Whenever I talk about philosophy in the martial arts, I always refer to Bruce Lee and Jeet Kune Do (JKD). I usually say that Lee was one of the greatest modern philosophers but that his brilliance was overshadowed by his entertainment career. Any knowledgeable martial artist or martial arts enthusiast would know that JKD is not a system of fighting but rather a philosophy for self-development. A major portion of that self-development, of course, would be in martial arts training, but training in the most efficient and functional way.
I give Lee a lot of credit for revolutionizing the martial arts for the 20th century. He understood the need for a practical approach to the martial arts and questioned the orthodoxy inherent in the more traditional styles. But as I progress in my training, I've come to question whether I'm correct in labeling Bruce Lee with the title "one of the greatest philosophers." Indeed, this may be blasphemous to say around the hardcore Jun Fan JKD practitioner, but then again, I've never been one to be part of a personality cult. Besides, Lee himself advocated a teaching methodology that focuses on individual instruction rather than mass instruction. He espoused an individualist mindset in the martial arts and opposed the idea of a cult around a person, or system, including himself. Likewise he lived what he believed by creating an approach to self-development that set him apart from the martial artists of his day.
The first 25 pages and the last 8 pages of Tao of JKD (Lee's collection of notes turned into book form), gives the essential treatment of Lee's philosophy. He was influenced by both Eastern and Western thought, but JKD is predominantly Eastern. The philosophical underpinnings of JKD is a mixture of Zen Buddhism, Taoism, and Indian mysticism as expressed in Krishnamurti. The Big Three, as I'll call them here, can be debated over for a very long time, but inevitably, when taken to their logical end, they all come up short. They are unlivable as a spiritual foundation, especially Zen Buddhism, with its nonsensical disregard for the Law of Contradiction (which states that something can't concurrently be non-something). Lee was a philosophy major in college so he should have been fully aware of the Law of Contradiction, as taught in Philosophy 101. But his background and the counterculture mileu of his day emphasized the relativistic post-modernist views that relate well to the Big Three.
In his attempt to explain JKD in Eastern mysticist terms, he overcomplicated JKD for what it is - his own personal development in the martial arts. That's it! Nothing else. Lee acknowledged this simplicity, but it was clouded by the mysticism that was part of his thought process. He intended to create a philosophy that incorporated both martial arts and life and was still in the process of doing so when he died. In fact, he was only beginning to develop as a martial artist. Like any good philosoper, he sought correspondence between thought and reality. Because his cultural and philosophical background was steeped in the Big Three, it only made sense that he expressed it in his martial arts.
Should I label Bruce Lee as "one of the greatest" ? Yes, but to be precise, he's a great philosopher in the sense that Ayn Rand or Lao-tzu are great philosophers. They were not necessarily correct in their thinking, but they earned the title because of their honest struggle for coherence and because of the following that resulted from their teachings. In my book, a truly great philosopher earns the title only if he has reached a sensible, livable, holistic, and logical end to his thoughts, and that includes having a following as well. (And to clarify, it's not an exhuastive end to that person's thoughts, but rather acknowledging absolute propositional revelation and to grow in thought and behavior based on that revelation.) Even though Lee used nonsensical philosophies to undergird his message, he was still able to explain truths about the search for martial arts efficacy and that the individual should always be in a state of learning and growing.
My article JKD vs. PMABM (coming soon) summarizes the comparison between the two approaches to the martial arts.
November 22, 2005
November 21, 2005
A Letter to Joe
If anyone has any contact with Joe Martorell, please get him to write me or call me.
Dear (former Youth Pastor) Joe,
Where in the world are you? Don't be afraid to talk to me. Why do you hide in the shadows? Why do you avoid me? Don't you know I'm aware of forgiveness? Don't you know I'd rather talk about things than to not talk at all? I'd rather you face the challenge of talking to me again instead of staying under the radar, living in fear. Fear of having to open up to me and admit that you're human.
Yes, I'm very sympathetic to what you went through eight years ago. I can't imagine what it's like to lose your father then lose one of the youth group kids nearly the same time. Please remember that your dad came to know Jesus before leaving this world. I will never forget the glow on his face, and on yours, after he made the salvation decision. And you couldn't do anything about Mike, so don't blame yourself. It was hard for all of us. I'm now a youth group leader as well and I would be devastated if any of the kids under my care took his or her own life. Didn't realize that it wouldn't take long for you to buckle under all the pressure. I don't even know what you did; everyone told me you did something that caused you to lose your ministry, that was it. Whatever you did I only hope you've already placed it under the blood of Christ.
Come on Joe, don't just avoid me because of what happened in the past. Man, the time I needed you most was back in college. Of all things, I barely asked you for help while I was in youth group, but then after youth group was when all the crap happened to me. No, don't stinkin' feel guilty over another thing now. All I want is for you to overcome! And the first step would be to talk to me. Or if you've already overcome, talk to me anyway. You know very well that nothing you did was so bad that God can't forgive you. And nothing you did was so bad that you can't tell me, or at least give me an idea of what garbage you had to go through. Don't think that I don't know about all the corruption and evil in the world. And don't think I don't know what Christians have to face all the time, either.
So stop thinking about yourself and your mistakes. You know what to do already. Yes, that's right: bless others with what you've learned from the past and help others to overcome as well. If it'll make you feel better, you could make up for everything by showing me what it means to be more than a conqueror.
I'll talk to you soon.
mtc,
L
Dear (former Youth Pastor) Joe,
Where in the world are you? Don't be afraid to talk to me. Why do you hide in the shadows? Why do you avoid me? Don't you know I'm aware of forgiveness? Don't you know I'd rather talk about things than to not talk at all? I'd rather you face the challenge of talking to me again instead of staying under the radar, living in fear. Fear of having to open up to me and admit that you're human.
Yes, I'm very sympathetic to what you went through eight years ago. I can't imagine what it's like to lose your father then lose one of the youth group kids nearly the same time. Please remember that your dad came to know Jesus before leaving this world. I will never forget the glow on his face, and on yours, after he made the salvation decision. And you couldn't do anything about Mike, so don't blame yourself. It was hard for all of us. I'm now a youth group leader as well and I would be devastated if any of the kids under my care took his or her own life. Didn't realize that it wouldn't take long for you to buckle under all the pressure. I don't even know what you did; everyone told me you did something that caused you to lose your ministry, that was it. Whatever you did I only hope you've already placed it under the blood of Christ.
Come on Joe, don't just avoid me because of what happened in the past. Man, the time I needed you most was back in college. Of all things, I barely asked you for help while I was in youth group, but then after youth group was when all the crap happened to me. No, don't stinkin' feel guilty over another thing now. All I want is for you to overcome! And the first step would be to talk to me. Or if you've already overcome, talk to me anyway. You know very well that nothing you did was so bad that God can't forgive you. And nothing you did was so bad that you can't tell me, or at least give me an idea of what garbage you had to go through. Don't think that I don't know about all the corruption and evil in the world. And don't think I don't know what Christians have to face all the time, either.
So stop thinking about yourself and your mistakes. You know what to do already. Yes, that's right: bless others with what you've learned from the past and help others to overcome as well. If it'll make you feel better, you could make up for everything by showing me what it means to be more than a conqueror.
I'll talk to you soon.
mtc,
L
November 11, 2005
Unintelligent
It is incorrect to say that intelligent design is the same as Biblical creationism. Before I begin, there are three terms that need to be defined:
Intelligent Design (ID) - the idea that a higher power created the universe regardless of religious leanings with scientific research supporting the claim.
Creation Science (CS) - scientific research based on the Genesis account of creation.
Biblical Creationism (BC) - acknowledging Genesis as the true account of the universe's origins with God as the Creator.
So to use these terms in a sentence: Acknowledging ID, CS has made great strides in offering support for BC.
Or it can be understood in a secular sense: Acknowledging ID, the Sci-fi club had more proof of the superior ancient alien race that created the universe.
The latter is crap, but it should be more understandable now.
It's round two for Darwinism vs. Creationism in the court of law, this time in Dover, PA. Americans are presently more brainwashed by Darwinism than in the last battle. The more militant Darwinists think that creationists are sneaking in through the back door with this new phrase "Intelligent Design." The media, and a number of creationists, define Intelligent Design as the universe being so complex that there must have been an intelligent agent behind it. While that's true for the most part, I would define ID even further to avoid misunderstanding. It's not so much the complexity issue, even though the universe is more complex than if it had spontaneously generated by chance. Rather I would say that the universe can be understood through the use of reason and we can learn more about it using the tool of science. The complexity idea then is not so much that we can't understand the universe, but that we can understand it! There is something reasonable behind the material world, everything from an atom to a galaxy. Once a person grasps even a few principles behind the workings of the atom or the vastness of a galactic spiral, it would be utterly ridiculous for that person to think that these came to existence by random chance processes.
I read one article by a well-known op-ed writer who tried to dismiss the creationists in this renewed debate. He insisted that there is a huge divide between science and faith. He defined faith as a hopefulness for something that may or may not be true. The example he used was a person rooting for his favorite sports team. He said that no matter how hard that person puts his "faith" in the team, by putting on their jersey or waving their flag at the right moment, there is no way that person has any effect on the team's chances to win. He started off with a bad example to illustrate "faith" and he was only in the first paragraph! By using that illustration, he erroneously thought that faith was akin to luck and hope. It's apparent the man is ignorant of the various definitions of faith and the amount of scientific evidence supporting creationism. Not only that, but he wasn't aware of the differences in the three terms mentioned earlier that he should have known if he were to be part of the debate. Instead he jumped in and displayed to the world his ignorance of "the other side."
Another piece I read was some local man's opinion on the debate. He was a Darwinist scientist who said that creationists rely on "gaps" in the evolutionary record to prove macroevolution wrong. Well, it seems this man has gaps in his understanding of what creationists use to prove our case. This "scientist" obviously didn't have too many discussions with creationists. Yes, Lyell's geological column has a lot of gaps and the carbon 14 dating methods have gaps also, but "gaps" aren't the big guns in the creationist argument. Those are merely a couple of pieces in the puzzle. There are several hundred more ways to disprove Darwinism and I'm only talking about one branch of science - geology. The picture becomes more clear for evolutionists (hopefully) when you include other branches of science like biochemistry, astronomy, genetics, etc.
It's too bad that popular scientific opinions are more readily accepted by the masses than good science.
Intelligent Design (ID) - the idea that a higher power created the universe regardless of religious leanings with scientific research supporting the claim.
Creation Science (CS) - scientific research based on the Genesis account of creation.
Biblical Creationism (BC) - acknowledging Genesis as the true account of the universe's origins with God as the Creator.
So to use these terms in a sentence: Acknowledging ID, CS has made great strides in offering support for BC.
Or it can be understood in a secular sense: Acknowledging ID, the Sci-fi club had more proof of the superior ancient alien race that created the universe.
The latter is crap, but it should be more understandable now.
It's round two for Darwinism vs. Creationism in the court of law, this time in Dover, PA. Americans are presently more brainwashed by Darwinism than in the last battle. The more militant Darwinists think that creationists are sneaking in through the back door with this new phrase "Intelligent Design." The media, and a number of creationists, define Intelligent Design as the universe being so complex that there must have been an intelligent agent behind it. While that's true for the most part, I would define ID even further to avoid misunderstanding. It's not so much the complexity issue, even though the universe is more complex than if it had spontaneously generated by chance. Rather I would say that the universe can be understood through the use of reason and we can learn more about it using the tool of science. The complexity idea then is not so much that we can't understand the universe, but that we can understand it! There is something reasonable behind the material world, everything from an atom to a galaxy. Once a person grasps even a few principles behind the workings of the atom or the vastness of a galactic spiral, it would be utterly ridiculous for that person to think that these came to existence by random chance processes.
I read one article by a well-known op-ed writer who tried to dismiss the creationists in this renewed debate. He insisted that there is a huge divide between science and faith. He defined faith as a hopefulness for something that may or may not be true. The example he used was a person rooting for his favorite sports team. He said that no matter how hard that person puts his "faith" in the team, by putting on their jersey or waving their flag at the right moment, there is no way that person has any effect on the team's chances to win. He started off with a bad example to illustrate "faith" and he was only in the first paragraph! By using that illustration, he erroneously thought that faith was akin to luck and hope. It's apparent the man is ignorant of the various definitions of faith and the amount of scientific evidence supporting creationism. Not only that, but he wasn't aware of the differences in the three terms mentioned earlier that he should have known if he were to be part of the debate. Instead he jumped in and displayed to the world his ignorance of "the other side."
Another piece I read was some local man's opinion on the debate. He was a Darwinist scientist who said that creationists rely on "gaps" in the evolutionary record to prove macroevolution wrong. Well, it seems this man has gaps in his understanding of what creationists use to prove our case. This "scientist" obviously didn't have too many discussions with creationists. Yes, Lyell's geological column has a lot of gaps and the carbon 14 dating methods have gaps also, but "gaps" aren't the big guns in the creationist argument. Those are merely a couple of pieces in the puzzle. There are several hundred more ways to disprove Darwinism and I'm only talking about one branch of science - geology. The picture becomes more clear for evolutionists (hopefully) when you include other branches of science like biochemistry, astronomy, genetics, etc.
It's too bad that popular scientific opinions are more readily accepted by the masses than good science.
November 09, 2005
Simpson silliness
"Me and my family got out of that and came to L.A...To see all forms of meditation and prayer made me less judgmental."
- Jessica Simpson talking about her Southern Baptist background
"What's wrong with that guy?"
- David Spade, in a commercial talking about Joe Simpson, Jessica's dad
Of all the things I could write about, I end up with Jessica Simpson. I don't even consider myself a fan. In fact I don't even think much of her or her music. She's this blonde chick who gets in front of my view every now and then on TV or in a store's check-out line. I have no real reason why I want to respond to anything by Jessica Simpson, no matter how dumb it is. Maybe I just want to loosen up a bit with this blog entry, not get so serious all the time. So instead of being combative let me simply complain. I could care less about the idiotic rumors about her and Lachey. My beef is with the statement she made. My word, what the heck is wrong with Jessica Simpson? It seemed the moment she donned the daisy dukes, she cut off her Christian roots. I won't even say anything about the Boots video. She was walking all over something all right - she walked all over her Baptist background and Christianity in general. Unbelievers do that already. Don't need any volunteers from our side of the fence.
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt...for now. She may not be handling the whole fame and fortune thing so well and is in a period of backsliding. Or, it was a statement that was taken out of context. Maybe she is merely less judgmental like she said and that she meant she just got out of the youth group seminar lifestyle of her dad's. Or, (the most plausible reason) she didn't know what it was all about in the first place, thinking she just came from another one of the world's religions. Joe Simpson's ambition for fame and fortune, done vicariously through his daughters, caused him to neglect his first, foremost important job: raising his kids right in the way of the Lord. Yes, Joe, go ahead and exploit them to the fullest! I'm sure Jessica was just one of those kids who wasn't exposed to other points of view and all she knew was the Southern Baptist way. Then came the glitter and the glamour and she never had the chance to really deliberate in her heart and mind what the Truth was all about. I could just hear her say, "Oh, wow, other people pray also? It's not just a Christian thing? Well, then. I guess all roads lead to the same place!" The depth of thought astounds me. And Joe S. was a youth pastor? Sad. I only hope they figure things out about their lives before God does something drastic to them. They're in the position to influence a whole lot of people for Jesus and yet they're only using it to fulfill their desires. Let's see how this all unfolds.
- Jessica Simpson talking about her Southern Baptist background
"What's wrong with that guy?"
- David Spade, in a commercial talking about Joe Simpson, Jessica's dad
Of all the things I could write about, I end up with Jessica Simpson. I don't even consider myself a fan. In fact I don't even think much of her or her music. She's this blonde chick who gets in front of my view every now and then on TV or in a store's check-out line. I have no real reason why I want to respond to anything by Jessica Simpson, no matter how dumb it is. Maybe I just want to loosen up a bit with this blog entry, not get so serious all the time. So instead of being combative let me simply complain. I could care less about the idiotic rumors about her and Lachey. My beef is with the statement she made. My word, what the heck is wrong with Jessica Simpson? It seemed the moment she donned the daisy dukes, she cut off her Christian roots. I won't even say anything about the Boots video. She was walking all over something all right - she walked all over her Baptist background and Christianity in general. Unbelievers do that already. Don't need any volunteers from our side of the fence.I'll give her the benefit of the doubt...for now. She may not be handling the whole fame and fortune thing so well and is in a period of backsliding. Or, it was a statement that was taken out of context. Maybe she is merely less judgmental like she said and that she meant she just got out of the youth group seminar lifestyle of her dad's. Or, (the most plausible reason) she didn't know what it was all about in the first place, thinking she just came from another one of the world's religions. Joe Simpson's ambition for fame and fortune, done vicariously through his daughters, caused him to neglect his first, foremost important job: raising his kids right in the way of the Lord. Yes, Joe, go ahead and exploit them to the fullest! I'm sure Jessica was just one of those kids who wasn't exposed to other points of view and all she knew was the Southern Baptist way. Then came the glitter and the glamour and she never had the chance to really deliberate in her heart and mind what the Truth was all about. I could just hear her say, "Oh, wow, other people pray also? It's not just a Christian thing? Well, then. I guess all roads lead to the same place!" The depth of thought astounds me. And Joe S. was a youth pastor? Sad. I only hope they figure things out about their lives before God does something drastic to them. They're in the position to influence a whole lot of people for Jesus and yet they're only using it to fulfill their desires. Let's see how this all unfolds.
September 21, 2005
Meaninglessness
"I am in existential depression."
- Garrison Hoffman, using an Arnold accent watching the end of Predator where Arnold sits in the helicopter expressionless after the final fight.
I heart Huckabees is a movie Camus would've loved and hated. I read Ebert's film review and he didn't get it. He had to watch it twice to get an idea of the plot. Of course he wouldn't get it, he's a film critic, not a philosopher. He isn't familiar with existentialism and all its different fractures. The main character in the movie, Albert, was looking for meaning. For about two hours, he goes to and fro finding meaning in life, whether it is in the cause he champions (not allowing a company to destroy a nearby wooded area making way for a mini-mall) or the love he seeks. This was demonstrated in the very first scene when he started to chase someone who looked like himself; he was trying to find himself. The movie was cute and interesting, but wouldn't be something I'd endorse. Way too much cursing and unnecessary scenes; makes something that could've been decent very unappealing. Other than that, I understand the message of the film, which are a series of questions itself, questions any thoughtful person would ask.
When people are unaware of God, or worse, deny His existence, they end up trying to figure out the answers the harder way. There's the hard way and the harder way. Most people live on the surface, as Dustin Hoffman's character says, which is true. They don't want to take the time to answer the hard questions. They live life in ignorance, enjoying it every now and then, working for most of it, then die. Those who do take the time to search for meaning beyond work-play-die cycle will usually have difficulty figuring things out but inevitably, in their struggle, come across God. Then, to deny God will make the questions even harder to answer. They get this muddied thought-pattern/belief-system that even they can't follow. Or those who are brave enough will follow it to its rational end – nothingness. Life becomes a theatre of the absurd (or in this case a movie of the absurd) when man becomes the center of the story. Sadly, our society is heading in that direction in full speed.
Throughout the movie, he didn't seem to acknowledge the existence of God. There wasn't much space in the movie to acknowledge it at all. Albert began his journey and search for meaning through coincidence. There were a few times when Albert randomly came across "the African guy." Because of those chance encounters, he thought there was something that tied them to each other. In the real world, God would've used that thought pattern to lead a guy like Albert to learn more about Him. The sequence would go like this: Albert meets the African guy; Albert thinks his "coincidence" idea; Albert meets up with the African guy and African guy invites him to dinner with his family, who we find are Christians. At least the director makes a brief visit to the Christian experience, even if it wasn't the best example. In the commentary, the director talks about the irony of Christians (and he included most other religions) that they have big, open hearts, but closed minds. How unfortunate that he considered Christians closed-minded. (The different definitions of open-mindedness I explained in "Straight Talk".)
If something like the Christian family dinner scene happened in real life, the idea of coincidence would've been a perfect way to introduce Albert to the subject of God. The director unfortunately portrayed the family as closed-minded in the sense that they were uninformed of the rest of the world's suffering, intellectual and otherwise. Not only that, but he made the father unloving, which caused Albert to run away from a perfect opportunity to meet more accepting, open-minded, and knowledgeable Christians. The director must have had a similar negative experience with the few Christians he's met in real life. I would've loved to have a discussion with Albert and allow him to see for himself the dearth in existentialism. I guess the belief in the ignorant Christian, both intellectually and socially, is still pervasive in this society. H. L. Mencken, the most popular American journalist during the Scopes trial, described fundamentalist Christians as "peasants and ignoramuses" and it seemed to have stuck over a hundred years later. In my experience, when I was younger, I've always seen Christians as highly intellectual and cosmopolitan as any secular person. My dad and my uncles are scholars with intellect and wit that can run circles around anybody. All the pastors I've ever known were very knowledgeable and aware of the world system. It wasn't until I was in my late teens when I met a broader range of adult Christians, from disappointingly dumb to obnoxiously unloving. Just like the rest of the population, some Christians "get it" about life in general and some don't. For those who are seeking the Truth, I only pray that they meet Christians who are aware. No, I don't expect every Christian to be an expert logician and apologist like C. S. Lewis. But it would be nice that they develop themselves. At least C. S. Lewis wrote great books so that we of lesser degree may share with those who are seriously seeking. Those who are truly open-minded will investigate the claims of Christianity and not just regard it as some hokey religion. Some may consider themselves open-minded but are too lazy to follow through with that claim. Then there are those who, when someone says "Christian," get irritated or uncomfortable and it only shows their prejudice and are themselves closed-minded.
In the end, the director dealt with two major approaches to existentialism: looking for meaning through disconnected deconstruction (nihilistic existentialism) or through interconnectedness (Buddhist existentialism). Whether or not I have the correct terms, it's at least a general description of the conflict between Vaubon and the detectives. No matter how much you synthesize (both/and), the human brain will always express its fundamental binary function, seeing antithesis (either/or). By the end of the movie, given the choice between Vaubon and the detectives, Albert synthesizes the two differing viewpoints, as any good existentialist will do. In principle, he created his own new senseless philosophy and Sisyphus is back where he started. Following the synthesis will lead to meaninglessness once again. Take God out and it will lead to nothingness. Start and end with man and life will be absurd.
- Garrison Hoffman, using an Arnold accent watching the end of Predator where Arnold sits in the helicopter expressionless after the final fight.
I heart Huckabees is a movie Camus would've loved and hated. I read Ebert's film review and he didn't get it. He had to watch it twice to get an idea of the plot. Of course he wouldn't get it, he's a film critic, not a philosopher. He isn't familiar with existentialism and all its different fractures. The main character in the movie, Albert, was looking for meaning. For about two hours, he goes to and fro finding meaning in life, whether it is in the cause he champions (not allowing a company to destroy a nearby wooded area making way for a mini-mall) or the love he seeks. This was demonstrated in the very first scene when he started to chase someone who looked like himself; he was trying to find himself. The movie was cute and interesting, but wouldn't be something I'd endorse. Way too much cursing and unnecessary scenes; makes something that could've been decent very unappealing. Other than that, I understand the message of the film, which are a series of questions itself, questions any thoughtful person would ask.
When people are unaware of God, or worse, deny His existence, they end up trying to figure out the answers the harder way. There's the hard way and the harder way. Most people live on the surface, as Dustin Hoffman's character says, which is true. They don't want to take the time to answer the hard questions. They live life in ignorance, enjoying it every now and then, working for most of it, then die. Those who do take the time to search for meaning beyond work-play-die cycle will usually have difficulty figuring things out but inevitably, in their struggle, come across God. Then, to deny God will make the questions even harder to answer. They get this muddied thought-pattern/belief-system that even they can't follow. Or those who are brave enough will follow it to its rational end – nothingness. Life becomes a theatre of the absurd (or in this case a movie of the absurd) when man becomes the center of the story. Sadly, our society is heading in that direction in full speed.
Throughout the movie, he didn't seem to acknowledge the existence of God. There wasn't much space in the movie to acknowledge it at all. Albert began his journey and search for meaning through coincidence. There were a few times when Albert randomly came across "the African guy." Because of those chance encounters, he thought there was something that tied them to each other. In the real world, God would've used that thought pattern to lead a guy like Albert to learn more about Him. The sequence would go like this: Albert meets the African guy; Albert thinks his "coincidence" idea; Albert meets up with the African guy and African guy invites him to dinner with his family, who we find are Christians. At least the director makes a brief visit to the Christian experience, even if it wasn't the best example. In the commentary, the director talks about the irony of Christians (and he included most other religions) that they have big, open hearts, but closed minds. How unfortunate that he considered Christians closed-minded. (The different definitions of open-mindedness I explained in "Straight Talk".)
If something like the Christian family dinner scene happened in real life, the idea of coincidence would've been a perfect way to introduce Albert to the subject of God. The director unfortunately portrayed the family as closed-minded in the sense that they were uninformed of the rest of the world's suffering, intellectual and otherwise. Not only that, but he made the father unloving, which caused Albert to run away from a perfect opportunity to meet more accepting, open-minded, and knowledgeable Christians. The director must have had a similar negative experience with the few Christians he's met in real life. I would've loved to have a discussion with Albert and allow him to see for himself the dearth in existentialism. I guess the belief in the ignorant Christian, both intellectually and socially, is still pervasive in this society. H. L. Mencken, the most popular American journalist during the Scopes trial, described fundamentalist Christians as "peasants and ignoramuses" and it seemed to have stuck over a hundred years later. In my experience, when I was younger, I've always seen Christians as highly intellectual and cosmopolitan as any secular person. My dad and my uncles are scholars with intellect and wit that can run circles around anybody. All the pastors I've ever known were very knowledgeable and aware of the world system. It wasn't until I was in my late teens when I met a broader range of adult Christians, from disappointingly dumb to obnoxiously unloving. Just like the rest of the population, some Christians "get it" about life in general and some don't. For those who are seeking the Truth, I only pray that they meet Christians who are aware. No, I don't expect every Christian to be an expert logician and apologist like C. S. Lewis. But it would be nice that they develop themselves. At least C. S. Lewis wrote great books so that we of lesser degree may share with those who are seriously seeking. Those who are truly open-minded will investigate the claims of Christianity and not just regard it as some hokey religion. Some may consider themselves open-minded but are too lazy to follow through with that claim. Then there are those who, when someone says "Christian," get irritated or uncomfortable and it only shows their prejudice and are themselves closed-minded.
In the end, the director dealt with two major approaches to existentialism: looking for meaning through disconnected deconstruction (nihilistic existentialism) or through interconnectedness (Buddhist existentialism). Whether or not I have the correct terms, it's at least a general description of the conflict between Vaubon and the detectives. No matter how much you synthesize (both/and), the human brain will always express its fundamental binary function, seeing antithesis (either/or). By the end of the movie, given the choice between Vaubon and the detectives, Albert synthesizes the two differing viewpoints, as any good existentialist will do. In principle, he created his own new senseless philosophy and Sisyphus is back where he started. Following the synthesis will lead to meaninglessness once again. Take God out and it will lead to nothingness. Start and end with man and life will be absurd.
September 09, 2005
The Politics of a Hurricane
One thing is sure, Mayor Nagin is no Rudy Giuliani. While Rudy did something during 9/11, Nagin went on radio and bashed Bush and other conservatives saying they aren't helping and practically blamed them for the flood in New Orleans. He should've just kept quiet and helped people instead of turning a tragedy into a political blame game. Helping people would've made him heroic. But his idiotic rant made him look like a fool. Yes, of course people will help, we all see the need. But there was absolutely no need to take this into the political arena. If he needed to say anything, he should've focused on coming together as Americans to overcome the crisis and not let politics divide us.
The leftists will use any means to blame the Bush administration in order to gain the upperhand in US politics. But it was inexcusable for them to use Hurricane Katrina to try to advance their incongruous ideology. They made it seem like Bush himself caused the hurricane. Some have complained that Bush didn't provide the funds to help in building up the levees. The same complainers said there were computer simulated predictions that this very incident would occur and that Bush ignored it. These people do their best to tear others down in imagined and unprovable ways. First of all, if there’s anyone to blame, it’s the laziness of state and local politicians. There is no excuse why it takes so long to build things that can help people. Then again, the reason why the levees weren’t built was because no matter how big the levees, it won’t do any good; New Orleans sits on some really soft ground. Simply put, the bigger the levees, the quicker the sinking of those levees. And there were enough people who knew of the computer simulations to round up the amount of resources to counter this natural disaster. Waiting for the federal government to do anything only shows they don’t know how to help themselves and don’t know the workings of government. Depending on the government for assistance is unwise and inefficient.
So, why did the National Guard come so late? Is Bush guilty of negligence? No, of course not. There seems to be this overwhelming misunderstanding that only the President has all the responsibility of calling in the National Guard to the rescue. Not so. It was Governor Blanco who had just as much responsibility to call them in. She thought the Red Cross and all the other volunteers were already doing a swell job, but she was ignorant to how large a force was necessary to help. Contrary to popular opinion, the LA National Guard, the Coast Guard, the Red Cross, FEMA, and DHS were poised and ready to help before Katrina made landfall. Within a day, several other state’s National Guard were already helping with rescue efforts. The Coast Guard alone rescued a few thousand within two days of the flooding. What we all saw in the news was the National Guard coming in after Nagin told them to help the local and state police. They weren’t late at all, they were already there. There were a few thousand National Guardsmen doing a whole host of things from rescuing to policing. It was Nagin and Blanco who didn’t know how to use the resources efficiently. Besides, with devastation this large, it usually takes time to gather the troops needed and I don’t blame the National Guard for trickling in over the course of the week, all 7,000 and then some. Within four days there were over 10,000 troops helping, not including all other branches of the military. The media made it seem like the National Guard came five days late and that Bush sat on his hands while the Gulf Coast suffered. And they also made it seem like all of our military were in Afghanistan and Iraq while only a few of them were manning the stateside barracks. Some people come up with the strangest conclusions. A few liberal pundits went so far as to call Bush a racist. I shake my head at that because it is so unnecessary. Goes to show the lack of respect these people have for themselves and their country. They also like to make opinions based on a paltry amount of information. I must admit, the entire rescue effort had a lot of errors. Too much happened with inefficient handling of resources. Nagin and Blanco weren’t prepared for the devastation and worse, didn’t prepare the citizens with information acquired from the previous year. They set the stage to play the blame game, but they ended up as the losers.
I'm not a Bush sycophant, but I know when a leader has a good head on his shoulders and a big heart in his chest. He was man enough to take responsibility for the mistakes of others. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.
The leftists will use any means to blame the Bush administration in order to gain the upperhand in US politics. But it was inexcusable for them to use Hurricane Katrina to try to advance their incongruous ideology. They made it seem like Bush himself caused the hurricane. Some have complained that Bush didn't provide the funds to help in building up the levees. The same complainers said there were computer simulated predictions that this very incident would occur and that Bush ignored it. These people do their best to tear others down in imagined and unprovable ways. First of all, if there’s anyone to blame, it’s the laziness of state and local politicians. There is no excuse why it takes so long to build things that can help people. Then again, the reason why the levees weren’t built was because no matter how big the levees, it won’t do any good; New Orleans sits on some really soft ground. Simply put, the bigger the levees, the quicker the sinking of those levees. And there were enough people who knew of the computer simulations to round up the amount of resources to counter this natural disaster. Waiting for the federal government to do anything only shows they don’t know how to help themselves and don’t know the workings of government. Depending on the government for assistance is unwise and inefficient.
So, why did the National Guard come so late? Is Bush guilty of negligence? No, of course not. There seems to be this overwhelming misunderstanding that only the President has all the responsibility of calling in the National Guard to the rescue. Not so. It was Governor Blanco who had just as much responsibility to call them in. She thought the Red Cross and all the other volunteers were already doing a swell job, but she was ignorant to how large a force was necessary to help. Contrary to popular opinion, the LA National Guard, the Coast Guard, the Red Cross, FEMA, and DHS were poised and ready to help before Katrina made landfall. Within a day, several other state’s National Guard were already helping with rescue efforts. The Coast Guard alone rescued a few thousand within two days of the flooding. What we all saw in the news was the National Guard coming in after Nagin told them to help the local and state police. They weren’t late at all, they were already there. There were a few thousand National Guardsmen doing a whole host of things from rescuing to policing. It was Nagin and Blanco who didn’t know how to use the resources efficiently. Besides, with devastation this large, it usually takes time to gather the troops needed and I don’t blame the National Guard for trickling in over the course of the week, all 7,000 and then some. Within four days there were over 10,000 troops helping, not including all other branches of the military. The media made it seem like the National Guard came five days late and that Bush sat on his hands while the Gulf Coast suffered. And they also made it seem like all of our military were in Afghanistan and Iraq while only a few of them were manning the stateside barracks. Some people come up with the strangest conclusions. A few liberal pundits went so far as to call Bush a racist. I shake my head at that because it is so unnecessary. Goes to show the lack of respect these people have for themselves and their country. They also like to make opinions based on a paltry amount of information. I must admit, the entire rescue effort had a lot of errors. Too much happened with inefficient handling of resources. Nagin and Blanco weren’t prepared for the devastation and worse, didn’t prepare the citizens with information acquired from the previous year. They set the stage to play the blame game, but they ended up as the losers.
I'm not a Bush sycophant, but I know when a leader has a good head on his shoulders and a big heart in his chest. He was man enough to take responsibility for the mistakes of others. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.
August 08, 2005
Dropping the bomb
The 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing came and went without a hitch. No poetic terrorist stupidity that would cost lives. It was just a remembrance day, with old Japanese and US vets talking about WWII and the usual pundits doing their TV rounds. The war in Iraq is still in full swing, the confirmation process for Judge Roberts is only heating up, Brits are recovering from the previous month's attack, and New Yorkers are squabbling over security screenings.
Saturday before the anniversary, I was talking to my martial arts teacher, John, and a few other students about the war. One guy named Tony was quite outspoken and was very pessimistic about the war and continually compared it to Vietnam. He claimed to be a conservative, but for the most part, he was spewing liberal garbage that you hear on CNN, MSNBC, talk radio, and the like. I'm glad he knew his history or else I would've dismissed him without further thought. Thing is, even with his knowledge of the Vietnam war, he lumped the two wars together using the similarity of the possibly long time it would take to finish the task. He didn't even acknowledge the huge differences between the two wars other than one is in the Mideast and the other was in Asia. Even then he tried to bridge the two saying that we entered a conflict that was already going on for years. His conclusion: Pull out while we still can and leave them alone to kill themselves. John is conservative as well and simply said the US should just bomb the areas with the most terrorists. Col. Al, John's most talented student, now out in Iraq, told him in a recent e-mail that 85% of Iraq is normal and are rebuilding. The other 15% are the terrorists who cause all the trouble and are being beaten back, slowly but surely. I don't call them insurgents because they're not Republican Guard holding on to the last vestige of Saddam's rule. After Hitler was killed, the Nazis who continued to fight were insurgents. These guys killing the Marines (an average of 1 Marine killed for every 25 terrorists killed I might add) don't even have the dignity to be called insurgents.
I read an opinion that said the US military should capture and destroy Mecca to teach terrorists a lesson. No, I'd have to dismiss that because it's strategically unsound in an asymmetrical war (instead of just a small number of Muslim terrorists as WMDs there will be millions more created because of that action) and besides, the force vs. force principle should be used sparingly.
In an asymmetrical war, tactics are drastically different from WW II battles and a whole different world from Napoleonic battles. It is guerilla warfare on steroids. There is not only no walls but there are no boundaries, which means the US is vulnerable. (I’ll talk about the extremist Muslim mindset another time.) The enemy can enter the US and blend in easily. I agree that there are similarities to the Vietnam war in the terrorists’ tactic: soldiers that look like civilians. Except this time around the terrorists are not soldiers, they ARE the civilians. And in Iraq, there are civilians from other countries helping the extremists in that country. There are no more clear lines.
Also, the other similarity to the Vietnam war is the media coverage. Although, in this type of war, especially with the communications technology we have, the terrorists have figured out a variation to their one main strategy, one they always use: strike fear into the hearts of your enemy. The terrorists know they can’t win against US Marines. They’re being beaten back daily and methodically by the US. The terrorists also know that American news will always focus on bloodshed. So their only way to beat the US is to beat the American citizen in a mind game. Their strategy is to bomb and kill consistently and almost always, the media will faithfully cover it. This news will dishearten American citizens who will then influence politicians into pressuring Bush to pull the US military out of Iraq. Beautiful strategy, incorporating a simplified psy-ops and using your enemy’s strength (US citizens) against them. Of course, Bush and his team are well aware of good strategy and as he has said many times before, will stay the course. Pulling out now will spell victory for the terrorists and will leave a vacuum for something worse later on. The whole “clean the house of one demon only to find it occupied by seven more” principle.
That’s one big lesson to learn from Vietnam – we do not leave until we’re done. It took ten years for Germany to become a sovereign nation again after World War II and that was after millions were killed. Leaving Vietnam was a huge mistake and cost the lives of more people than if we had stayed and rethought our strategy (as in let the military make the decisions, not politicians from the other side of the world). If people really want Iraq to be like Vietnam then we leave now. If not, then we should stay. The rebuilding of Iraq is moving faster than expected. Yes, it will take time and lives will be lost. Staying the course is the best decision. Bush didn’t have to focus so much on the WMD in the very beginning. If anything, he should have said that the terrorists themselves were the WMD and that Saddam was paying people to kill Americans. Then he could have emphasized the freedom of the Iraqi, since the war is called Operation Iraqi Freedom, not Operation Get the WMD. One thing is certain, this is definitely different from World War II and the Vietnam war and to compare it exactly to either one is ignorance.
Saturday before the anniversary, I was talking to my martial arts teacher, John, and a few other students about the war. One guy named Tony was quite outspoken and was very pessimistic about the war and continually compared it to Vietnam. He claimed to be a conservative, but for the most part, he was spewing liberal garbage that you hear on CNN, MSNBC, talk radio, and the like. I'm glad he knew his history or else I would've dismissed him without further thought. Thing is, even with his knowledge of the Vietnam war, he lumped the two wars together using the similarity of the possibly long time it would take to finish the task. He didn't even acknowledge the huge differences between the two wars other than one is in the Mideast and the other was in Asia. Even then he tried to bridge the two saying that we entered a conflict that was already going on for years. His conclusion: Pull out while we still can and leave them alone to kill themselves. John is conservative as well and simply said the US should just bomb the areas with the most terrorists. Col. Al, John's most talented student, now out in Iraq, told him in a recent e-mail that 85% of Iraq is normal and are rebuilding. The other 15% are the terrorists who cause all the trouble and are being beaten back, slowly but surely. I don't call them insurgents because they're not Republican Guard holding on to the last vestige of Saddam's rule. After Hitler was killed, the Nazis who continued to fight were insurgents. These guys killing the Marines (an average of 1 Marine killed for every 25 terrorists killed I might add) don't even have the dignity to be called insurgents.
I read an opinion that said the US military should capture and destroy Mecca to teach terrorists a lesson. No, I'd have to dismiss that because it's strategically unsound in an asymmetrical war (instead of just a small number of Muslim terrorists as WMDs there will be millions more created because of that action) and besides, the force vs. force principle should be used sparingly.
In an asymmetrical war, tactics are drastically different from WW II battles and a whole different world from Napoleonic battles. It is guerilla warfare on steroids. There is not only no walls but there are no boundaries, which means the US is vulnerable. (I’ll talk about the extremist Muslim mindset another time.) The enemy can enter the US and blend in easily. I agree that there are similarities to the Vietnam war in the terrorists’ tactic: soldiers that look like civilians. Except this time around the terrorists are not soldiers, they ARE the civilians. And in Iraq, there are civilians from other countries helping the extremists in that country. There are no more clear lines.
Also, the other similarity to the Vietnam war is the media coverage. Although, in this type of war, especially with the communications technology we have, the terrorists have figured out a variation to their one main strategy, one they always use: strike fear into the hearts of your enemy. The terrorists know they can’t win against US Marines. They’re being beaten back daily and methodically by the US. The terrorists also know that American news will always focus on bloodshed. So their only way to beat the US is to beat the American citizen in a mind game. Their strategy is to bomb and kill consistently and almost always, the media will faithfully cover it. This news will dishearten American citizens who will then influence politicians into pressuring Bush to pull the US military out of Iraq. Beautiful strategy, incorporating a simplified psy-ops and using your enemy’s strength (US citizens) against them. Of course, Bush and his team are well aware of good strategy and as he has said many times before, will stay the course. Pulling out now will spell victory for the terrorists and will leave a vacuum for something worse later on. The whole “clean the house of one demon only to find it occupied by seven more” principle.
That’s one big lesson to learn from Vietnam – we do not leave until we’re done. It took ten years for Germany to become a sovereign nation again after World War II and that was after millions were killed. Leaving Vietnam was a huge mistake and cost the lives of more people than if we had stayed and rethought our strategy (as in let the military make the decisions, not politicians from the other side of the world). If people really want Iraq to be like Vietnam then we leave now. If not, then we should stay. The rebuilding of Iraq is moving faster than expected. Yes, it will take time and lives will be lost. Staying the course is the best decision. Bush didn’t have to focus so much on the WMD in the very beginning. If anything, he should have said that the terrorists themselves were the WMD and that Saddam was paying people to kill Americans. Then he could have emphasized the freedom of the Iraqi, since the war is called Operation Iraqi Freedom, not Operation Get the WMD. One thing is certain, this is definitely different from World War II and the Vietnam war and to compare it exactly to either one is ignorance.
July 30, 2005
The Parenting License
"Some people should have a parenting license before they have kids..."
- Emi Spicer
I agree. Maybe not a license, but at the very least basic training. Have you heard about the tragedy of the kids who died when they locked themselves in a car trunk? There's an apparent dissonance when one of the parents blamed the police. The truth, of course, is that the parents are to blame. And the sad part is, that one parent is taking this to court. He thought the police searching for the boys had a higher responsibility. He didn't want to take responsibility for his own negligence. Blaming is a natural self-defense reaction, especially if you think you can do no wrong. Still, the parents should have had the common sense to watch their kids. Not only that but they should have briefed their kids on simple things like "don't get into a car trunk, that's where you store things and dead people" and "don't be as stupid as me." The principle is true, there needs to be a requirement that if you're going to have kids, my word, swallow your pride and learn from wise people how best to take care of them. There's much more to child-rearing than the first six years and then just coasting along when they go to school. And even then, most parents just wing it and do what their parents did and rely on what they learned before they had kids (which usually amounts to nothing). Responsibility and education go hand in hand. The more you have to look after, the more you have to learn how to look after it. There are so many resources to raising a child right, it's not even funny. And yet a quick look at book sales shows that books about child rearing past kindergarten decline sharply and only books about ADD and strong-willed children generate sales (the latter among Christians mainly, of all things). Kudos to those parents who do their best to learn everything about child-rearing all the way to when the kids get married. And even then, they still need to learn to communicate to their kids as adults. Learning at every stage of the game, that's the key to raising well-adjusted people. It's the toughest job on Earth, but it can be accompished.
- Emi Spicer
I agree. Maybe not a license, but at the very least basic training. Have you heard about the tragedy of the kids who died when they locked themselves in a car trunk? There's an apparent dissonance when one of the parents blamed the police. The truth, of course, is that the parents are to blame. And the sad part is, that one parent is taking this to court. He thought the police searching for the boys had a higher responsibility. He didn't want to take responsibility for his own negligence. Blaming is a natural self-defense reaction, especially if you think you can do no wrong. Still, the parents should have had the common sense to watch their kids. Not only that but they should have briefed their kids on simple things like "don't get into a car trunk, that's where you store things and dead people" and "don't be as stupid as me." The principle is true, there needs to be a requirement that if you're going to have kids, my word, swallow your pride and learn from wise people how best to take care of them. There's much more to child-rearing than the first six years and then just coasting along when they go to school. And even then, most parents just wing it and do what their parents did and rely on what they learned before they had kids (which usually amounts to nothing). Responsibility and education go hand in hand. The more you have to look after, the more you have to learn how to look after it. There are so many resources to raising a child right, it's not even funny. And yet a quick look at book sales shows that books about child rearing past kindergarten decline sharply and only books about ADD and strong-willed children generate sales (the latter among Christians mainly, of all things). Kudos to those parents who do their best to learn everything about child-rearing all the way to when the kids get married. And even then, they still need to learn to communicate to their kids as adults. Learning at every stage of the game, that's the key to raising well-adjusted people. It's the toughest job on Earth, but it can be accompished.
July 25, 2005
Intelligent design or something else?
An article by a Rabbi Gerard spoke against intelligent design (ID) claiming it is based on false assumptions. He discussed a lot of basic arguments opposing ID, but doesn't go in-depth. The article is more of a thought provoker than a thesis. Even then, I'd like to counter the arguments he presented. He began the article by asking the supporters of ID to explain mildew, mosquitoes, lower back problems, cancer, and childhood leukemia. I sat there thinking, What about them? To me they're minor issues. Yes, I'm aware that minor issues tend to be a stumbling block to people. "I just get stuck at childhood leukemia," he writes. Really they don't want to submit to the idea of being accountable to God and would use any excuse to not understand, even simple things. He doesn't want to understand because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of God and the Bible.
The essence of his article, and a question many people ask is, if this God who designed the universe is a good God, why does he let these bad things happen? So his article is not so much ID, but "the seeming irreconcilability of a good God and the world all around." It's the reason he can't get around those five "bad" things he mentioned. Why he's a rabbi and doesn't have a basic understanding of the Bible, I wouldn't know. His rabbinical school must've left a few things out. Or he slept through Torah class and missed a few good points about life and God. He tells a story about a conversation between Tanna, one of the earliest rabbis, and a person who asked why fruit rots. Tanna's answer: "so that produce merchants cannot hold on to their merchandise indefinitely, selfishly driving up the price." Much like Bryan's answer to Darrow's question "Where did Cain's wife come from?" Bryan: "Why are you asking about another man's wife?" Cute and curt, but it doesn't answer the question and it is a bad example for creationists and ID supporters. (For that Bryan could've at least said that Adam and Eve had more children other than Abel and Seth. And if he knew any genetics, he could've at least said that the gene pool was still clean and free of mutative effects.)
Gerard goes on to say "scientists claim the problem with ID is that it's not subject to testing; it can't be proved or disproved and thus remain in the realm of religion. But this is an unsatisfying conclusion because it leaves us with the possibility that it might be true. And it can't be." All I have to say to that is, the claims of evolution also leads scientists to the same conclusion, that "it can't be proved or disproved and thus remain in the realm of religion." Evolution is nothing more than modern man's origins myth, a religion of the self with science terms ornamenting it. Gerard's statement is an extension of his problem - he can't figure out the answer to the good God question so everything else can't be true. He compares Darwinian evolution (DE) and ID saying that if DE is accurate then some things will look intelligently designed while others not and if ID true then all things will look intelligently designed "and very clearly it is not." I know a provoker opinion article isn't the place to state scientific findings, but he should have at least presented one. Those five he mentioned aren't good enough, and, fortunately, not much of a challenge. I'll take on one of them (I won't be too detailed, just want to give an idea):
One problem he mentioned is lower back pain. Evolutionists believe that humans have lower back pain because we were originally hunched over quadrupedally before our ancestors decided to stand bipedally. But we still naturally want to hunch over, much like one of the middle pictures in the debunked “evolution of man” chart. Evolutionists believe that the spine was a suspension bridge rather than a tent pole and only over time did we start to develop a stronger lumbar region. I’m sorry, but our lumbar region has no clear sign that it ever acted like a suspension bridge. It was like that from the very beginning because it was created to be that way. Many years ago, because evolutionists believed the lumbar lie, they developed a method to treat lower back pain, but with negative results. They were confounded when they realized that the treatment needs to be based on the simple fact of keeping the lumbar erect with good anatomically correct exercises instead of treating it like an evolutionary anomaly (ie they suggested to bend forward like an animal). Lower back pain is usually the result of poor body mechanics, a sedentary lifestyle, and obesity, not because of an evolutionary change. People in Third World countries have dramatically less instances of lower back pain than in Industrial nations. They actually move around and do manual labor instead of sitting in front of a computer all day in an office, hunched over like a Neanderthal.
To get back to the important issue, Gerard simply doesn’t understand God. He doesn’t have good Theology proper. Rabbi Gerard, the reason why the world is messed up is because the first humans rebelled against their Creator God. (This account is in the Torah if you want to read about it. And no, it’s not a metaphor.) God made everything good, but because man sinned, everything was shot to pieces. Death, disease, destruction (and lower back pain) entered the world because man disobeyed. He didn’t want to choose God. He instead chose to elevate himself and sinned and everything in creation was negatively affected. Once you get that from the Torah, realize that there’s more scientific evidence out there supporting what you studied in rabbinical school than there is on the defunct ideas of evolutionists, which amounts to nothing more than science fiction.
The essence of his article, and a question many people ask is, if this God who designed the universe is a good God, why does he let these bad things happen? So his article is not so much ID, but "the seeming irreconcilability of a good God and the world all around." It's the reason he can't get around those five "bad" things he mentioned. Why he's a rabbi and doesn't have a basic understanding of the Bible, I wouldn't know. His rabbinical school must've left a few things out. Or he slept through Torah class and missed a few good points about life and God. He tells a story about a conversation between Tanna, one of the earliest rabbis, and a person who asked why fruit rots. Tanna's answer: "so that produce merchants cannot hold on to their merchandise indefinitely, selfishly driving up the price." Much like Bryan's answer to Darrow's question "Where did Cain's wife come from?" Bryan: "Why are you asking about another man's wife?" Cute and curt, but it doesn't answer the question and it is a bad example for creationists and ID supporters. (For that Bryan could've at least said that Adam and Eve had more children other than Abel and Seth. And if he knew any genetics, he could've at least said that the gene pool was still clean and free of mutative effects.)
Gerard goes on to say "scientists claim the problem with ID is that it's not subject to testing; it can't be proved or disproved and thus remain in the realm of religion. But this is an unsatisfying conclusion because it leaves us with the possibility that it might be true. And it can't be." All I have to say to that is, the claims of evolution also leads scientists to the same conclusion, that "it can't be proved or disproved and thus remain in the realm of religion." Evolution is nothing more than modern man's origins myth, a religion of the self with science terms ornamenting it. Gerard's statement is an extension of his problem - he can't figure out the answer to the good God question so everything else can't be true. He compares Darwinian evolution (DE) and ID saying that if DE is accurate then some things will look intelligently designed while others not and if ID true then all things will look intelligently designed "and very clearly it is not." I know a provoker opinion article isn't the place to state scientific findings, but he should have at least presented one. Those five he mentioned aren't good enough, and, fortunately, not much of a challenge. I'll take on one of them (I won't be too detailed, just want to give an idea):
One problem he mentioned is lower back pain. Evolutionists believe that humans have lower back pain because we were originally hunched over quadrupedally before our ancestors decided to stand bipedally. But we still naturally want to hunch over, much like one of the middle pictures in the debunked “evolution of man” chart. Evolutionists believe that the spine was a suspension bridge rather than a tent pole and only over time did we start to develop a stronger lumbar region. I’m sorry, but our lumbar region has no clear sign that it ever acted like a suspension bridge. It was like that from the very beginning because it was created to be that way. Many years ago, because evolutionists believed the lumbar lie, they developed a method to treat lower back pain, but with negative results. They were confounded when they realized that the treatment needs to be based on the simple fact of keeping the lumbar erect with good anatomically correct exercises instead of treating it like an evolutionary anomaly (ie they suggested to bend forward like an animal). Lower back pain is usually the result of poor body mechanics, a sedentary lifestyle, and obesity, not because of an evolutionary change. People in Third World countries have dramatically less instances of lower back pain than in Industrial nations. They actually move around and do manual labor instead of sitting in front of a computer all day in an office, hunched over like a Neanderthal.
To get back to the important issue, Gerard simply doesn’t understand God. He doesn’t have good Theology proper. Rabbi Gerard, the reason why the world is messed up is because the first humans rebelled against their Creator God. (This account is in the Torah if you want to read about it. And no, it’s not a metaphor.) God made everything good, but because man sinned, everything was shot to pieces. Death, disease, destruction (and lower back pain) entered the world because man disobeyed. He didn’t want to choose God. He instead chose to elevate himself and sinned and everything in creation was negatively affected. Once you get that from the Torah, realize that there’s more scientific evidence out there supporting what you studied in rabbinical school than there is on the defunct ideas of evolutionists, which amounts to nothing more than science fiction.
July 14, 2005
Self-defense training is a must
“Many believe that the problems in society start with unloved children with little self-esteem. Duncan seems to have felt loved so we can rule that out. But Duncan, like most mass-murderers before him, was not suffering from too little self-esteem but too much. Maslow, you bastard idiot, the problems of humanity stem more from selfishness than from lack of self regard.”
- taken from The Jawa Report http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/100103.php
Shasta Groene
The remains of Dylan Groene, 9, was finally found in a Montana campsite. How in the world did this guy JD3 (won't even dignify him by mentioning his name) even get away with this? He bound then killed Dylan's mother, her boyfriend, and his 13 year old brother. He later killed Dylan, and leaving his little sister, Shasta, for last and sexually brutalized her for three weeks. She told investigators he did the same to her brother. May that animal be tied to a millstone and sent to hell. If it wasn't for the customers and the intuitive waitress at the Denny's, most likely he would've done more of his evil on her as well. Knowing this type of monster, he would've moved on to other victims. Got me enraged when I first read about this a month ago. (Don't even get me started on that human excrement who killed his daughter and her friend. I'm glad he was caught. Also glad he didn't have the intelligence to cover his tracks. Time for him to die, obviously.)
I don't know the details of what went down, but if the killer had enough time to tie up the entire family, there was definitely a chance for any one of them to fight him off. My word! Was the boyfriend of the mother a little wimp or something?! Was he that intimidated by the attacker that he couldn't mentally handle it? JD3 had a shotgun and a hammer. Was the boyfriend in that much of a stupor that he couldn’t do something, anything? And from what I read, the mother had time to wake Shasta and bring her to the living room. Why did they not fight back?
The society we live in unfortunately places a low priority on efficient self-protection. Selfishness can kill people. Asocial behavior is nothing more than the purest form of selfishness and expresses itself in criminal actions. And people are potential victims if they are too prideful to think that they’ll know what to do in an attack without proper training. Either that or they’re just gullible about the evil in the world. The law isn't good enough to fully protect children. You can have all the laws to protect a child and catalog every single person who talks about doing anything to a child, but it won't help in the long run. It's up to the family and the child to learn safety and survival skills. And if that includes learning how to fight efficiently then great! I'm now more inclined to teach a seminar or two on children's self-defense. The classes I teach are for 13 years old and older. Not that I don't like teaching young children, but my experience in the past was that most parents send their kids to karate for baby-sitting and discipline. From what I recall, that's the parents' job, not the instructor's. The instructor only reinforces what the parents teach. But that’s another issue.
A seminar for a couple of hours I can deal with. Kids really don’t need prolonged self-defense training, anyway. It would be idiotic to think a kid can go toe to toe with someone more than twice their size and weight. No, there’s a different approach and it’s a whole lot better than forcing them into karate training for a few years in order to learn “self-defense” and then giving black belts to ten year olds after three years of training. It can help but usually what they learn at the local McDojo isn’t enough. A combination of training in self-defense, street smarts, and survival skills are absolutely necessary for a child. Confidence and caution should be taught concurrently. Both parent and child need the self-protection training. And it doesn’t take years to accomplish this, just an afternoon of learning and a monthly or even annual retraining. Parent and child can practice at home as well.
There are a lot of programs out there and they aren’t expensive. A parent who cares will take a little time to research and find something with a decent price and exceptional teaching. It's sad to hear about anything evil done on children. We can't totally eradicate it, but we can at least help prevent any more of that evil from happening.
- taken from The Jawa Report http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/100103.php
Shasta Groene
The remains of Dylan Groene, 9, was finally found in a Montana campsite. How in the world did this guy JD3 (won't even dignify him by mentioning his name) even get away with this? He bound then killed Dylan's mother, her boyfriend, and his 13 year old brother. He later killed Dylan, and leaving his little sister, Shasta, for last and sexually brutalized her for three weeks. She told investigators he did the same to her brother. May that animal be tied to a millstone and sent to hell. If it wasn't for the customers and the intuitive waitress at the Denny's, most likely he would've done more of his evil on her as well. Knowing this type of monster, he would've moved on to other victims. Got me enraged when I first read about this a month ago. (Don't even get me started on that human excrement who killed his daughter and her friend. I'm glad he was caught. Also glad he didn't have the intelligence to cover his tracks. Time for him to die, obviously.)I don't know the details of what went down, but if the killer had enough time to tie up the entire family, there was definitely a chance for any one of them to fight him off. My word! Was the boyfriend of the mother a little wimp or something?! Was he that intimidated by the attacker that he couldn't mentally handle it? JD3 had a shotgun and a hammer. Was the boyfriend in that much of a stupor that he couldn’t do something, anything? And from what I read, the mother had time to wake Shasta and bring her to the living room. Why did they not fight back?
The society we live in unfortunately places a low priority on efficient self-protection. Selfishness can kill people. Asocial behavior is nothing more than the purest form of selfishness and expresses itself in criminal actions. And people are potential victims if they are too prideful to think that they’ll know what to do in an attack without proper training. Either that or they’re just gullible about the evil in the world. The law isn't good enough to fully protect children. You can have all the laws to protect a child and catalog every single person who talks about doing anything to a child, but it won't help in the long run. It's up to the family and the child to learn safety and survival skills. And if that includes learning how to fight efficiently then great! I'm now more inclined to teach a seminar or two on children's self-defense. The classes I teach are for 13 years old and older. Not that I don't like teaching young children, but my experience in the past was that most parents send their kids to karate for baby-sitting and discipline. From what I recall, that's the parents' job, not the instructor's. The instructor only reinforces what the parents teach. But that’s another issue.
A seminar for a couple of hours I can deal with. Kids really don’t need prolonged self-defense training, anyway. It would be idiotic to think a kid can go toe to toe with someone more than twice their size and weight. No, there’s a different approach and it’s a whole lot better than forcing them into karate training for a few years in order to learn “self-defense” and then giving black belts to ten year olds after three years of training. It can help but usually what they learn at the local McDojo isn’t enough. A combination of training in self-defense, street smarts, and survival skills are absolutely necessary for a child. Confidence and caution should be taught concurrently. Both parent and child need the self-protection training. And it doesn’t take years to accomplish this, just an afternoon of learning and a monthly or even annual retraining. Parent and child can practice at home as well.
There are a lot of programs out there and they aren’t expensive. A parent who cares will take a little time to research and find something with a decent price and exceptional teaching. It's sad to hear about anything evil done on children. We can't totally eradicate it, but we can at least help prevent any more of that evil from happening.
June 30, 2005
Torture at Guantanamo?
So, why are liberals causing such a stir with the "torture" and "abuse" at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? Well, apparently they don't like Bush or anything connected to what he does, specifically this war. People write whole books to that, which is why I don't need to discuss it here. There is absolutely no reason why this issue of "torture" needs to be politicized. Obviously, those soldiers were wrong in doing it. Embarassing someone is never a good thing and I personally look down on unprofessional behavior. But take it in context of what's happening with the rest of the war: there should be more uproar about the terrorists beheading people than all this complaining about the rights of the captives. In fact, the US actually follows Geneva convention rules about taking care of the enemy. Those bozos who try to kill us are fed better than some poor people in the US and have been given everything they need to practice their religion and make them as comfortable as possible while being held. Then you have the other side who only follow their ideology of hate and can't even take care of themselves much less their captives. And the best way to keep rations is to behead another hostage. Of course you have to videotape it first to make it count for allah and send it to al-jazeera to display to the rest of the world. Must be a sub-section to the fifth pillar. There were reports of 15 detainees, some disillusioned by Islam, mishandling their own Korans using it as a pillow, ripping pages out of it, attempting to flush one down the toilet, and urinating on it. As always, the media gets it wrong and says that a US soldier flushed one Koran down the toilet (which was later disproved and was retracted) and, oh man, it's one of the worst of these atrocities against the misunderstood Islamists. When the leftist US media and al-jazeera blew it way out of proportion, it resulted in the deaths of 16 people in Afghanistan. I hope the average American citizen will notice the dissonance. The "average" blue PA citizen wouldn't necessarily agree with me, nor would they notice their own entrenched liberal programming. They seem to like being brainwashed by anything they listen to or watch, instead of making a well-informed, thoughtful decision based on different sources. I'm not even going to get started on political blogs. All I'm saying is their focus is wrong. Instead of blaming our soldiers, these people making their unnecessary ruckus should divert their energy to questioning their view of the world and do something constructive like getting their information right for a change. They seem to be ignorant of the true definition of "peace." They have this communistic utopian view of peace that is myopic at worst, callow at best. In their minds, peace is merely the absence of conflict. In truth, peace is the freedom won after conflict.
Dissent is healthy, spreading false reports and information isn't.
Dissent is healthy, spreading false reports and information isn't.
June 24, 2005
The Uganda Project
Back in the '80s, Uganda had one of the highest AIDS rates in the world for its population at 30%. Ugandan President Museveni couldn't afford to buy condoms from Western countries so he launched the ABC campaign: Abstinence until marriage; Be faithful in marriage; Condoms only for high-risk groups. It was a nationwide project with messages on billboards and various other ads about the dangers of sex outside of marriage. Over the next ten years, the AIDS rate in the country dropped down to 6%, still more than the US AIDS rate, but the drop was incredible. AIDS researchers were amazed and studied how it happened. One researcher, an epidemiologist named Dr. Stoneburner, was denied several times over a ten year period by U. S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from publishing his findings. Dr. Stoneburner found that condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS. USAID and their financial partners kept him quiet. Years later, another researcher, a Harvard anthropologist named Dr. Green, found that the first two points of the campaign, abstinence and marital fidelity, played a greater role in AIDS decline than condom usage. When he and his co-researcher presented their findings to USAID and friends, USAID was embarassed and horrified. They didn't want to believe the findings because they wouldn't have a profitable market. In the mid-90's, Dr. Green advocated condom usage to control Third World population and poverty. He is no conservative, but because he prides himself as an objective researcher, he had to follow the evidence concerning AIDS even if he didn't like it. USAID didn't publish Dr. Green's findings because it wouldn't have made money for their friend Population Services International, a condom distribution company. Instead they demoted Dr. Green, hired someone else, and began to tout that condom usage leads to AIDS decline. Like in most things, follow the money and it'll uncover the truth.
June 21, 2005
Japan AIDS rate rises
"In a nation that has excellent healthcare and widespread condom use, many in Japan's health community are wondering why the disease is growing so rapidly..." - taken from a Health section article of The Express-Times Lehigh Valley edition.
This one's a no brainer: Condom use does little to prevent the spread of AIDS. Let's start off with a little basic science, shall we? Back in the early 1990s, a study was done to find out the effectiveness of condoms. Researchers found little pores that naturally occur in latex when it was produced. Industrial latex gloves had 1 micron wide holes. A condom, because it is used to prevent pregnancy, had holes that were 5 microns wide. The average diameter of a sperm's head is 3-5 microns (for those in the know, that's where the 97% effectiveness comes in). HIV's size is 0.1 microns and is both an intracellular virus and a free floating virus. Only in recent years did condom manufacturers try to heighten their standards by doing things like double dipping the latex to make the condom stronger. Quality checks showed better results than before and latex for condoms are better than industrial gloves now. Then again, only a few condom companies in America have those standards. And, by the time a shipment of condoms arrives at a retailer, most of the time the integrity of the latex breaks down because the transport standards aren't strict. Then the chances for breakage increase. At least that problem can be easily fixed. There are many other factors involved in the spread of AIDS like drug-use, inconsistency of condom usage, and other types of sexual activity like oral sex. Simply put, anytime there is an exchange of bodily fluid, there is the possibility to spread the virus. Sexually irresponsible people spread well-established lies about the benefits of condom use in AIDS prevention and are the most likely to spread the disease as well. They are also the same people who are the most active in complaining about the lack of research into the cure for AIDS. From studies done over the years, when a person with HIV has sex with someone without HIV, it only takes a year and a half of occasional sex until that partner is infected. And it takes AT LEAST 3-6 months for a person to be HIV positive, but USUALLY it will take close to two years before someone will truly know, that is if the person periodically gets a check up. The emphasis on condom usage with only little emphasis on abstinence and fidelity only encourages more sex and greater AIDS spread. If permission to have sex is granted with one exception, people tend to make that exception an option rather than a rule. Controlling behavior on the other hand by shocking people with information about consequences curtails rampant sex and decreases the odds for AIDS to spread. It's not about forcing people not to have sex, but giving people information about the results of uncontrolled sexual activity, thereby allowing them to make a thoughtful decision. So that should be simple enough to answer the question. The next entry will have specific evidence on what I just stated.
This one's a no brainer: Condom use does little to prevent the spread of AIDS. Let's start off with a little basic science, shall we? Back in the early 1990s, a study was done to find out the effectiveness of condoms. Researchers found little pores that naturally occur in latex when it was produced. Industrial latex gloves had 1 micron wide holes. A condom, because it is used to prevent pregnancy, had holes that were 5 microns wide. The average diameter of a sperm's head is 3-5 microns (for those in the know, that's where the 97% effectiveness comes in). HIV's size is 0.1 microns and is both an intracellular virus and a free floating virus. Only in recent years did condom manufacturers try to heighten their standards by doing things like double dipping the latex to make the condom stronger. Quality checks showed better results than before and latex for condoms are better than industrial gloves now. Then again, only a few condom companies in America have those standards. And, by the time a shipment of condoms arrives at a retailer, most of the time the integrity of the latex breaks down because the transport standards aren't strict. Then the chances for breakage increase. At least that problem can be easily fixed. There are many other factors involved in the spread of AIDS like drug-use, inconsistency of condom usage, and other types of sexual activity like oral sex. Simply put, anytime there is an exchange of bodily fluid, there is the possibility to spread the virus. Sexually irresponsible people spread well-established lies about the benefits of condom use in AIDS prevention and are the most likely to spread the disease as well. They are also the same people who are the most active in complaining about the lack of research into the cure for AIDS. From studies done over the years, when a person with HIV has sex with someone without HIV, it only takes a year and a half of occasional sex until that partner is infected. And it takes AT LEAST 3-6 months for a person to be HIV positive, but USUALLY it will take close to two years before someone will truly know, that is if the person periodically gets a check up. The emphasis on condom usage with only little emphasis on abstinence and fidelity only encourages more sex and greater AIDS spread. If permission to have sex is granted with one exception, people tend to make that exception an option rather than a rule. Controlling behavior on the other hand by shocking people with information about consequences curtails rampant sex and decreases the odds for AIDS to spread. It's not about forcing people not to have sex, but giving people information about the results of uncontrolled sexual activity, thereby allowing them to make a thoughtful decision. So that should be simple enough to answer the question. The next entry will have specific evidence on what I just stated.
June 20, 2005
Volumes of Issues
Over the next who knows how long, I'll be writing about my stance on a number of issues being fought over in America today. Understand that the issues are merely the branches, leaves even, of something more important. So if you figure out the underlying theme throughout all these articles, you will find the trunk if not the root of the many challenges Christians face in today's culture.
June 01, 2005
Come on, Lucas!
George Lucas's greatest blunder to date is not Howard the Duck. No, it is in one of the last scenes in Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Obi Wan and Anakin are fighting in the lava world. Obi Wan, in an emotional fit, cries out to Anakin, "Only Sith lords deal in absolutes!" Whoa, the respect meter went down considerably on that instance. Either Obi Wan made a verbal fumble with his Force philosophy (since he was an emotional wreck at that point, not very becoming of a Jedi) or Lucas made a dialogue error (one of many or should I say the entire movie was filled with bad dialogue) and made a fumble in his Force philosophy. In fact it was quite the strange line for Star Wars. The very idea of having the Good side of the Force and the Dark side of the Force is based on absolutes. There is never the Gray side of the Force. From what I gather in the movies, the Gray side is the slippery hill where you slide down one side or the other. It's the "lop off Count Dooku's head" area or "toss the Emperor over" area. That's if there is the "Gray side." Lucas most likely confused the word "absolutes" with "extremes." There's quite a big difference. Simply put, an absolute is complete and unconditional while an extreme is fringe and outermost. Yes, extremism may need absolutes, but absolutes do not necessitate extremism. Extremism just needs one idea to go on, whether or not it's absolute. I'm sure Lucas thought that a person with absolutes qualifies him to develop into an extremist. And I'm sure he knows the difference, but he didn't seem to clarify it in that one instance. And yet there is that phrase in Empire Strikes Back where Obi Wan pretty much says truths are different for each person, or, to quote Bruce, your truth is not my truth. Hog-freaking-wash! Even some secularists agree on the inconsistency of relativism. There is only yes or no, true or false. Of course there is a "depends on the circumstance" but even then those decisions are based on working within the framework of absolutes, otherwise you'll be inconsistent. It's not just Aristotilean dichotomy, our minds are naturally binary. As Schaeffer puts it, it's either thesis or antithesis. Synthesis is sloppy when it comes to dealing with absolutes because it leads to contradiction and dissonance, a result of relativism.
Lucas, you either do or do not, there is no gray.
Lucas, you either do or do not, there is no gray.
May 19, 2005
Terri
From the June 2005 Citizen article "Vital Signs," by Karla Dial.
The timeline of Terri Schiavo.
2/25/1990: Terri Schiavo collapses.
1991: Terri's husband, Michael, puts her in rehab center; bone scan finds several fractures. Terri's condition improves; Michael moves her to nursing home.
1992: Michael receives $1.5 million in malpractice trial.
1993: Michael orders staff not to treat Terri for potentially fatal infection. Terri's parents sue to remove Michael as guardian.
1995: Michael moves in with girlfriend.
1997: Michael announces engagement, begins claiming Terri said she'd rather die.
2000: Florida 6th Circuit Judge George Greer rules to remove Terri's feeding tube, denies request for swallowing test. Terri moved to hospice for terminally ill.
4/24/2001: Terri's tube removed.
4/25/2001: Michael's ex-girlfriend tells local media he lied about Terri's death wishes.
4/26/2001: Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court Judge Frank Quesada says new evidence compels him to resume Terri's feeding.
2002: Terri's scond trial before Greer. Greer orders January tube removal. Family appeals to 2nd District.
2003: 2nd District upholds Greer.
10/15/2003: Terri's feeding tube removed. Terri's Bill introduced in state legislature.
10/21/2003: Terri's Bill signed into law; feeding tube reinserted.
2004: Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird strikes down Terri's law.
2005: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal of Terri's law.
3/18/2005: Feeding tube removed for third time.
3/27/2005: Terri given last rites Easter Sunday.
3/31/2005: Terri dies at 9:03 am EST.
I only heard about the Terri Schiavo case last year, year and a half. If I only knew the whole story, I may have been a bit more active in getting the news out to more people. But then, what could I have done? There was no way for me at the time to do more than spread the news like Focus on the Family tried to do. Even then I didn't hear much about it. Or I didn't want to involve myself too much into politics. And when I did, the elections were on and I had no idea about it other than an occasional update from my wife. There were so many other issues to face, I neglected one of the more important ones. As the "Vital Signs" article said, this isn't the end. The incident has put the issue on the forefront.
As of now, I will say that Michael had no right to unplug the feeding tube. Terri was not in a persistent vegetative state, which is actually quite a derogatory term. In fact, she was disabled, not too far from that of a quadriplegic. She was still able to breathe by herself and could respond well to verbal stimuli. I can only imagine how angry I would be if my quadriplegic friend, Brooke, was denied food because she couldn't feed herself and the government denied her the right to have a feeding tube. It's scary because at least Terri was able to breathe without a machine, Brooke needs a whole lot of help with eveything, even a breathing machine. I can understand unplugging someone from life-support who was brain-dead if no one was able to financially care for the person anymore. But even then, that's a rarity because some people contribute to keeping those people alive. Unfortunately, because of the apparent cognitive dissonance in Judge Greer, he was not intelligent enough to use common sense in this issue, especially when the facts proved against Michael and for the Schindler family. The issue was never about Michael's right to decide for Terri. The issue is always about the facts and hard evidence, especially when it comes to deciding over life. Fact: Michael did NOT have evidence that Terri wanted to be unplugged. Fact: Terri WAS disabled and NOT brain-dead. Fact: Michael was known for wanting Terri dead. Fact: Michael's new marriage to another woman dissolves any legal bond between he and his former wife. Conclusion: Common sense dictates that Terri should have been given over to her family. The whole "right to my wife" idea was merely an excuse, a distraction if you will, to the truth. The government should never have been involved because it would give even more power to an entity that shouldn't decide in these matters, especially if a non-criminal's life is at stake.
I just hope that America's judges would stop ruling by "the letter of the law" (and I use that phrase very generously) and to decide by "the spirit of the law," the underlying principles that provide life along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The timeline of Terri Schiavo.
2/25/1990: Terri Schiavo collapses.
1991: Terri's husband, Michael, puts her in rehab center; bone scan finds several fractures. Terri's condition improves; Michael moves her to nursing home.
1992: Michael receives $1.5 million in malpractice trial.
1993: Michael orders staff not to treat Terri for potentially fatal infection. Terri's parents sue to remove Michael as guardian.
1995: Michael moves in with girlfriend.
1997: Michael announces engagement, begins claiming Terri said she'd rather die.
2000: Florida 6th Circuit Judge George Greer rules to remove Terri's feeding tube, denies request for swallowing test. Terri moved to hospice for terminally ill.
4/24/2001: Terri's tube removed.
4/25/2001: Michael's ex-girlfriend tells local media he lied about Terri's death wishes.
4/26/2001: Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court Judge Frank Quesada says new evidence compels him to resume Terri's feeding.
2002: Terri's scond trial before Greer. Greer orders January tube removal. Family appeals to 2nd District.
2003: 2nd District upholds Greer.
10/15/2003: Terri's feeding tube removed. Terri's Bill introduced in state legislature.
10/21/2003: Terri's Bill signed into law; feeding tube reinserted.
2004: Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird strikes down Terri's law.
2005: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal of Terri's law.
3/18/2005: Feeding tube removed for third time.
3/27/2005: Terri given last rites Easter Sunday.
3/31/2005: Terri dies at 9:03 am EST.
I only heard about the Terri Schiavo case last year, year and a half. If I only knew the whole story, I may have been a bit more active in getting the news out to more people. But then, what could I have done? There was no way for me at the time to do more than spread the news like Focus on the Family tried to do. Even then I didn't hear much about it. Or I didn't want to involve myself too much into politics. And when I did, the elections were on and I had no idea about it other than an occasional update from my wife. There were so many other issues to face, I neglected one of the more important ones. As the "Vital Signs" article said, this isn't the end. The incident has put the issue on the forefront.
As of now, I will say that Michael had no right to unplug the feeding tube. Terri was not in a persistent vegetative state, which is actually quite a derogatory term. In fact, she was disabled, not too far from that of a quadriplegic. She was still able to breathe by herself and could respond well to verbal stimuli. I can only imagine how angry I would be if my quadriplegic friend, Brooke, was denied food because she couldn't feed herself and the government denied her the right to have a feeding tube. It's scary because at least Terri was able to breathe without a machine, Brooke needs a whole lot of help with eveything, even a breathing machine. I can understand unplugging someone from life-support who was brain-dead if no one was able to financially care for the person anymore. But even then, that's a rarity because some people contribute to keeping those people alive. Unfortunately, because of the apparent cognitive dissonance in Judge Greer, he was not intelligent enough to use common sense in this issue, especially when the facts proved against Michael and for the Schindler family. The issue was never about Michael's right to decide for Terri. The issue is always about the facts and hard evidence, especially when it comes to deciding over life. Fact: Michael did NOT have evidence that Terri wanted to be unplugged. Fact: Terri WAS disabled and NOT brain-dead. Fact: Michael was known for wanting Terri dead. Fact: Michael's new marriage to another woman dissolves any legal bond between he and his former wife. Conclusion: Common sense dictates that Terri should have been given over to her family. The whole "right to my wife" idea was merely an excuse, a distraction if you will, to the truth. The government should never have been involved because it would give even more power to an entity that shouldn't decide in these matters, especially if a non-criminal's life is at stake.
I just hope that America's judges would stop ruling by "the letter of the law" (and I use that phrase very generously) and to decide by "the spirit of the law," the underlying principles that provide life along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
April 06, 2005
Blogging?
I wasn't really interested in blogging. In fact, I hated blogging. Yeah, I had my online journal and my websites, but I did my best to stay away from blogs. Then I realized the need for conservative Christians to have more of a web presence. I am now part of a growing group of people to represent the political right, the independent conservative, the dialogical apologist, the Christian activist. Most importantly, I will do my best to represent Jesus Christ.
Preparing for battle...