Sunday, February 29, 2004
Sheep to the Slaughter
The particular focus of the movie seems to be the gruesome torture of Christ. Though this might have happened the exact way Gibson portrays it, it appears he places too much emphasis on the torture and not enough on the Resurrection--the defining moment and reason that I have hope in my eternal salvation. The Bible places more emphasis on the Resurrected Christ than the tortured Christ. With the amount of emphasis on the slaughter of the Lamb of G-d, I would say this would fit well into France's new reality tv show of muslims slaughtering sheep.
All during this week, hype has surrounded Mel Gibson's movie The Passion. Though I have not seen it, I am not going to refrain from making comments (this will probably bite me in the posterior for it, though) based upon a lot of reviewers' comments.
The particular focus of the movie seems to be the gruesome torture of Christ. Though this might have happened the exact way Gibson portrays it, it appears he places too much emphasis on the torture and not enough on the Resurrection--the defining moment and reason that I have hope in my eternal salvation. The Bible places more emphasis on the Resurrected Christ than the tortured Christ. With the amount of emphasis on the slaughter of the Lamb of G-d, I would say this would fit well into France's new reality tv show of muslims slaughtering sheep.
posted by Laura Keslar at 1:20 PM | |
Neither hot nor cold
3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
More evidence that we are in the Laodicean church period: Evangelicals ambivalent to gay marriage. The people here say that they believe it is wrong, but then who are they to say anything against it? Is this what tolerance has wrought? Acceptance by professing Christians that they cannot condemn sin? Paul denounced sin, the gospels say that Jesus told the adulterer to sin no more. Yet, Christians fail to make even that move for fear of umbrage. People fear that the government might come in and prevent the Christian from evangelizing, but in the future, there will be no need for that to happen since the Christians themselves have censored themselves in favor of being tolerant and unbigoted. When Christ came, he brought division--not unity. These evangelicals who are accepting of it have bought into the lie that we must accept peace at any cost.
3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
posted by Laura Keslar at 1:12 PM | |
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
More on ASUA
And the list could go on and on. But then again, I know very few candidates whose campaign platform actually differs from each other. Are they a bunch of automatrons?
Oh, it was highly scary watching my friends vote for who they wanted to win the ASUA elections. One just randomlypicked people based upon how funny they are and the other one voted for only women. But I guess I was no different. I voted for the clock synchronizing guy because he was funny and I didnt vote for any women.
There are two things I learned from the ASUA candidates: diversity on campus needs to increase and education is a right. Oh, and another thing, here is a list of things to say if you don't want my vote for ASUA:
- diversity
- tuition hike
- minorities
- I am a poli sci major, which is then immediately followed by
- but I don't know who is running for president
- community relations
And the list could go on and on. But then again, I know very few candidates whose campaign platform actually differs from each other. Are they a bunch of automatrons?
Oh, it was highly scary watching my friends vote for who they wanted to win the ASUA elections. One just randomlypicked people based upon how funny they are and the other one voted for only women. But I guess I was no different. I voted for the clock synchronizing guy because he was funny and I didnt vote for any women.
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:39 PM | |
ASUA and Clock Synchronization
I hate walking into Koffler 204 and not knowing whether the professor will stop five minutes before the bell because that clock is five minutes slower than other clocks on campus. And then, walking into Harvill 150 is like going back in time, where, in the real world, the time is 2:00 p.m. but the clocks there say 11:30.
But, I suppose he cannot have all clocks on campus synchronized--for instance, the seven clocks in my dorm room. The clock on my desk reads thirteen minutes faster than most of the other clocks in my room and fifteen minutes faster than the campus bell. The clock on the wall is a minute faster than the clock next to my bed which is two minutes faster than the clock over my head which is 14 minutes slower than the clock that is fifteen minutes ahead of the campus bell.
My roommate's alarm clock is three minutes off from the one next to my bed and her other one is a minute faster than the wall clock.
The microwave clock is five minutes faster than the clock on the wall. My computer's clock is off by six minutes from the clock on the wall.
Perhaps the only clock that is on time with the campus bell is my wrist watch, but I wouldnt be too sure about that.
There is probably a reason I live in Arizona--I would hate to think what it would be like to spring forward and fall back. With the seven million clocks in this room, it would be chaos.
Now I know what it is like to be a single issue voter, after all, it was tonight I voted in the ASUA primaries for one candidate in particular because he is doing something I have always desired--he wants to synchronize the clocks on campus. The man responsible for this innovative idea is Prashant Raj.
I hate walking into Koffler 204 and not knowing whether the professor will stop five minutes before the bell because that clock is five minutes slower than other clocks on campus. And then, walking into Harvill 150 is like going back in time, where, in the real world, the time is 2:00 p.m. but the clocks there say 11:30.
But, I suppose he cannot have all clocks on campus synchronized--for instance, the seven clocks in my dorm room. The clock on my desk reads thirteen minutes faster than most of the other clocks in my room and fifteen minutes faster than the campus bell. The clock on the wall is a minute faster than the clock next to my bed which is two minutes faster than the clock over my head which is 14 minutes slower than the clock that is fifteen minutes ahead of the campus bell.
My roommate's alarm clock is three minutes off from the one next to my bed and her other one is a minute faster than the wall clock.
The microwave clock is five minutes faster than the clock on the wall. My computer's clock is off by six minutes from the clock on the wall.
Perhaps the only clock that is on time with the campus bell is my wrist watch, but I wouldnt be too sure about that.
There is probably a reason I live in Arizona--I would hate to think what it would be like to spring forward and fall back. With the seven million clocks in this room, it would be chaos.
posted by Laura Keslar at 8:24 PM | |
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Petros vs. Petra
The argument/debate deals mainly with the use of the word Rock in Scripture.
Scofield remarks
In the Greek, there is a play upon words in this statement: "Thou art Peter [petros,a stone], and upon this rock [petra, a massive rock]I will build my church. It is upon Christ himself that the Church is built.
However, rock has been used throughout the Bible to signify Christ.
Lets start with the first significant reference.
Exodus 17:6 "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel."
The rock in the Old Testament is in reference to Christ. Throughout the Bible, there is somewhat of a rule of first mention. When something is mentioned the first time in the Bible, the context in which the word was used will be used later as symbolism. So Egypt is first mentioned as a place where Abram gives his wife to pharoah (adultery and that is in Genesis 12) and throughout the bible it is used as the reference to sin and slavery. So, when the rock is mentioned in Exodus, the law of first mention applies. Paul talks about this rock in I Cor 10:
1 Cor 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
Furthermore we know that the Rock in mention is Christ by the references of living water flowing from Christ:
John 4:13, 14 "Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
John 7:37,38 "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
And not to add anymore confusion, Peter himself (I Peter 1) declares that Christ the rock:
I Peter 2:7,8 "Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."
Throughout the Bible, the mention of the rock as a stumbling block and as a cornerstone is in reference to Christ--not Peter. Peter is not the cornerstone of the Church, but rather Christ is.
Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"
Christ is the chief corner stone and the apostles and prophets are the foundation--not just Peter.
Romans 9:32,33 "Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
1 Corinthians 1:23 "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"
This rock is again mentioned, according to Scofield's cross-referencing to Genesis 49:24
"But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel: )"
Who is the shepherd but the Shepherd of Luke 15 and John 10.
Luke 15:4-6 "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost."
John 10:11"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."
And even the OT mentions the rock numerous times in reference to Jesus--not Peter:
Zec 4:7"Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it."
Daniel 2:34 "Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces."
Even so, Jesus acknowledges himself as the ROCK:
Matthew 21:42,44 "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? (Mat 21:42)
And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Mat 21:44)
To quote more of Scofield:
"The word "church (Gk. ekklesia, from a verb meaning to call out) is used as any assembly and in itself implies no more than a gathering of people who have been called forth, e.g. the town meeting at Ephesus (Acts 19:41), and Israel, called out of Egypt and assembled in the wilderness (Acts 7:38). Israel was a "church," but not in any sense the N.T. church--the primary point of similarity being that both were "called out" and by the same G-d." See Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 12:23."
As I say, read the context of what is being talked about. So what is the context of Matthew 16:18?
Matthew 16:16-20
"Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."
In response, Scofield says:
"These are not the keys of the Church but of the kingdom of heaven in the sense of Chapter 13, i.e. the sphere of Christian profession. A key is a bandge of power or authority (Isaiah 22:22; Rev 3:7). The apostolic history explains and limits this trust, for it was Peter who opened the door of Christian opportunity to Israel on the Day of Pentecost (Acst 2:38-42) and to Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:34-48). There was no assumption by Peter of any other authority (Acts 15:7-11). In the council James, not Peter seems to have presided (Acts 15:19; Galatians 2:11-14). Peter claimed no more for himself than to be an apostle by gift (1 Peter 1:1) and an elder by office (1 Peter 5:1).
The power of binding and loosing was shared (Matthew 18:18) by the apostles and other believers (John 20:22,23; cp Luke 24:33). An illustration of Peter's use of this authority as related to forgiveness (John 20:23) is given in Acts 10:43. See also Paul's use of it in Acts 13:38-39. The keys of death and the place of departed spirits are held by the Lord Jesus Christ alone (Rev 1:18)."
Recently, I have been on a message board talking about the Roman Catholic faulty :cough: thinking. Since I have been spending so much time over there, I figured I would let y'all in on what I have been saying.
The argument/debate deals mainly with the use of the word Rock in Scripture.
Scofield remarks
In the Greek, there is a play upon words in this statement: "Thou art Peter [petros,a stone], and upon this rock [petra, a massive rock]I will build my church. It is upon Christ himself that the Church is built.
However, rock has been used throughout the Bible to signify Christ.
Lets start with the first significant reference.
Exodus 17:6 "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel."
The rock in the Old Testament is in reference to Christ. Throughout the Bible, there is somewhat of a rule of first mention. When something is mentioned the first time in the Bible, the context in which the word was used will be used later as symbolism. So Egypt is first mentioned as a place where Abram gives his wife to pharoah (adultery and that is in Genesis 12) and throughout the bible it is used as the reference to sin and slavery. So, when the rock is mentioned in Exodus, the law of first mention applies. Paul talks about this rock in I Cor 10:
1 Cor 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
Furthermore we know that the Rock in mention is Christ by the references of living water flowing from Christ:
John 4:13, 14 "Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
John 7:37,38 "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
And not to add anymore confusion, Peter himself (I Peter 1) declares that Christ the rock:
I Peter 2:7,8 "Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."
Throughout the Bible, the mention of the rock as a stumbling block and as a cornerstone is in reference to Christ--not Peter. Peter is not the cornerstone of the Church, but rather Christ is.
Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"
Christ is the chief corner stone and the apostles and prophets are the foundation--not just Peter.
Romans 9:32,33 "Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
1 Corinthians 1:23 "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"
This rock is again mentioned, according to Scofield's cross-referencing to Genesis 49:24
"But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel: )"
Who is the shepherd but the Shepherd of Luke 15 and John 10.
Luke 15:4-6 "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost."
John 10:11"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."
And even the OT mentions the rock numerous times in reference to Jesus--not Peter:
Zec 4:7"Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it."
Daniel 2:34 "Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces."
Even so, Jesus acknowledges himself as the ROCK:
Matthew 21:42,44 "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? (Mat 21:42)
And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Mat 21:44)
To quote more of Scofield:
"The word "church (Gk. ekklesia, from a verb meaning to call out) is used as any assembly and in itself implies no more than a gathering of people who have been called forth, e.g. the town meeting at Ephesus (Acts 19:41), and Israel, called out of Egypt and assembled in the wilderness (Acts 7:38). Israel was a "church," but not in any sense the N.T. church--the primary point of similarity being that both were "called out" and by the same G-d." See Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 12:23."
As I say, read the context of what is being talked about. So what is the context of Matthew 16:18?
Matthew 16:16-20
"Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."
In response, Scofield says:
"These are not the keys of the Church but of the kingdom of heaven in the sense of Chapter 13, i.e. the sphere of Christian profession. A key is a bandge of power or authority (Isaiah 22:22; Rev 3:7). The apostolic history explains and limits this trust, for it was Peter who opened the door of Christian opportunity to Israel on the Day of Pentecost (Acst 2:38-42) and to Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:34-48). There was no assumption by Peter of any other authority (Acts 15:7-11). In the council James, not Peter seems to have presided (Acts 15:19; Galatians 2:11-14). Peter claimed no more for himself than to be an apostle by gift (1 Peter 1:1) and an elder by office (1 Peter 5:1).
The power of binding and loosing was shared (Matthew 18:18) by the apostles and other believers (John 20:22,23; cp Luke 24:33). An illustration of Peter's use of this authority as related to forgiveness (John 20:23) is given in Acts 10:43. See also Paul's use of it in Acts 13:38-39. The keys of death and the place of departed spirits are held by the Lord Jesus Christ alone (Rev 1:18)."
posted by Laura Keslar at 8:38 PM | |
When Illegals Attack
Mexico's President Fox has made it clear that he promotes illegal immigration into the US and so has America's politicians on this side of the border. Bush's amnesty program has prompted more illegals to enter the U.S. with hopes of rewards for their criminal behavior.
And like the War on Terror, this, too, is a war--a war in which people in the US are split. Will something be done?
Highly unlikely, considering the weak-willed nature of Republicans and the open-armed policy of the Democrats.
Once again, America has been invaded and attacked. No, it was not from Osama bin Laden and his motley crew of men, but rather illegal immigrants from Mexico crossed over the border and border patrol was shot at by gunmen in Mexico. According to the Yuma Sun, border patrol agents were trying to fish out a raft of illegals and were shot at from the opposite bank in Mexico. As of yet, no one has been caught by the Mexican police, but why would anyone assume they would be caught.
Mexico's President Fox has made it clear that he promotes illegal immigration into the US and so has America's politicians on this side of the border. Bush's amnesty program has prompted more illegals to enter the U.S. with hopes of rewards for their criminal behavior.
And like the War on Terror, this, too, is a war--a war in which people in the US are split. Will something be done?
Highly unlikely, considering the weak-willed nature of Republicans and the open-armed policy of the Democrats.
posted by Laura Keslar at 5:06 PM | |
Where are those tin-foil hats?
And our tuition dollars are going for something research on aliens. Next thing you know, the school will be offering classes on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday about how to make tin-foil hats from the chipotle burrito wrapper.
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:52 PM | |
Monday, February 23, 2004
Socialized Health Care Anyone?
Socialized health care, anyone?
So, it seems as though Great Britian's socialized health care is catching up with them. It's nothing new, though.
Socialized health care, anyone?
posted by Laura Keslar at 8:20 PM | |
I wish I would have come up with this
My favorite is "stealth Christian movement."
But seriously, Eric Spratling's blog was brought to my attention by Vox's post about Gibson's movie The Passion. Enjoy.
Ah, there are times, I wish I could have said something. And here is one of them; instead of making fun of speakers at political discussions, I typically make fun of chemistry majors. :sigh:
My favorite is "stealth Christian movement."
But seriously, Eric Spratling's blog was brought to my attention by Vox's post about Gibson's movie The Passion. Enjoy.
posted by Laura Keslar at 5:09 PM | |
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Rated R--for Retarded (Well, that and Rodeo Day)
Bah. I thought Texas was the only place to have rodeo days, but I guess I was mistaken since Tucson has a Rodeo Day and is not located in Texas.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:50 PM | |
A Threat, I think not
This guy offers just as much threat to Bush's campaign as a toy poodle, unlike Nader, who according to The Evangelical Outpost, actually will hurt the Bush candidate.
posted by Laura Keslar at 9:52 PM | |
Its going to be quite an election year...
From her record, she does not look like a Republican, but then again, when people like John McCain and President Bush are representing Republicans, almost anyone, even Lieberman, could be a considered a Republican.
...Not only for President Bush, but also for several candidates in Arizona. Roselyn O'Connell, from Snotsdale, is challenging J.D. Hayworth. She considers herself a moderate, but then again, she supports abortion rights (when has murder ever been a right?) and worked for Planned Parenthood, and supported Napolitano.
From her record, she does not look like a Republican, but then again, when people like John McCain and President Bush are representing Republicans, almost anyone, even Lieberman, could be a considered a Republican.
posted by Laura Keslar at 9:34 PM | |
Stripping--the New Fitness Craze
Ok, enough sarcasm. But would you have believed that the University would have put on a sex workers festival?
Soon, the UA's rec center will be offering a cardio stripping class.
Ok, enough sarcasm. But would you have believed that the University would have put on a sex workers festival?
posted by Laura Keslar at 9:27 PM | |
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Grandparents and other Random Notes
But that is not the silliest thing she has done yet. No, of course not.
So, assuming she had some exposure to the internet, I sent her a link to this blog for the heck of it. I knew she would disagree with me, but I thought it might be kind of funny to see her response.
A few days later, I finally got an email from her stating the following:
Since I am much more liberal than you, I'm not into what you are thinking. I'm proud to have such an intelligent granddaughter, but please always keep an open mind that can be changed when necessary.
Heh. Why must I be the one to keep an open mind?
Anyway, I love her dearly and has been a great support for me throughout my life. I just thought her response funny and wanted to share.
On another note, I think I need to devote more attention to the economics of the state of Arizona. Perhaps given some time, I will begin to look at the tech industry Arizona has been trying to induce to come to the state to boost the Arizona economy.
My grandmother recently got her very first computer, which came with the free six months of AOL. So she has been enjoying the internet, not answering any of my instant messages because she thought they might contain a virus, and not responding to any of my emails because she thought the message was contained only in the subject line. However, several weeks ago after discovering her lack of proficiency in use of the internet, I gave her a phone call and explained how those things worked. Silly grandmother.
But that is not the silliest thing she has done yet. No, of course not.
So, assuming she had some exposure to the internet, I sent her a link to this blog for the heck of it. I knew she would disagree with me, but I thought it might be kind of funny to see her response.
A few days later, I finally got an email from her stating the following:
Since I am much more liberal than you, I'm not into what you are thinking. I'm proud to have such an intelligent granddaughter, but please always keep an open mind that can be changed when necessary.
Heh. Why must I be the one to keep an open mind?
Anyway, I love her dearly and has been a great support for me throughout my life. I just thought her response funny and wanted to share.
On another note, I think I need to devote more attention to the economics of the state of Arizona. Perhaps given some time, I will begin to look at the tech industry Arizona has been trying to induce to come to the state to boost the Arizona economy.
posted by Laura Keslar at 9:19 PM | |
Love Is Not an Adequate Foundation for Marriage
He did make a point though; he said that divorce has devastated marriage. When over 50% of the population divorces in seven years or less after they have married, divorce seriously undermines the reason for the contract between the couple and the society despite their couple's supposed committment to raising their possible children. It is especially worrisome when people divorce because they are not "happy" and have "fallen out of love." But this proves that love does qualify as a requirement for the contract called marriage.
I have said elsewhere that love is not an adequate foundation for marriage. However, Chicago's mayor believes otherwise.
He did make a point though; he said that divorce has devastated marriage. When over 50% of the population divorces in seven years or less after they have married, divorce seriously undermines the reason for the contract between the couple and the society despite their couple's supposed committment to raising their possible children. It is especially worrisome when people divorce because they are not "happy" and have "fallen out of love." But this proves that love does qualify as a requirement for the contract called marriage.
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:58 PM | |
So it is either/or?
It was probably done to increase the percent of minorities on campus. After all, they named a building after Chavez to get more Hispanics to come to the UA.
So, on Monday I indicated that UA students don't get President's Day off, but instead gets MLK Day off. According to the Arizona Daily Wildcat, it is an either/or situation. We either get MLK Day or Presidents Day (which is really Washington's birthday), and guess which one the UA choose?
It was probably done to increase the percent of minorities on campus. After all, they named a building after Chavez to get more Hispanics to come to the UA.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:19 PM | |
The Communist Wildcat Uses Underhanded Methods to get "News"
Last Thursday, I was in analytical chemistry lab where my TA is from South America. During this lab, a student photographer from the Arizona Daily Wildcat came in and asked if he could take pictures of the TA while she helped us with the work. She, thinking that the purpose of the photo-op was to talk about how gradstudents combine teaching and studying, agreed to have her picture taken and put in the Wildcat. The photographer's questions he posed to her did nothing to alert her to the fact that he was indeed taking pictures to discuss the horrid condition of labs and classes taught by foreign grad students.
The first hint that the article was derogatory toward graduate students was when we picked up the Wildcat on Wednesday and read the article itself.
Now, I have had several foreign TAs in most of my chemistry labs. Of course sometimes the accent is cute, like saying saying syllabus so that it rhymes, somewhat, with salami; however, none of their accents have been so difficult to understand that I have done poorly. And even if the TAs had horrid accents, a student needs to get used to it. Although I am not a fan of globalization, students in all sorts of fields will be working with professionals whose first language is not English. As one student in my class stated, he worked with four PhD chemists and none of them spoke English as their first language. You just have to suck it up people.
But compared with the Wildcat's "wonderful" track record, this lack of journalism professionalism is nothing. Garrett, from the Arizona Growler (which I occassionally write for), documented the inconsistencies between a source and the actual story.
Garrett indicates that the Wildcat is going to print corrections for that story, but all the same. The paper lacks journalistic standards by printing sensational bunk.
Ok, maybe the title is a bit extreme, but this is the conglomerate description that everyone in my analytical chemistry lab decided upon after reading the Wildcat's op-ed...er..."news" article about how no one could understand their foreign TAs.
Last Thursday, I was in analytical chemistry lab where my TA is from South America. During this lab, a student photographer from the Arizona Daily Wildcat came in and asked if he could take pictures of the TA while she helped us with the work. She, thinking that the purpose of the photo-op was to talk about how gradstudents combine teaching and studying, agreed to have her picture taken and put in the Wildcat. The photographer's questions he posed to her did nothing to alert her to the fact that he was indeed taking pictures to discuss the horrid condition of labs and classes taught by foreign grad students.
The first hint that the article was derogatory toward graduate students was when we picked up the Wildcat on Wednesday and read the article itself.
Now, I have had several foreign TAs in most of my chemistry labs. Of course sometimes the accent is cute, like saying saying syllabus so that it rhymes, somewhat, with salami; however, none of their accents have been so difficult to understand that I have done poorly. And even if the TAs had horrid accents, a student needs to get used to it. Although I am not a fan of globalization, students in all sorts of fields will be working with professionals whose first language is not English. As one student in my class stated, he worked with four PhD chemists and none of them spoke English as their first language. You just have to suck it up people.
But compared with the Wildcat's "wonderful" track record, this lack of journalism professionalism is nothing. Garrett, from the Arizona Growler (which I occassionally write for), documented the inconsistencies between a source and the actual story.
Garrett indicates that the Wildcat is going to print corrections for that story, but all the same. The paper lacks journalistic standards by printing sensational bunk.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:04 PM | |
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Slang and Decline of English Language in America
When did the word "b!tchy" become adopted as proper English grammar in publications? I find it hard to believe that a publication would use such a word. I remember not so long ago that I would get in trouble for telling someone to shut up or saying that I "screwed up" on something. I remember when reading the newspaper, it was almost taboo to mention Clinton's sex scandals (at least around my house).
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:21 AM | |
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
General Welfare, Education, and Illegals
I recently indicated that the state of Arizona is considering passing a law prohibiting illegals from attending state funded college education. There are several other laws similar to this one in other states.
But the article that is linked makes an important remark:
"By law, children of illegal immigrants, who also lack legal residency status, are entitled to taxpayer-supported public education through high school."
Did this strike anyone else as interesting? Why is the state providing taxpayer-supported public education through high school to illegal immigrants. These illegals break the law and yet are rewarded for it.
But there is something more important in this: the state has choosen who is more important. Let's look as this analytically.
The constitution's preamble indicates that the purpose of the state is to provide for the general welfare. What most people consider to be general welfare is anything but for the welfare of the general public. Among those things that they claim are for the general welfare include education, welfare, universal health care and all that jazz.
But what qualifies as a public good? In order to be a public good, the product or service must satisfy two requirements:
However, money given for education and the quality of the education itself is depletable as more users are added to the system. Similarly, not everyone is allowed to use this good. My 91 year old great-grandmother who only received an eighth grade education could not go back to school to get her high school diploma. As such, education is not a public good. So this brings up a problem.
The government has limited funding, and, therefore, it must choose to whom the funding will go. As such, it discriminates between the needs of one person verses another. Therefore, when it decides to allow illegal immigrants a taxpayer supported education, the government basically has decided that the needs of her citizens, though important, are not as important as, say, the illegal's who have paid not much if anything into the public treasury. (And even if they did pay into the treasury, they should not have be here to reap the benefits of living in our country.)
Since the government gives a portion of the tax-payer's money to the illegal, it diminishes the quality of education of the children of the native born citizens whose money goes into the treasury to pay for this service. The quality of education is diminished in two ways. 1) The amount of money spent per student is drastically decreased and 2) the classroom sizes increase causing less student-teacher interaction per student.
Because of the actions of the government that allow illegal immigrants to enjoy the benefits of the country, the private citizens do suffer.
Most people disagree with me when I say that education is not a right. Now, with that being the precursor...
I recently indicated that the state of Arizona is considering passing a law prohibiting illegals from attending state funded college education. There are several other laws similar to this one in other states.
But the article that is linked makes an important remark:
"By law, children of illegal immigrants, who also lack legal residency status, are entitled to taxpayer-supported public education through high school."
Did this strike anyone else as interesting? Why is the state providing taxpayer-supported public education through high school to illegal immigrants. These illegals break the law and yet are rewarded for it.
But there is something more important in this: the state has choosen who is more important. Let's look as this analytically.
The constitution's preamble indicates that the purpose of the state is to provide for the general welfare. What most people consider to be general welfare is anything but for the welfare of the general public. Among those things that they claim are for the general welfare include education, welfare, universal health care and all that jazz.
But what qualifies as a public good? In order to be a public good, the product or service must satisfy two requirements:
- it is nondepletable
- it is nonexclusive
However, money given for education and the quality of the education itself is depletable as more users are added to the system. Similarly, not everyone is allowed to use this good. My 91 year old great-grandmother who only received an eighth grade education could not go back to school to get her high school diploma. As such, education is not a public good. So this brings up a problem.
The government has limited funding, and, therefore, it must choose to whom the funding will go. As such, it discriminates between the needs of one person verses another. Therefore, when it decides to allow illegal immigrants a taxpayer supported education, the government basically has decided that the needs of her citizens, though important, are not as important as, say, the illegal's who have paid not much if anything into the public treasury. (And even if they did pay into the treasury, they should not have be here to reap the benefits of living in our country.)
Since the government gives a portion of the tax-payer's money to the illegal, it diminishes the quality of education of the children of the native born citizens whose money goes into the treasury to pay for this service. The quality of education is diminished in two ways. 1) The amount of money spent per student is drastically decreased and 2) the classroom sizes increase causing less student-teacher interaction per student.
Because of the actions of the government that allow illegal immigrants to enjoy the benefits of the country, the private citizens do suffer.
posted by Laura Keslar at 1:52 AM | |
George Bush--at the UA?
Although it is highly unlikely, President Linkins has asked President Bush to speak at the commencement ceremony in May. However, Linkins has indicated that he is wary about inviting any guests due to the tradition of throwing tortillas. [Tortilla link via zonitics]
I realize I am a few hours late with this, but better late than never.
Although it is highly unlikely, President Linkins has asked President Bush to speak at the commencement ceremony in May. However, Linkins has indicated that he is wary about inviting any guests due to the tradition of throwing tortillas. [Tortilla link via zonitics]
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:32 AM | |
Monday, February 16, 2004
President's Day
So, why do the universities celebrate MLK Jr. Day and not President's Day. The answer is obvious, isn't it?
What is next? Celebrate Cesar Chavez Day? Well, there is already a Cesar Chavez Remembrance Day in Pima County (the University of Arizona is located in Pima County, FYI), as established by the County's board of supervisors.
Why do students at Arizona's universities get Martin Luther King Jr Day off but not Presidents Day? For the most part, the presidents did more for me than any communist did. Abraham Lincoln did more for blacks than MLK JR did. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, among others, did more for the freedom of everyone in this great country than MLK ever did.
So, why do the universities celebrate MLK Jr. Day and not President's Day. The answer is obvious, isn't it?
What is next? Celebrate Cesar Chavez Day? Well, there is already a Cesar Chavez Remembrance Day in Pima County (the University of Arizona is located in Pima County, FYI), as established by the County's board of supervisors.
posted by Laura Keslar at 9:25 AM | |
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Divorce and Remarriage
Lets start in Matthew 5:31,32:
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Now notice that this passage says NOTHING about the man getting remarried. It says he CAUSES his wife to commit adultery and it says that the guy marrying her commits adultery. There is a reason for that and most scholars miss it. How do you cause someone to commit adultery unless they are in agreement with doing it? Well it says if you put her away you CAUSE her to commit adultery. Obviously there is a PLAN to marry someone else. So the question comes up, where does this come from?
Notice in verse 31 what is says:
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Do you know what that means?
It means that it talks about it somewhere in the OT: "it hath been said." Now at this point let me bring in what Matthew 19 says before I show you the meaning of that frm the OT.
Matthew 19:3-5: The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Now notice that the initial question is "is it LAWFUL for a man to put away his wife for every cause"; notice that "FOR EVERY CAUSE”—that means for anything. So Jesus answers them with scripture, he doesn't say NO
He says what God has joined together let not man put asunder
Verses 6-8: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Ok now the Pharisees are going to try to challenge Jesus by asking why Moses allowed them to GET A DIVORCE FOR ANY CAUSE.
Both chapters have to do with a certain passage in Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy 24:1-4: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
The entire context is the Pharisees divorcing their wives and giving her to his buddy, and it being "lawful" to do so. In Deuteronomy a guy could give his wife a bill of divorcement for any reason and she could be another man's wife. Evidently the Pharisees were practising this--that is why they questioned him about it
Now look what Jesus says in Matthew 19:9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
So here are the elements: 1) a guy that puts away his wife
2) a woman that is CAUSED to commit adultery
3) a man that is marrying that woman that is put away
So it is evident that THE PHARISEES WERE TRADING WIVES UNDER THE RULE OF DEUTERONOMY 24. So Jesus told them in no uncertain terms that unless it was for FORNICATION, they could not divorce their spouse; if they did it would be adultery. But it shows that Jesus gave one ground for divorce--and that is fornication.
Now that brings up another question: what happens if your wife deserts you?
Jesus didn't say anything about that BUT PAUL DID!
I Cor. 7:15: But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Now in that context, it is discussing a saved person being married to an unsaved person and what they should do in that case. In this verse if the unsaved partner leaves, God says the saved partner is not in bondage. So far we have two cases for a scriptural divorce: fornication and desertion of an unsaved partner.
The question comes up, ok what about a saved partner that leaves? Well the answer is a little tougher, but we can find it.
I Cor. 7:7-9: For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:.
Paul had the gift of celebacy; he was able to withstand the physical needs of marriage and didn't get married so he could serve the Lord more effectively. The "married" he is speaking to is assumed saved people. We know that because he talks about the unsaved a few verses down. The first admonition is for a saved wife not to desert her saved husband.
I Cor 7: 10-12: And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
Ok so in verses 10 and 11 Paul tells saved people that they should stick together and if they don't stick together then stay unmarried or be reconciled--that matches what Jesus says.
Obviously a saved marriage is one that God has joined together, so if one deserts the other one without fornication and marries another it is adultery. But there is a problem. The verse implies that a reconciliation is possible. It says "or be reconciled to her husband." But what happens when the person leaves and no reconciliation is possible?
It doesn’t say. It assumes two saved people will get right, but that doesn’t always happen. So what do you do? Well the only thing you can do is apply Matthew 18:15-17 to it:
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Now, you see that? After three tries with a brother (or sister) you treat them as a lost person: "let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. If you get a saved spouse that deserts another saved spouse and the one that leaves refuses to reconcile, then you treat them like a lost person--and WE HAVE the rules on a lost person deserting a saved person; the saved person is not bound, Paul gives permission for the remarriage.
I Cor 7:27,28: Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
So there are now two grounds for a divorce with a remarriage in each context:
Fornication...Matthew 19:9
Desertion…I Cor. 7:15; 27-28
And of course death is grounds for a remarriage...I Cor. 7:39
I hoped you enjoyed. I learned a lot.
There has been a barrage of arguments concerning the destruction of marriage by homosexuals and divorce among heterosexuals. As such, I have been concerned about what constitutes biblical grounds for divorce. Having asked a friend about it, he gave me some scripture and reasoning that I did not think about, some of which I would like to share with y'all.
::Begin conversation with friend::
Lets start in Matthew 5:31,32:
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Now notice that this passage says NOTHING about the man getting remarried. It says he CAUSES his wife to commit adultery and it says that the guy marrying her commits adultery. There is a reason for that and most scholars miss it. How do you cause someone to commit adultery unless they are in agreement with doing it? Well it says if you put her away you CAUSE her to commit adultery. Obviously there is a PLAN to marry someone else. So the question comes up, where does this come from?
Notice in verse 31 what is says:
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Do you know what that means?
It means that it talks about it somewhere in the OT: "it hath been said." Now at this point let me bring in what Matthew 19 says before I show you the meaning of that frm the OT.
Matthew 19:3-5: The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Now notice that the initial question is "is it LAWFUL for a man to put away his wife for every cause"; notice that "FOR EVERY CAUSE”—that means for anything. So Jesus answers them with scripture, he doesn't say NO
He says what God has joined together let not man put asunder
Verses 6-8: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Ok now the Pharisees are going to try to challenge Jesus by asking why Moses allowed them to GET A DIVORCE FOR ANY CAUSE.
Both chapters have to do with a certain passage in Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy 24:1-4: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
The entire context is the Pharisees divorcing their wives and giving her to his buddy, and it being "lawful" to do so. In Deuteronomy a guy could give his wife a bill of divorcement for any reason and she could be another man's wife. Evidently the Pharisees were practising this--that is why they questioned him about it
Now look what Jesus says in Matthew 19:9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
So here are the elements: 1) a guy that puts away his wife
2) a woman that is CAUSED to commit adultery
3) a man that is marrying that woman that is put away
So it is evident that THE PHARISEES WERE TRADING WIVES UNDER THE RULE OF DEUTERONOMY 24. So Jesus told them in no uncertain terms that unless it was for FORNICATION, they could not divorce their spouse; if they did it would be adultery. But it shows that Jesus gave one ground for divorce--and that is fornication.
Now that brings up another question: what happens if your wife deserts you?
Jesus didn't say anything about that BUT PAUL DID!
I Cor. 7:15: But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Now in that context, it is discussing a saved person being married to an unsaved person and what they should do in that case. In this verse if the unsaved partner leaves, God says the saved partner is not in bondage. So far we have two cases for a scriptural divorce: fornication and desertion of an unsaved partner.
The question comes up, ok what about a saved partner that leaves? Well the answer is a little tougher, but we can find it.
I Cor. 7:7-9: For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:.
Paul had the gift of celebacy; he was able to withstand the physical needs of marriage and didn't get married so he could serve the Lord more effectively. The "married" he is speaking to is assumed saved people. We know that because he talks about the unsaved a few verses down. The first admonition is for a saved wife not to desert her saved husband.
I Cor 7: 10-12: And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
Ok so in verses 10 and 11 Paul tells saved people that they should stick together and if they don't stick together then stay unmarried or be reconciled--that matches what Jesus says.
Obviously a saved marriage is one that God has joined together, so if one deserts the other one without fornication and marries another it is adultery. But there is a problem. The verse implies that a reconciliation is possible. It says "or be reconciled to her husband." But what happens when the person leaves and no reconciliation is possible?
It doesn’t say. It assumes two saved people will get right, but that doesn’t always happen. So what do you do? Well the only thing you can do is apply Matthew 18:15-17 to it:
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Now, you see that? After three tries with a brother (or sister) you treat them as a lost person: "let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. If you get a saved spouse that deserts another saved spouse and the one that leaves refuses to reconcile, then you treat them like a lost person--and WE HAVE the rules on a lost person deserting a saved person; the saved person is not bound, Paul gives permission for the remarriage.
I Cor 7:27,28: Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
So there are now two grounds for a divorce with a remarriage in each context:
Fornication...Matthew 19:9
Desertion…I Cor. 7:15; 27-28
And of course death is grounds for a remarriage...I Cor. 7:39
::End conversation with friend::
I hoped you enjoyed. I learned a lot.
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:41 PM | |
Happy Birthday Arizona
In my excitement of doing absolutely nothing all day yesterday, I totally forgot that Arizona was accepted into the Union on February 14, 1912.
posted by Laura Keslar at 1:41 PM | |
Friday, February 13, 2004
Homophobia and Sexism
And while at the UA, Arizona's governor said that Title IX has been good for women, but she failed to mention that it has not been good at all to men's teams. Sexism? I think so.
Recently, Napolitano came to the UA and helped coach a basketball game. I find it disturbing she was allowed in the lockerroom.
And while at the UA, Arizona's governor said that Title IX has been good for women, but she failed to mention that it has not been good at all to men's teams. Sexism? I think so.
posted by Laura Keslar at 8:33 PM | |
Condom Olympics
The only difference between high school and college students playing with condoms is that the high school students bought their own condoms to throw up in the air whereas the college students are given condoms to play with that have been bought with state money given to the University, which was directed to the Campus Health Center.
I see not much has changed since high school. This display of sophomoric entertainment is reminscient of high school pep rallies where several students from all sides of the stands would blow up condoms and hit them over the crowd of students.
The only difference between high school and college students playing with condoms is that the high school students bought their own condoms to throw up in the air whereas the college students are given condoms to play with that have been bought with state money given to the University, which was directed to the Campus Health Center.
posted by Laura Keslar at 8:27 PM | |
Rehnquist Protested
They had gathered outside the UA's college of law to protest Rehnquist's decisions as chief justice. Their purpose, they say, was to spread information concerning Rehnquist and the issues surrounding him. However, I have been typically turned off by protestors--and shy away from them. You can always tell when a protest on campus is occurring due to the majority of people crossing the street to get away from the protestors.
The law students protesting hoped to let the chief justice know their opinion; however, they must not have been paying much attention in class. The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to cater to the diktats of the populace but rather to rule according to the law of the land. The Founding Fathers even removed the Supreme Court from the realm of the population's control by making the Court accountable to the President and the Congress. I guess their ignorance highlights not only the poor education students get in high school (which is where I learned this stuff) but also the inability of a college education to teach even the basics about the Supreme Court.
But Arizona has done a great job in raising up leaders, despite its mediocre education, as evidenced by the rise in power by Sandra Day O'Connor, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Barry Goldwater.
Dont these people have class or work or something? On Thursday, I had class from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. So why weren't these people in class?
They had gathered outside the UA's college of law to protest Rehnquist's decisions as chief justice. Their purpose, they say, was to spread information concerning Rehnquist and the issues surrounding him. However, I have been typically turned off by protestors--and shy away from them. You can always tell when a protest on campus is occurring due to the majority of people crossing the street to get away from the protestors.
The law students protesting hoped to let the chief justice know their opinion; however, they must not have been paying much attention in class. The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to cater to the diktats of the populace but rather to rule according to the law of the land. The Founding Fathers even removed the Supreme Court from the realm of the population's control by making the Court accountable to the President and the Congress. I guess their ignorance highlights not only the poor education students get in high school (which is where I learned this stuff) but also the inability of a college education to teach even the basics about the Supreme Court.
But Arizona has done a great job in raising up leaders, despite its mediocre education, as evidenced by the rise in power by Sandra Day O'Connor, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Barry Goldwater.
posted by Laura Keslar at 8:01 PM | |
Review of Week's Events
But finally, I have been able to get back to blogging, and hopefully some reading. I picked up a whole load of books from the University's library to read this weekend. The stack is composed mostly Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman.
And like 40% of Americans, I like to read. So curling up in bed listening to some Handel and reading Dinesh D'Souza's Letters to a Young Conservative will be a great respite from my very busy week. Oh, and coffee sounds good too.
This last week has been hectic with an ochem test, a bio test, and two chemistry lab reports, among other things. And then my dad came to town and bought me real food.
But finally, I have been able to get back to blogging, and hopefully some reading. I picked up a whole load of books from the University's library to read this weekend. The stack is composed mostly Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman.
And like 40% of Americans, I like to read. So curling up in bed listening to some Handel and reading Dinesh D'Souza's Letters to a Young Conservative will be a great respite from my very busy week. Oh, and coffee sounds good too.
posted by Laura Keslar at 7:15 PM | |
Hypocrisy, thy name is Kerry
So once again, what does military service mean in this election? Nothing but a way to change the subject from the pregnant to the trivial.
PS However, as the Federalist newsletter [you will need to subscribe; cancel afterward, but I don't recommend it] indicates, "The military records that are most important now are John Kerry's record as a U.S. Senator and George Bush's record as Commander-in-Chief. As a Senator, Mr. Kerry has consistently endeavored to undermine our national security defense capabilities -- and consequently, he has made life more dangerous for our military personnel. On the other hand, the President gets the highest marks for his resolute performance as CiC."
With this in mind, Kerry is the man who said that he was an internationalist and wanted us to give control of the U.S. military to the UN. As a senator, he has also been opposed to securing the national defenses. He still believes that the UN is a good ally? :cough: Despite his Vietnam military effort, this man is not inline with what is good for America, but rather what is good for the world and its chief representative the UN.
Kerry said, ""These guys will want to try to do everything to change the subject," and yet he was the same guy who brought up Bush's military record about Vietnam. What does Bush' military record have to do with the presidency? Besides, at least Bush served in the military unlike many of his counterparts, which includes Clinton. Military service does not guarantee a good presidency. Look at Jimmy Carter; the guy was a failure both foreignly and domestically.
So once again, what does military service mean in this election? Nothing but a way to change the subject from the pregnant to the trivial.
PS However, as the Federalist newsletter [you will need to subscribe; cancel afterward, but I don't recommend it] indicates, "The military records that are most important now are John Kerry's record as a U.S. Senator and George Bush's record as Commander-in-Chief. As a Senator, Mr. Kerry has consistently endeavored to undermine our national security defense capabilities -- and consequently, he has made life more dangerous for our military personnel. On the other hand, the President gets the highest marks for his resolute performance as CiC."
With this in mind, Kerry is the man who said that he was an internationalist and wanted us to give control of the U.S. military to the UN. As a senator, he has also been opposed to securing the national defenses. He still believes that the UN is a good ally? :cough: Despite his Vietnam military effort, this man is not inline with what is good for America, but rather what is good for the world and its chief representative the UN.
posted by Laura Keslar at 6:47 PM | |
Monday, February 09, 2004
Why hadnt they thought of this before?
So, it appears that our debt-ridden state has been paying for illegal residents to attend Arizona's schools. No big surprise.
(Story via ASU Web Devil)
Sometimes, I wonder if government is slow or just plain stupid; after all, it has taken up until now for Arizona's legislator to consider a bill forbiding "immigrants without refugee or lawful immigration status from being recognized as in-state students."
So, it appears that our debt-ridden state has been paying for illegal residents to attend Arizona's schools. No big surprise.
(Story via ASU Web Devil)
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:02 PM | |
Jon Kyl is coming to the UA
I am making plans to be there since Jon Kyl is our state's only conservative senator and, besides, I might learn something.
On Monday, February 16, at 4:00 pm, Jon Kyl will be at the UA giving a lecture in a series of lectures on "UA Alumni in the Nation's Capitol: Making Federal Policy."
I am making plans to be there since Jon Kyl is our state's only conservative senator and, besides, I might learn something.
posted by Laura Keslar at 3:38 PM | |
Sunday, February 08, 2004
I collect bibles from family members that have died or have given their older bibles to me. It is truly a blessing to look at my spiritual heritage represented by the bibles of my grandparents and great-grandparents. One of my bibles is a New Testament that my grandfather who faught in the Korean War had received from the Marines. And as part of my inheritance from my grandmother who died recently was a Scofield Reference Bible.
But my spiritual heritage is more than the books that I received from my grandparents and my spiritual inheritance is more than just a bible or the money in a trust fund. Instead it includes the prayers invested by each of my family members into their children and grandchildren and even great-grandchildren, as is the case with my great-grandmother.
As a Christian, however, our spiritual heritage includes even more than that. According to 1 Peter 1:3,4, we have an incorruptable and undefiled inheritance that does not fade and is reserved in heaven for us. While my books may get old and crumple and my money may get spent, I still have an even greater inheritance which is greater than gold. And that inheritance is eternal life. Galatians 3:14 says that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith and the curse of the law was death (Romans 8:2).
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:10 AM | |
Friday, February 06, 2004
More on FIF
From their song, "The Day We Killed," Five Iron Frenzy sings:
The massacre of the Native American tribes is regretful. I do not deny this. However, my problem with FIF's lyrics deals with the fact that they imply that the Native Americans did nothing to the Americans to cause America to retaliate.
Also, implied is that America stole land from the Indians. But how is it possible to steal land from a people who did not have views of land like the Western World did? After all, it was the Western philosophers who defined what property rights were.
But this was not their first song about the Native Americans and their plight.
However, the song continues:
Looking at the protests leading up to the war in Iraq, Five Iron Frenzy's lyrics seem familiar. After all, remember the slogan "No blood for oil"? The themes of those rallies ranged from the war and its correlation with oil, to lack of funding of education, to condemnation of empire building, to anger about the Bush administration's lack of support of the Kyoto treaty. These lyrics seem no different than what I heard at those protests. If I can't stand liberal tripe at protest rallies, why will I allow myself to be indoctrinated with it from my music?
And what's up with the "third world poverty/inside the lines of your country" portion of the lyrics? Does FIF not realize that people the U.S. classifies as poor are richer than most people in the world, even those in Europe? They are richer than their parents were in the 1970s. America's poor have cars, own their own homes, and watch television from their couches. So third-world poverty in America? Not likely.
Further illustrating their ignorance, leftist, and anti-capitalist attitudes, is their song "Giants":
I fail to understand how consolidating a few businesses or bringing in a corporation narrows liberty. Anyone know the answer? And by the way, what is there solution the loss of mom and pop stores? Government subsidies?
Continuing, it appears as though FIF has bought into the dominant lie that capitalism is dangerous, despite the fact that Hayek claims that capitalism allows for the expression of individual interests. As such, capitalism allows for the advancement of liberty since it allows for people to make their own decision what is more important to them by use of their own money, unlike other options like centralized control, which, at its lower state, includes government subsidies.
If people want to pay less money for a product from a corporation than from a mom and pop store, so be it. It is their choice. It is not the fault of the corporation, as implied by the lyrics of "Giants."
And as Christians, we are supposed to be productive. The Proverbs speak of being virtue of being industrious like the ant (Provers 6:7-8). What, then, is FIF's problem with increased productivity? So, not only is their attitude off intellectually, but it speaks fouly of a virtue G-d esteems.
But lastly in this song,
Their animosity toward the man and his book is wrought with ignorance. First off, although Adam Smith had a few flaws in his book The Wealth of Nations, he did a great job furthering individual rights. Secondly, the band does not seem to like corporations and, by correlation, monopolies. But neither did Smith; he spoke out against monopolies and the dangers they can do to man and his liberties.
As such, their seemingly angry rant against Smith and capitalism is not justified and lacks evidence. I don't know about you, but I would hate to be filling my head or allowing someone whose well-being I was entrusted with to fill their minds with falsehoods, ignorance, and leftist thoughts. We get enough of that daily in the news and at school to be doing that in our free time.
In my earlier post, I mentioned that I refuse to listen to anything that is rebellious, ecumenical, or anti-capitalist. Although I touched on some song lyrics from Five Iron Frenzy, elaborating on its ecumenical nature, I did not touch on on the rebellious, anti-capitalist, or politically liberal lyrics.
From their song, "The Day We Killed," Five Iron Frenzy sings:
"The way you live shows no remorse
for the day/ the day we killed Crazy Horse
Innocence with glassy eyes
kill the nation, steal their pride
On broken backs we build empires"
for the day/ the day we killed Crazy Horse
Innocence with glassy eyes
kill the nation, steal their pride
On broken backs we build empires"
The massacre of the Native American tribes is regretful. I do not deny this. However, my problem with FIF's lyrics deals with the fact that they imply that the Native Americans did nothing to the Americans to cause America to retaliate.
Also, implied is that America stole land from the Indians. But how is it possible to steal land from a people who did not have views of land like the Western World did? After all, it was the Western philosophers who defined what property rights were.
But this was not their first song about the Native Americans and their plight.
However, the song continues:
"On broken backs we build empires
twisting spines for the steeple spires
How many people can you kill?
look at your twenty dollar bill
Do you see third world poverty
inside the lines of your country?
And now to treaties we are loyal
but tear them up when we smell oil."
twisting spines for the steeple spires
How many people can you kill?
look at your twenty dollar bill
Do you see third world poverty
inside the lines of your country?
And now to treaties we are loyal
but tear them up when we smell oil."
Looking at the protests leading up to the war in Iraq, Five Iron Frenzy's lyrics seem familiar. After all, remember the slogan "No blood for oil"? The themes of those rallies ranged from the war and its correlation with oil, to lack of funding of education, to condemnation of empire building, to anger about the Bush administration's lack of support of the Kyoto treaty. These lyrics seem no different than what I heard at those protests. If I can't stand liberal tripe at protest rallies, why will I allow myself to be indoctrinated with it from my music?
And what's up with the "third world poverty/inside the lines of your country" portion of the lyrics? Does FIF not realize that people the U.S. classifies as poor are richer than most people in the world, even those in Europe? They are richer than their parents were in the 1970s. America's poor have cars, own their own homes, and watch television from their couches. So third-world poverty in America? Not likely.
Further illustrating their ignorance, leftist, and anti-capitalist attitudes, is their song "Giants":
Oh don't you cry for the mom and pops,
Nothing but dry eyes for integrity's demise.
Hulking machines grind as whistles blow,
Corporate Darwinism crushes everything below.
Advances in efficiency increasing productivity,
Are narrowing the margin for liberty.
Nothing but dry eyes for integrity's demise.
Hulking machines grind as whistles blow,
Corporate Darwinism crushes everything below.
Advances in efficiency increasing productivity,
Are narrowing the margin for liberty.
I fail to understand how consolidating a few businesses or bringing in a corporation narrows liberty. Anyone know the answer? And by the way, what is there solution the loss of mom and pop stores? Government subsidies?
Continuing, it appears as though FIF has bought into the dominant lie that capitalism is dangerous, despite the fact that Hayek claims that capitalism allows for the expression of individual interests. As such, capitalism allows for the advancement of liberty since it allows for people to make their own decision what is more important to them by use of their own money, unlike other options like centralized control, which, at its lower state, includes government subsidies.
If people want to pay less money for a product from a corporation than from a mom and pop store, so be it. It is their choice. It is not the fault of the corporation, as implied by the lyrics of "Giants."
And as Christians, we are supposed to be productive. The Proverbs speak of being virtue of being industrious like the ant (Provers 6:7-8). What, then, is FIF's problem with increased productivity? So, not only is their attitude off intellectually, but it speaks fouly of a virtue G-d esteems.
But lastly in this song,
"This house is haunted by the ghost of Adam Smith,
The Wealth of Nations and the further death of innocence.
To rule the world, the desire of every man,
The earth is shaking,
There are giants in the land."
The Wealth of Nations and the further death of innocence.
To rule the world, the desire of every man,
The earth is shaking,
There are giants in the land."
Their animosity toward the man and his book is wrought with ignorance. First off, although Adam Smith had a few flaws in his book The Wealth of Nations, he did a great job furthering individual rights. Secondly, the band does not seem to like corporations and, by correlation, monopolies. But neither did Smith; he spoke out against monopolies and the dangers they can do to man and his liberties.
As such, their seemingly angry rant against Smith and capitalism is not justified and lacks evidence. I don't know about you, but I would hate to be filling my head or allowing someone whose well-being I was entrusted with to fill their minds with falsehoods, ignorance, and leftist thoughts. We get enough of that daily in the news and at school to be doing that in our free time.
posted by Laura Keslar at 6:16 PM | |
Thursday, February 05, 2004
And People Wonder Why I Quit Listening to Most Christian Pop Music
Recently, my brother and several high school friends have tried to get me involved again with Christian pop music--especially Five Iron Frenzy, the Supertones, and Reliant K. In the past, my reason not to listen to such bands was the ecumenical tone of both; I never explored other reasons than just this one. However, it was just recently when someone brought to my attention the rebellious, anti-authority and anti-capitalist mentality prevalent in the lyrics of FIF's songs.
In FIF's song "Fahrenheit," the singer implies the strict view of sin leads to name calling and bigotry:
Maybe I am taking this entirely out of context of what was meant; maybe they are just preaching that hating people for no other reason is wrong--ah, nevermind, who am I kidding anyway?
But anyhow, the correlation between "black and white" morality and bigotry remains. Morality based upon the Scriptures might be considered bigotry to the world--but it should never be to the Christian. The word of G-d is very clear in what the L-rd considers sin. Although Christians have freedom in Christ (I Corinthians 6:12 and I Peter 2:16), compromising the standards of Scripture to fit with what the world considers to be PC requires man to rebel against the word, just as man rebelled against the standard of the L-RD in the Garden.
But back on topic and to use a hackneyed example, the Scriptures are clear what is going to happen to the sinner--whether they be black or white, heterosexual or homosexual--:
If it takes being blunt to keep a person from an everlasting inheritance of fire and brimstone, so be it. I am willing to be labeled a bigot. Calling sin for what it is has never harmed anyone. If it convicts one person to know that they are living outside the perfect will of G-d, if it causes one person to fear for his soul, so that their fear for their souls caused them to be saved, then something has been accomplished. For as Jude says, some are saved through fear (Jude 1:23).
But this has not been the only time Five Iron Frenzy has extolled on compromising scripture to fit in with the world. In their song "Amalgamate," they sing:
"We cut ourselves, our own limbs we've severed.
It's time for us to pull together and stand, as one.
All eyes are turning towards the Son.
Drop your fists now, what you resent.
Let's not forget who we represent.
And fall to our knees in unity.
Another day now, another doctrine,
another monkey wrench in the system.
Some folks kneelin', some just listen,
some fallin' out of the pews from twistin'.
I don't care kinds, how you do it.
United we'll stand and we'll pull through it.
All were dead once.
All enslaved.
Now pull together 'cause we've all been saved."
Unity. Unity. Unity. Doesn't that smell like compromise? How can a G-d-fearing Christian unite with some "Christian" who preaches a gospel other than the one Scripture teaches? It appears they haven't cracked their Bibles in a while. Paul said to test the spirits, and that if anyone came teaching another Jesus or another doctrine than the one he taught, let that man be cursed (Galatians 1:9).
But what made my blood boil from this song is the last stanza:
"What's important, is where we relate,/it's the meaning of the word Amalagate"!?
Wha...!?
How many times have I heard this argument from Muslim friends and classmates? They too claim that what is important is the points where we relate--issues such as monotheism, the Abrahamic lineage, Mary :cough:, and the emphasis of love shared among Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If what's important is in how we relate, then I see no reason why Christians would have problems with Islam, especially after you got rid of everything the two religions disagreed on like the death, resurrection, and deity of Christ Jesus.
Now, the problem with disregarding the issues we all disagree on is that we end up disregarding scripture. For the sake of unity, a Christian cannot disregard the scriptures--but this is what Five Iron Frenzy is asking for.
And for that reason, I quit listening to most Christian pop music.
But the worse part is that this group is singing to children (as exemplified by my brother) and young adults who are still forming their opinions in regard to the Scriptures. What is Five Iron Frenzy doing but giving these impressionable people a skewed version of Scripture and morality--indoctrinating the future leaders of the church with a belief that unity is more important that doctrinal purity.
About a year ago, I gave up listening to most music except for some classical and hymns. People thought I was mentally insane for leaving society. Even my parents questioned my position on music. At that time, I just felt convicted that most music did not honor G-d. It was not until later that I formulated the exact reasons--some ranging from insane to rather reasonable--why I refused to partake in this feature of society. Although as of today I listen to some music, I am very picky about what I will listen to; anything that borders on rebellious, emotionally manipulative, obscene, ecumenical, or flies in the face of any of my beliefs--religious or political--I refuse to listen to.
Recently, my brother and several high school friends have tried to get me involved again with Christian pop music--especially Five Iron Frenzy, the Supertones, and Reliant K. In the past, my reason not to listen to such bands was the ecumenical tone of both; I never explored other reasons than just this one. However, it was just recently when someone brought to my attention the rebellious, anti-authority and anti-capitalist mentality prevalent in the lyrics of FIF's songs.
In FIF's song "Fahrenheit," the singer implies the strict view of sin leads to name calling and bigotry:
"When the world was black and white,[...]
Predisposed to bigotry,
the regular run-of-the-mill American story.
The stench of greasepaint on our faces,
pass the mask to our next of kin,
instead of wiser idioms,
like "love the sinner, hate the sin"."
Predisposed to bigotry,
the regular run-of-the-mill American story.
The stench of greasepaint on our faces,
pass the mask to our next of kin,
instead of wiser idioms,
like "love the sinner, hate the sin"."
Maybe I am taking this entirely out of context of what was meant; maybe they are just preaching that hating people for no other reason is wrong--ah, nevermind, who am I kidding anyway?
But anyhow, the correlation between "black and white" morality and bigotry remains. Morality based upon the Scriptures might be considered bigotry to the world--but it should never be to the Christian. The word of G-d is very clear in what the L-rd considers sin. Although Christians have freedom in Christ (I Corinthians 6:12 and I Peter 2:16), compromising the standards of Scripture to fit with what the world considers to be PC requires man to rebel against the word, just as man rebelled against the standard of the L-RD in the Garden.
But back on topic and to use a hackneyed example, the Scriptures are clear what is going to happen to the sinner--whether they be black or white, heterosexual or homosexual--:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of G-d? --Romans 6:9
If it takes being blunt to keep a person from an everlasting inheritance of fire and brimstone, so be it. I am willing to be labeled a bigot. Calling sin for what it is has never harmed anyone. If it convicts one person to know that they are living outside the perfect will of G-d, if it causes one person to fear for his soul, so that their fear for their souls caused them to be saved, then something has been accomplished. For as Jude says, some are saved through fear (Jude 1:23).
But this has not been the only time Five Iron Frenzy has extolled on compromising scripture to fit in with the world. In their song "Amalgamate," they sing:
"We cut ourselves, our own limbs we've severed.
It's time for us to pull together and stand, as one.
All eyes are turning towards the Son.
Drop your fists now, what you resent.
Let's not forget who we represent.
And fall to our knees in unity.
Another day now, another doctrine,
another monkey wrench in the system.
Some folks kneelin', some just listen,
some fallin' out of the pews from twistin'.
I don't care kinds, how you do it.
United we'll stand and we'll pull through it.
All were dead once.
All enslaved.
Now pull together 'cause we've all been saved."
Unity. Unity. Unity. Doesn't that smell like compromise? How can a G-d-fearing Christian unite with some "Christian" who preaches a gospel other than the one Scripture teaches? It appears they haven't cracked their Bibles in a while. Paul said to test the spirits, and that if anyone came teaching another Jesus or another doctrine than the one he taught, let that man be cursed (Galatians 1:9).
But what made my blood boil from this song is the last stanza:
"The only Jesus this world's gonna see,
is the Jesus in you and me.
So pick your cross up, stop your swingin'.
Stop and look at the stink you're bringin' to this body with your fighting,
you bust more knuckles that the wrongs your righting.
What's important, is where we relate,
it's the meaning of the word Amalagate."
is the Jesus in you and me.
So pick your cross up, stop your swingin'.
Stop and look at the stink you're bringin' to this body with your fighting,
you bust more knuckles that the wrongs your righting.
What's important, is where we relate,
it's the meaning of the word Amalagate."
"What's important, is where we relate,/it's the meaning of the word Amalagate"!?
Wha...!?
How many times have I heard this argument from Muslim friends and classmates? They too claim that what is important is the points where we relate--issues such as monotheism, the Abrahamic lineage, Mary :cough:, and the emphasis of love shared among Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If what's important is in how we relate, then I see no reason why Christians would have problems with Islam, especially after you got rid of everything the two religions disagreed on like the death, resurrection, and deity of Christ Jesus.
Now, the problem with disregarding the issues we all disagree on is that we end up disregarding scripture. For the sake of unity, a Christian cannot disregard the scriptures--but this is what Five Iron Frenzy is asking for.
And for that reason, I quit listening to most Christian pop music.
But the worse part is that this group is singing to children (as exemplified by my brother) and young adults who are still forming their opinions in regard to the Scriptures. What is Five Iron Frenzy doing but giving these impressionable people a skewed version of Scripture and morality--indoctrinating the future leaders of the church with a belief that unity is more important that doctrinal purity.
posted by Laura Keslar at 1:22 AM | |
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Previous Blog
Today I was rereading my blog that I used to have before I switched to this one and decided that it would provide some interesting reading to put some of my favorite posts (albeit, probably rather silly and loosely correlated with each other) on this blog. (I also figure I can delete the blog after I finish reposting some of the things I posted there.) I will be posting them on the dates that I originally posted them. So if you want to read them, just check out any of the archives before 2004. Have fun!
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:28 PM | |
Searching for Life?
Some scientists, such as Nobel-prize winner Francis Crick, have at least attempted to come up with an alternative explanation. Crick, realizing the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring on earth, published a paper in which he suggested that life on earth was ?seeded? from another planet. [emphasis mine]
If life on Mars or another planet was confirmed, men who reject intelligent design might be able to formulate a somewhat reasonable argument about how life originated on earth. As a direct consequence of finding an escape door from belief in ID, man can further justify their rebellion against the word of G-d and maintain their supremacy to G-d by claiming they are being intelligent about the existence of life on earth.
I never quite understood why America's scientists seemed so obsessed with life on other planets like Mars until I read a post from the Evangelical Outpost:
Some scientists, such as Nobel-prize winner Francis Crick, have at least attempted to come up with an alternative explanation. Crick, realizing the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring on earth, published a paper in which he suggested that life on earth was ?seeded? from another planet. [emphasis mine]
If life on Mars or another planet was confirmed, men who reject intelligent design might be able to formulate a somewhat reasonable argument about how life originated on earth. As a direct consequence of finding an escape door from belief in ID, man can further justify their rebellion against the word of G-d and maintain their supremacy to G-d by claiming they are being intelligent about the existence of life on earth.
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:51 PM | |
Another Affirmative Action Bake Sale?
According to the CR's here on campus, during a week sometime this spring called Conservative Week, they are planning on having a booth selling cookies based upon the race of their customers. Though the point is poignant, one can't help but thinking these bake sales reek of banality.
And this is coming from a group who refused to participate in the protest against the renaming of Economics building to the Cesar Chavez building. What I am wondering is how much gumption the CR's really have to do this.
It seems that the affirmative action bake sales have swept the nation. From coast to coast, America has seen a wave of these high-emotion, high-tension protests against affirmative action. And it seems that the UA will be experiencing one sometime this semester, according to the Campus Republicans.
According to the CR's here on campus, during a week sometime this spring called Conservative Week, they are planning on having a booth selling cookies based upon the race of their customers. Though the point is poignant, one can't help but thinking these bake sales reek of banality.
And this is coming from a group who refused to participate in the protest against the renaming of Economics building to the Cesar Chavez building. What I am wondering is how much gumption the CR's really have to do this.
posted by Laura Keslar at 1:11 AM | |
Monday, February 02, 2004
Ronald Reagan Had It Right
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, the Federalist sends out an e-newsletter. It is great. Sign up for it. I command you to. My father thinks its the best thing since sliced bread and so will you! Now go!
"That's the point that the Democrats always seem to miss. They always want to take more and more away from what the American people earn and produce by raising taxes. The Democrats believe that America is great because of all the good things that government has been able to do for people and because America's greatness lies in government. Those poor, misguided Democrats. They don't seem to understand that America isn't great because of what government did for the people. America is gerat because free people have had the chance and the incentive and the opportunity to dream, strive and work toward their goals. That's what has made America great." --Ronald Reagan
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, the Federalist sends out an e-newsletter. It is great. Sign up for it. I command you to. My father thinks its the best thing since sliced bread and so will you! Now go!
posted by Laura Keslar at 6:59 PM | |
Who I am
Though this is not my first blog (my first went the way of the dinosaurs due to my extreme amounts of a-chem, o-chem, and bio), I figure I can give y'all (those few of you, if any, who have found my blog) a little info about myself. I know I hate not knowing anything about posters and having to read every single one of their posts just to glean enough information to know that one of their legs are smaller than the other and that they once had a pet mouse who escaped and lived behind the toilet.
I am a sophomore [or rather, was, see below] at the University of Arizona hoping to apply to the UA's College of Pharmacy, which means I currently am a pre-pharmacy major with a chemistry minor. I have a calico cat who currently lives at my folks' home, two brothers, three nephews, two parents, two feet, ten toes...you get the picture.
The reason this blog came into existence was due to some lofty comments made by a favorite blogger of mine, Mac Swift from Vessel of Honour, that he was the "only pro-Chick Publications...pro-King James Bible" blogger out there. (He does make one other requirement of being an ultra-conservative Christian blogger--but I think in the times to come, you will see that I do make that cut). For the fun of it, I decided to prove him wrong and create my own blog--a blog from a pro-Chick, pro-King James Bible, conservative Christian's perspective. And yet another reason for this blog has come about because of the dirth of conservative Tucson/Arizona bloggers and, in general, "conservative-christian" bloggers.
I have not always been pro-King James Bible; and, at one point, thought that KJV-Onlyists, which is what I am (however, please note: not all pro-KJV people are KJV-Onlyists), were puritanical freaks of nature. After some classroom debates with Muslims, I came to the realization that I had to have a book that was true in all regards--and that book was the KJV.
And that, my friends, is all you are going to get until a later time.
07/23/04: Not satisfied? Well, as promised, I have more for you at a later time.
my testimony
my theology
my politics
an update [08/08/05]
[EDIT: I have edited this post in order to include in one comprehensive post my testimony as well as a brief overview of my theology and politics.]
Though this is not my first blog (my first went the way of the dinosaurs due to my extreme amounts of a-chem, o-chem, and bio), I figure I can give y'all (those few of you, if any, who have found my blog) a little info about myself. I know I hate not knowing anything about posters and having to read every single one of their posts just to glean enough information to know that one of their legs are smaller than the other and that they once had a pet mouse who escaped and lived behind the toilet.
I am a sophomore [or rather, was, see below] at the University of Arizona hoping to apply to the UA's College of Pharmacy, which means I currently am a pre-pharmacy major with a chemistry minor. I have a calico cat who currently lives at my folks' home, two brothers, three nephews, two parents, two feet, ten toes...you get the picture.
The reason this blog came into existence was due to some lofty comments made by a favorite blogger of mine, Mac Swift from Vessel of Honour, that he was the "only pro-Chick Publications...pro-King James Bible" blogger out there. (He does make one other requirement of being an ultra-conservative Christian blogger--but I think in the times to come, you will see that I do make that cut). For the fun of it, I decided to prove him wrong and create my own blog--a blog from a pro-Chick, pro-King James Bible, conservative Christian's perspective. And yet another reason for this blog has come about because of the dirth of conservative Tucson/Arizona bloggers and, in general, "conservative-christian" bloggers.
I have not always been pro-King James Bible; and, at one point, thought that KJV-Onlyists, which is what I am (however, please note: not all pro-KJV people are KJV-Onlyists), were puritanical freaks of nature. After some classroom debates with Muslims, I came to the realization that I had to have a book that was true in all regards--and that book was the KJV.
And that, my friends, is all you are going to get until a later time.
07/23/04: Not satisfied? Well, as promised, I have more for you at a later time.
my testimony
my theology
my politics
an update [08/08/05]
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:07 PM | |
Just dont let the feminists hear!
I thought it was interesting how one fellow said "It's not just the sport. It's all about American culture" [emphasis mine]. This was later followed by a comment about how "It's fun seeing those guys banging into each other."
Now, dont let those feminists hear that football is all about "banging into each other," especially since it also exemplifies American culture. They might want to ban football for encouraging violence. Oh, wait, they already do, because of their erroneous belief that sports cause boys to take on the features of "an ideal male," which includes being tough, assertive, and invulnerable--all key features that will eventually lead to rape, murder, and school shootings.
My roommate Daysha tuned me into this article about how the Chinese watched their first ever Superbowl.
I thought it was interesting how one fellow said "It's not just the sport. It's all about American culture" [emphasis mine]. This was later followed by a comment about how "It's fun seeing those guys banging into each other."
Now, dont let those feminists hear that football is all about "banging into each other," especially since it also exemplifies American culture. They might want to ban football for encouraging violence. Oh, wait, they already do, because of their erroneous belief that sports cause boys to take on the features of "an ideal male," which includes being tough, assertive, and invulnerable--all key features that will eventually lead to rape, murder, and school shootings.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:30 PM | |
John McCain--new vice presidential candidate?
As much as I hate to admit it, but I think Marc Levin has a point when saying a Bush-McCain ticket would be a sure win. Though I despise both men for various reasons, their alliance would not be as bad as, say, a Kerry-Edwards ticket. And despite everything McCain has done wrong (like BCRA), he has done some things right. It would also set McCain up for a great election in 2008 against Hillary and the other forces of darkness.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:11 PM | |
And we thought reality TV had sunk to an all-time low
WND indicates that a new and engaging reality tv show will be produced in France. I will be sitting breathlessly in anticipation as I do with all the other reality TV shows on today.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:04 PM | |
Discrepancies in Salaries of Women in Wall Street
"Roth says the women she interviewed said such activities included going to strip clubs, cigar smoking and elk hunting and other activities "in which their presence was unwelcome and that harmed their ability to develop solid client relationships.""
Discrepancies in wages often arise due to the lack of experience that these workers have. Or because, calculated into the wages, is the time women typically take off to raise their children. Although many of these women might have similar educational backgrounds, they, unlike their male counterparts, typically take more time off from work to raise children.
Businesses and firms often look and award risk takers and those who exercise their creativity. Though women might be as creative as men, women do not typically engage in risk-taking. So, another reason for the differences in wages could be attributed to the business qualities these firms are looking for.
UA sociologists researched wage discrepancies of women in Wall Street. The claim is that women are being discriminated against in several ways, one because the professionals are awarded for how well they can bond with their clients.
"Roth says the women she interviewed said such activities included going to strip clubs, cigar smoking and elk hunting and other activities "in which their presence was unwelcome and that harmed their ability to develop solid client relationships.""
Discrepancies in wages often arise due to the lack of experience that these workers have. Or because, calculated into the wages, is the time women typically take off to raise their children. Although many of these women might have similar educational backgrounds, they, unlike their male counterparts, typically take more time off from work to raise children.
Businesses and firms often look and award risk takers and those who exercise their creativity. Though women might be as creative as men, women do not typically engage in risk-taking. So, another reason for the differences in wages could be attributed to the business qualities these firms are looking for.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:02 PM | |
Arizona no longer considered conservative?
There is nothing to do about restricting the old clueless people (sorry Grandma) from coming to the state or even the young job-seekers, but there is something that we can do to stem the influx of immigrants, and its not by granting them amnesty. I have heard the argument harped upon and will beat my drum about it as well, but rewarding bad behavior does nothing to curb that bad behavior. Thus, by rewarding illegal immigrants who have disobeyed the laws of our land in order to get to this country, we do nothing to stem the influx and, in fact, encourage it.
And the United State's lax voting laws do nothing to stem illegals from voting. With 8 million to 11 million illegals in the U.S., whose to say that some of them are not voting and influencing elections--whether local, state, or national elections is not the point.
No matter how much I love my absentee ballots sent to me from Yuma to Tucson, I can't help but think how easy it would be to obtain one without necessary identification. Likewise, my mother mentioned that the people at the polling places did not even ask for her identification last November. Though it appears it is the fault of the individual polling places, the neglicence needs to be cut down to its bear minimum. I like what Rep. Flake hoped to do when he brought legislation before Congress to require a form of ID that clearly identifies one's self as a citizen of the U.S.
This election is crucial. A Bush win is necessary. With him floundering against Kerry, the acknowledgement by Kay that there was no WMD in Iraq, etc, he needs to cut his losses. He does not need any flukes, like an open border and illegals voting, to pull him down any farther.
Is Arizona no longer considered a conservative state? According to the Contra Costa Times, the reason for Arizona's decline of conservatives is the increase of winter visitors (darn old people who dont know their right foot from their left or how to use email, which will be for another post), younger job-seekers, and (after reading farther down the article) the influx of immigrants.
There is nothing to do about restricting the old clueless people (sorry Grandma) from coming to the state or even the young job-seekers, but there is something that we can do to stem the influx of immigrants, and its not by granting them amnesty. I have heard the argument harped upon and will beat my drum about it as well, but rewarding bad behavior does nothing to curb that bad behavior. Thus, by rewarding illegal immigrants who have disobeyed the laws of our land in order to get to this country, we do nothing to stem the influx and, in fact, encourage it.
And the United State's lax voting laws do nothing to stem illegals from voting. With 8 million to 11 million illegals in the U.S., whose to say that some of them are not voting and influencing elections--whether local, state, or national elections is not the point.
No matter how much I love my absentee ballots sent to me from Yuma to Tucson, I can't help but think how easy it would be to obtain one without necessary identification. Likewise, my mother mentioned that the people at the polling places did not even ask for her identification last November. Though it appears it is the fault of the individual polling places, the neglicence needs to be cut down to its bear minimum. I like what Rep. Flake hoped to do when he brought legislation before Congress to require a form of ID that clearly identifies one's self as a citizen of the U.S.
This election is crucial. A Bush win is necessary. With him floundering against Kerry, the acknowledgement by Kay that there was no WMD in Iraq, etc, he needs to cut his losses. He does not need any flukes, like an open border and illegals voting, to pull him down any farther.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:59 AM | |
Reagan Day!
I like what Schwarzenegger decided to do in California. His declaring February 6 as Ronald Reagan Day gives a small honour to a great man.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:25 AM | |
Sunday, February 01, 2004
UPDATED: The Porn Video Sponsored by Pepsi and CBS
WND summarizes everything I saw in this nice article, and even clarified what those male dancers were that I thought were just "one step up from the metrosexual." It's list includes
Listening to Matt Drudge, he mentioned something I didnt notice. He said that when Nelly was singing that it was "getting hot in here, why dont you take your clothes off," he was "grabbing crotch" (Drudge's own words).
WND summarizes everything I saw in this nice article, and even clarified what those male dancers were that I thought were just "one step up from the metrosexual." It's list includes
- Janet Jackson grabbing her breasts;
- Sean P. Diddy repeatedly fondling his crotch;
- striptease cheerleaders;
- gyrating transvestites;
- simulated lesbian sex;
- Jackson and Timberlake groping each other.
posted by Laura Keslar at 9:18 PM | |
So its the superbowl half time
Despite her amazement that they have "everyone" there, I have become quite disturbed. Even in my first five minutes, it has caused me to become distressed at the sexual laxity our culture has embraced, its disrespect of the American flag, etc.
First J@net J@ckson comes in, with the women dancers behind her acting and dressing like wh0res 100 years ago would have been ashamed to dress. The male dancers looked like the next step down from the metrosexual. Her following performance has two women mocking sexual acts with each other.
Then comes someone else who is dressed like a pimp. It appears that we, as a nation, seem to have embraced the wh0re/p1mp counter culture.
Soon following comes Kid Rock wearing poncho-style the American flag. Has no one been taught that it is disrespectful to wear the American flag as clothing? It's disgusting the ignorance of America's icons--icons whom America's children emulate and respect.
Lastly, was Just1n T1mberl@ke's appearance with J@net J@ckson, which stoutly showed the sexual perverseness we have embraced and gladly so. Call me a prude, but the dancing was simply perverse. I can understand why fundamentalists want to forbid dancing, if the sexual mockery which was going on between J@net and Just1n goes for dancing. Have we sunk so far that farces of sexual intimacy can be imitated on stage, outside of the str1p club?
But the final straw, indicating how decadent we have gotten, was when T1mberl@ke tore off the small cup holding J@ckson's bre@st to reveal a pierced n1pple to the millions of men, women, and children watching the show both in person and on television.
But let's take a look at what happened on stage. J@net was flirting and T1mberl@ke was taking advantage, smacking her butt and finally ripping off her clothing. Is this what the sexual liberation has brought about? Force against women? What else would you call the ripping of J@ckson's covering? Sexual? Intimate? Kind? Sweet? Heck no!
People, when reading this, might claim that that was what she wanted. How is that claim any different than claiming that women who dress provactively and get raped wanted to be raped? Perhaps I am taking this too far...but what I saw on television was pure force by a man against a woman.
The Old Testament indicates the Jerusalem was worse than her sisters Sodom and Samaria (Eze 16:52). Similarly have we sunk into moral decay. P1mps and wh0res are America's idols; women allow men to abuse and expose their bodies in order to show off their sexual liberation. How far we have come; how much farther will we go?
I have decided to take a break from my analytical chemistry homework to watch the superbowl half time show. My roommate has take it upon herself to explain who everyone is.
Despite her amazement that they have "everyone" there, I have become quite disturbed. Even in my first five minutes, it has caused me to become distressed at the sexual laxity our culture has embraced, its disrespect of the American flag, etc.
First J@net J@ckson comes in, with the women dancers behind her acting and dressing like wh0res 100 years ago would have been ashamed to dress. The male dancers looked like the next step down from the metrosexual. Her following performance has two women mocking sexual acts with each other.
Then comes someone else who is dressed like a pimp. It appears that we, as a nation, seem to have embraced the wh0re/p1mp counter culture.
Soon following comes Kid Rock wearing poncho-style the American flag. Has no one been taught that it is disrespectful to wear the American flag as clothing? It's disgusting the ignorance of America's icons--icons whom America's children emulate and respect.
Lastly, was Just1n T1mberl@ke's appearance with J@net J@ckson, which stoutly showed the sexual perverseness we have embraced and gladly so. Call me a prude, but the dancing was simply perverse. I can understand why fundamentalists want to forbid dancing, if the sexual mockery which was going on between J@net and Just1n goes for dancing. Have we sunk so far that farces of sexual intimacy can be imitated on stage, outside of the str1p club?
But the final straw, indicating how decadent we have gotten, was when T1mberl@ke tore off the small cup holding J@ckson's bre@st to reveal a pierced n1pple to the millions of men, women, and children watching the show both in person and on television.
But let's take a look at what happened on stage. J@net was flirting and T1mberl@ke was taking advantage, smacking her butt and finally ripping off her clothing. Is this what the sexual liberation has brought about? Force against women? What else would you call the ripping of J@ckson's covering? Sexual? Intimate? Kind? Sweet? Heck no!
People, when reading this, might claim that that was what she wanted. How is that claim any different than claiming that women who dress provactively and get raped wanted to be raped? Perhaps I am taking this too far...but what I saw on television was pure force by a man against a woman.
The Old Testament indicates the Jerusalem was worse than her sisters Sodom and Samaria (Eze 16:52). Similarly have we sunk into moral decay. P1mps and wh0res are America's idols; women allow men to abuse and expose their bodies in order to show off their sexual liberation. How far we have come; how much farther will we go?
posted by Laura Keslar at 6:47 PM | |