

Let's take Gen 2:5: the Hebrew word for "shrub" is siyach. The only other time this particular kind of plant is mentioned is in Gen 21:15 in the wilderness and Job 30:4 also in the wilderness. And, because we don't live in an agricultural society, we tend to dismiss the word "field." "Field" in Gen 2 is associated with "field" in Gen 3, as in a farm field. When those chapters are read together and acknowledge the audience, you'll see that the Israelites heard the account like this:

"God created everything perfect before sin entered. The world was different then, no wilderness shrub to make farming difficult, before we even had the need to farm, like the way you worked Pharoah's fields. Back then a mist was in the air and covered everything, unlike the dry desert heat you feel at the moment. Rain had not fallen yet, because rain is the result of sin, and I'll explain that later as well. The Garden of Eden was created on the third day with the other plants and God put man, who He created on the sixth day, in it to take care of it. Man did not cultivate fields yet because he had the Garden. Later, when man sinned, he had to cultivate the fields in hardship and eat of its fruit."

Same with naming animals - danielmfoster is right to say there weren't as many animals as we see today. Just like there were only two humans in the very beginning, there were only a small number of animals as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it took less than a day to name them all (along with that half-hour break for some non-Tree of Knowledge fruit).

So you see, there's no need to leave the "literalist camp," nor is Genesis 1-11 just poetry and metaphor, nor do we need to disregard or minimize Genesis and Revelation and only "emphasize the middle." Those bookends are part of a very important whole. By disregarding the six literal days of Creation, you disregard Jesus' reference to it in the NT as the self-evidential truth that it is. I agree that there's been too much squabbling over those two books. Revelation has had too many cheesy movies made of it and Genesis is being blown off by the established Evolutionary dogmatists as myth. How unfortunate that those dogmatists are influencing Christian thought. It's important to accept the entire Bible as plainly true because all the themes tie in with the Gospel - both Genesis and Revelation point to Jesus. With a little time and a lot of research, you'll end up with what you knew intuitively in the first place: Gen 1-11 is literal history, part of God's inerrant word."

Happy Religious Freedom Day!

2008-01-16T17:41:00.000-05:00

Remember the first part of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

No, I didn't know there was such a day either. It's good to recognize it, though. The establishment and free exercise clauses are misunderstood these days, especially with the oft misunderstood unconstitutional phrase "separation of church and state." Jefferson wrote that phrase in a letter to a church, not as a part of our founding documents. It's nice to know his views, although how people read it as separating religion from government so that we live in a secular society free from the Bible's influence is not the correct interpretation of the First Amendment.

Simply put, government should never make a Church of the United States. It shouldn't prefer one religion or denomination over another. The separation of church and state that Jefferson and Madison spoke of in personal letters was so that government will not be able to control churches and vice versa. Like, if Harrisburg controls the funds for the churches in Pennsylvania, collects taxes for those churches, creates its hierarchical structure, makes its weekly teaching schedule, then it violates the establishment clause. Also, government cannot keep its citizens from practicing their religion and expressing what they believe in, on private or public property, or else it violates the free exercise clause. Government should leave the churches alone. Churches shouldn't control government either. A church organization should not run a city or state government or have anything to do with their bureaucracy. But because churches are made up of citizens, they have all the right to be represented and make changes, even Biblically motivated changes, in their government on all levels.

I am glad that I live in a country where I can express my faith with no fear of government persecution. Yes, I may receive social "persecution" but that is nothing compared to what my brothers and sisters face on a daily basis in the 1040 Window, those countries in the world where Christians are constantly harassed and persecuted simply because of their faith. But wherever Christians are persecuted, they grow stronger. American Christians tend to take their freedoms for granted, and many have become weak and shallow in their faith. I can only hope that American Christians will be as strong as those Christians in the 1040 countries. And it's scary to think that the only way Christians in the US will ever be as strong is if our religious freedoms are taken away.

PMABM Newsletter #4

2008-01-15T12:22:00.000-05:00

Hello! Welcome to the new year, another year to be a better martial artist.

For this month, I decided to use two videos representing the two major components of what I teach: self-defense and sport.

Self-defense:
The Dog Brothers have exceptional promotional videos for their product line. This is the promotional for their self-defense video The Interface Between Gun, Knife, and Empty-hand, which shows you how to deal with the knife and the gun. There are several ideas presented that I'd like for you to keep in mind, and I will ask you about them in class. Even though I teach you mainly from John Perkins's approach to the knife and the gun, it's good to be open to other people's views as well. As it says in the beginning of the video, "Research your own experience," and to continue that statement, "Absorb what is useful. Reject what is useless. Add what is specifically your own."

Sport:
The History channel show, Human Weapon, has segments where computer generated figures are used to demonstrate various martial arts techniques. The two I've included use the same principles - the juji-gatame, also known as the armbar. We have to get you guys back on the mat to practice this basic technique while in full sparring mode. Not only that but we also have to continue practicing how to get out of the armbar as well.

Juji-gatame:

Armbar:

Time to pick the donuts

2008-01-11T12:49:00.000-05:00

The Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries are over, but I'm still in the process of researching the candidates and figuring out which one best represents me. I'm a values voter and my spiritual values are the basis for which all the other issues are decided - domestic policy, foreign policy, economics, and various others.

For example, in economics, I am a compassionate capitalist. Here is a quick progression of thought as to why: I base this on the idea that God provides. Man is free to make his own choices and build his wealth the way he sees fit according to God-given laws, yet he is inherently sinful. God instituted government to protect man from other sinful men. Because man is flawed, government should not have too much power. With that basis, we move to the U.S. specifically - The U.S. was formed with Biblical principles as its foundation. The Founders knew man was inherently sinful and would take advantage of other men if given power, which is why they created a limited representative government with checks and balances. The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is found in the Declaration of Independence and explained in the court case with justices Harlan and Woods¹. As US citizens, we are allowed to pursue whatever we want financially, making sure it doesn't infringe on someone else's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Government's job is simply to make everyone play fair in this pursuit. Government should help the poor, but in the sense of encouraging citizens to give. Since the Bible doesn't use government as the intermediary to give to the poor, it is not government's job to take from those with more to give to those with less or none. There are those who legitimately need aid, but if unchecked will allow (has allowed) many to relinquish their personal responsibility and neglected the principle of "gleaning from the corners of the field."² The poor have the responsibility to do what it takes (legally) to provide for themselves. The rich have the responsibility to give to the needy out of their abundance. And anyone who makes any sort of income in the US should give to those in need. So one solution would be tax breaks for those who give which is a great incentive for helping the poor.

I'll just stop there, even though I can keep going. With this progression, I've touched on several topics like welfare, big business, taxes, healthcare, and incentives for giving. I'm sure you can gather what my position is on those issues.

The liberal media make some candidates look more Christian friendly, especially those with no hard stance on the issues. Here is a video that explains this lack.

I'm looking for a candidate who will stand up and strongly declare his position and be willing to follow through on his promises. I'm aware that the candidate will be challenged greatly on those promises if ever he's elected president. The worst would be if he is one way now and then betray his voters by doing an about face during his presidency. I'm looking for someone who will offer a healthcare plan with minimal government interference, who will cut back on government spending, who will put an end to Roe vs. Wade, who will continue to cut taxes, who will hold to the true definition of marriage, who will actually enforce immigration laws, who will win this war, etc. We do not need another Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. We do need a more conservative GW, or maybe even a new Ronald Reagan.

Sources:

1. Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City CO., 111 U.S. 746 (Supreme Court 1884).

2. Leviticus 23:22

Approved to God

2007-12-15T09:39:00.000-05:00

December 15, My Utmost For His Highest, by Oswald Chambers

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." — 2 Timothy 2:15

If you cannot express yourself well on each of your beliefs, work and study until you can. If you don’t, other people may miss out on the blessings that come from knowing the truth. Strive to re-express a truth of God to yourself clearly and understandably, and God will use that same explanation when you share it with someone else. But you must be willing to go through God’s winepress where the grapes are crushed. You must struggle, experiment, and rehearse your words to express God’s truth clearly. Then the time will come when that very expression will become God’s wine of strength to someone else. But if you are not diligent and say, "I’m not going to study and struggle to express this truth in my own words; I’ll just borrow my words from someone else," then the words will be of no value to you or to others. Try to state to yourself what you believe to be the absolute truth of God, and you will be allowing God the opportunity to pass it on through you to someone else.

Always make it a practice to stir your own mind thoroughly to think through what you have easily believed. Your position is not really yours until you make it yours through suffering and study. The author or speaker from whom you learn the most is not the one who teaches you something you didn’t know before, but the one who helps you take a truth with which you have quietly struggled, give it expression, and speak it clearly and boldly.

The Murray Question

2007-12-12T12:48:00.000-05:00

This is the background story on Matthew Murray.

Was this young man ignored? Rejected? Was there something that could've been done differently? What can we learn from his experience to prevent something like this from happening again? Times like these when I question people's belief in Calvinistic sovereignty.

Apparently, Murray wasn't a Christian. Yes, he may have been raised one, but somewhere along the line, something developed in him to make him resent Christianity and, assuming he had "accepted Christ" as a child, made him deny Christ as a young adult.

From the article, he made it clear that he was influenced by the world's culture, especially by the music he listened to. Whatever you program your mind with will change you accordingly. One of the best ways to program your mind is through music because it repeats ideas to a melody, which also affects you emotionally. Or, if you already have a certain emotional bent, music will either assuage it or exaggerate it. I don't need to cite evidence for this through research because this is common knowledge - what you expose your mind to, will affect you. Murray already had a resentment towards Christians and Christianity, so the music he listened to only exaggerated this resentment. But that's only one factor among many that did him in.

I remember one guest to my youth group, we'll call him John, who resented Christian teachers. And he grew up in a Christian home! In his effort to be individualistic in his thinking, John inevitably revealed that he was uninformed and judgemental, the two things he accused Christian teachers of being. (For example, he quickly criticized one teacher's opening message without listening to the following reasons. John practically closed his ears to it.) I don't know exactly what he went through in life, but he is obviously sensitive and hurts easily. I don't deny his intelligence or his temperament; I question his reasoning and how he developed his thinking. It could be several reasons, the reasons that Murray may have experienced: It could have been the Christian teachers in his church or maybe even his parents. They could've been inconsistent in teaching him foundational Biblical principles (they taught it verbally and didn't show it in their lives). Maybe they were consistent but too hard on him, making him follow rules without letting him see the importance of relationships - with God, with them, with others. Or maybe they told him that following specific rules and doing ritualistic religion is what pleases God, which is antithetical to what the Bible teaches. Or it could be that those teachers and his parents did all they could do well and as best they knew how, but he ended up with the wrong crowd. For example, Murray was influenced by the Columbine killers and repeated the phrases they used.

I'm not about to blame the people in Murray's life. If anything, it was his responsibility, he was the one who became the monster. The question remains, though: what can we do to prevent such evil from happening, especially with the people from our own circle of influence? Prayer is top priority, of course, but what else? What can we do with the youth to influence them for God without forcing them or neglecting them?

PMABM Newsletter #3

2007-12-11T12:43:00.000-05:00

This month we'll comment on two videos: one from the Guided Chaos youtube channel and the other a surveillance video capturing a real life self-defense altercation.

The Guided Chaos video shows that it is best not to play around with locks or holds especially against an assailant with serious deadly intent.

This second video shows a robbery attempt. The entire event took less than ten minutes, but for the store employees, it must have seemed like an eternity. Fortunately for the employees, the perpetrator was only armed with a knife. Anyone can play the Monday morning quarterback with videos like these, so I'm not going to say too much. I can't criticize the manager for being the hero. As I mentioned in class, what are you willing to do and what are you prepared to deal with before the spit hits the fan? Will you let a perp go and allow law-enforcement to handle everything or will you do what this manager did? Either way would be all right, although the manager risked his own safety by holding on to the perp. Good for him that the perp didn't have a second knife or even a gun. Using the ideas from the first video, you'll see that it was quite a challenge to try and control the perp. (And for you MMA nuts, what technique did the manager use to control the would-be robber? Hint at 3:33)

Behind

2007-11-20T12:16:00.000-05:00

The evening news occasionally reports medical break-throughs. They advertise these stories as if they had the edge on what's going on in the medical community. When I was growing up, my mom, who's a nurse, would always say how far behind the media was in reporting these break-throughs. I usually rolled my eyes; sometimes I believed her, sometimes I didn't.

Today I read about how researchers can use nonembryonic adult stem cells (ASCs) as an alternative^[1] to the more controversial embryonic stem cells. Just like my previous article citing the appendix, I found myself saying, "this report is so far behind." The media lumps stem cells into one category, embryonic stem cells (ESCs), and that these are the only kind of cells that are the answer to the myriad diseases and cancers plaguing mankind. And they make it seem like this Bush guy is halting science by withdrawing funding for research into this panacea of panaceas.

The whole debate with ESCs began as a pursuit for cellular immortality through the cell's regenerative power.^[2] Researchers were able to isolate ESCs with the hope that these cells will be the most versatile in cellular therapy. But the research proved that ESCs were not capable of immortality. "The only immortal cells we know of are cancer cells."^[3]A lot of media hype, liberal thought indoctrination, and celebrity power were the source of misinformation and caused the inevitable controversy. When human life is redefined by government and culture as only occurring in the last trimester of pregnancy, then there will be problems. I don't want to let government be the last word in defining terms for me. Human life begins at the embryonic stage and saying so uses both scientific reasoning and common sense. Destroying an embryo for research is the same as destroying a human life. It can't get anymore simple than that.

Adult stem cells are the best choice in therapy. One stem cell researcher, Markus Grompe, had an ethical dilemma and tried to make sense of the issue. He said "it is factually wrong to state that limitations on ESC research are preventing life-saving cures, and it is equally false to claim that ESCs have no therapeutic potential. At this point, we simply don't know."^[4] Even though Grompe leans toward not destroying ESCs, he missed an important point about their research. ESCs may have therapeutic potential, but because it is programmed to develop an entire body, it poses several problems for researchers including genetic instability and the development of cancerous cells. ASCs are being used today on a consistent basis. To date, ASCs account for around 70 therapeutic applications.^[5] And they don't seem to be mostly blood related like Grompe said. In fact, there are a variety of applications including various cancers and bodily damage, not just for blood. Yes, it could have all been experimental and not clinical, but it worked.^[6]

I'm glad the media pointed out that skin cells can be used as stem cells, but it's old hat. Instead, they should emphasize how ASCs are being used already and that the skin cells are just one of many options people have in helping them with their ailment without having to destroy human life to do so.^[7]

Sources:

1. Associated Press. (2007, November 20). 'Milestone' stem cell advance reported. CNN.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.ap/index.html

2. Bethell, T. (2006, November 20). The Great Stem Cell Error. The American Spectator. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10652

3. Ibid.

4. Grompe, M. (2007, October 11). Alternative energy for embryonic stem cell research. Nature Reports Stem Cells. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0710/071011/full/stemcells.2007.100.html [doi:10.1038/stemcells.2007.100]

5. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf

6. Hall, R. (2007, July 30). Adult Stem Cell Research Puts Patients First, Proponents Say. CNS News. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070730a.html

7. Lillge, W. (2001) The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research. 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html

Questions

2007-11-19T20:24:00.000-05:00

Pastor Deb of Family Life Community Church started a blog and it provides different questions for the week. After a few days or so of thinking about it, I finally came up with a decent question: Is it necessary to keep pushing for political/cultural change while also working on affecting individuals for Jesus or should we keep focus on the individual level with the hope that it will then affect the political/cultural arena?

I can answer that question myself, but I also want to see other people's answers as well.

Useless organs?

2007-11-18T15:49:00.000-05:00

I wanted to review the human muscular system and looked into the book Anatomy and Physiology, which my wife borrowed from a friend. When I opened the book, the first chapter had a section devoted to evolution. I thought evolution was dumb before, but after the Creation Seminar this past week, it was laughable to see the "evidence" for evolution. There was a little factoid box on page 11 that talked about vestigial organs,^[1] organs that have lost function or just have limited function because of an evolutionary development in the human body. First of all, "the list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999."^[2] This Anatomy and Physiology book was the second edition from 2001. The editors were either clueless about the recent finds in medicine about those organs, or they were in denial. I noticed that the list of vestigial organs was limited to human body hair and the muscles for ear movement. Neither are vestigial either, just part of the bigger system of the human body. Just because evolutionists don't know its purpose or how it developed, does not mean it has no function or that it is simply a vestige of a previously functioning organ. Right now, I'll get rid of doubts about the most cited "vestigial" organ - the appendix:

The appendix is a very useful and complex organ in the body. The evolutionary dogma that states the appendix is vestigial most likely hampered any major advance in research concerning its true function: being part of the immune system. Ham and Wieland (1997) cites a medical textbook by Dr. Martini saying: "the authors are emphatic about the function of the appendix: The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."^[3] Ham and Wieland says further: "the appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
1. IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
2. IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream."

Last month, I read a CNN report saying that Duke University Medical School doctors found the purpose of the appendix. I'm not a doctor and yet I was fully aware of the appendix's function back in college. The "new" medical find was actually behind the times. The article quoted a Duke University surgery professor who said, "in less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S."^[4] The professor didn't seem to account for the diet of industrialized nations - generally processed, ultra-hygienic, and low in natural fiber. Ham and Wieland states "it is clear that appendicitis is only common in countries where a very highly refined modern diet is eaten. Where people eat a high proportion of vegetables, fruit and unrefined cereals, (in other words, have a high fiber diet), appendicitis is actually very rare.^[3]"

I shake my head in disbelief when I read professional literature that talks of vestigial organs as if it is still a valid research subject. I think to myself, "People with doctorates write this stuff?" I'm tempted to get a doctorate as well and be one of a growing number of scientists who know that life didn't come about by chance and evolutionary processes, but by the power of the Creator.

Sources:

1. Saladin, K. (2001). Anatomy and physiology: The unity of form and function. McGraw-Hill: New York.

2. Bergman, J. (2000). Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal 14(2):95–98. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp

3. Ham, K. & Wieland, C. (1997). Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason. Creation 20(1):41–42 December 1997. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp

4. CNN.com (2007, October 5). Purpose of appendix believed found. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html

Wiki madness

2007-11-09T13:23:00.000-05:00

I love online encyclopedias because they make research a little more convenient. I'm aware they're not always credible and they're not academic journals, no matter how academic they may sound. The biggest and most popular is Wikipedia. Based on the free Media wiki software, this encyclopedia is constantly growing and is a good start in any research endeavor. But because I'm into the truth, I also look for another view to the facts. Wikipedia is good for general usage, but because of the slightly liberal (or blatantly liberal) views on certain topics, I balance it out with Conservapedia, the more conservative view of the facts. I won't even get into the radical and nonsensical wiki sites, like the supposedly "rational" wiki. And if I'm looking for theology or anything related, I use Theopedia, which seems to be dependable. All three combined are useful in leading me to better sources.

Sources:

Media Wiki (2007). http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki

Wiki Index (2007). http://www.wikiindex.org/Category:MediaWiki

PMABM Newsletter #2

2007-11-08T12:41:00.001-05:00

I've decided to do a monthly newsletter instead of a bi-weekly one, since there isn't a big readership for it right now, and I have way too much to do.

This month's video is from the Dog Brothers. This is their promo video for their semi-annual Gathering of the Pack tournaments, which is beyond UFC and something more akin to what we like to do. They take the cake in how advanced they are in their approach to martial arts and they do a wonderful job at promoting this event. Make sure you comment on this and if you haven't commented on the previous video that you do so as well.

The 12th Letter

Death by Coveting

Architects of Ugly

Daniel of the Year

Inadvertently started something

Inductive Bible Study

On Credentials and Credibility in the Martial Arts

Cows, Constitution, and Commandments

Four Categories of Martial Arts

Turtle speed

Next Level lesson 8/3/10

Hume-ongous faith!

It was a different world

John 17

The Beginning of Wisdom

PMABM Newsletter #12

Philippians 4

The Upstart

Hippie, diaper, halo Christ

1 Kings 3

Acts 15

Ezra 3

John 15

John 15

John 8

Engkrateia

Religion

What You Can Live Through

Chaos Theory Part 2

Chaos Theory

What I cannot do

God loves variety

All in the mental

Beacon in the Darkness

Stuff I Like

Two Cents Left

Isn't it ironic?

PMABM Newsletter #11

Intro to Dating and Relationships with PD2

Got some change?

PMABM Newsletter #10

In our veins

Tribal Heritage

Is it any surprise?

Zero on Zawahiri

Those hypocrites!

The Brave Catherine Vogt

Intelligence Quotient

Electoral Craziness

Too bad!

I Submit

First Responder

545

Important Election Reminder

Invitation and Instructions

Read my friggin' lips

A Supersession discussion on CNBC?

Sneaky Usurpations

PMABM Newsletter #9

12 Days till the Election!

And in the darkness, bind them

Nobody *Messes* with John McCain!

A Nice Proposal

King and Crisis

Palin for President!

What I felt like saying

Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 4)

Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 3)

Define discipline

Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 2)

Let's get ready to rumble!

Into the fray

Comment Wars

PMABM Newsletter #8

The "D" Word

The Marketing Genius

Truth Be Told for Black Gold

Our responsibility

The Ignorant Savage

Successful Project

Nobody Messes with John McCain!