Tuesday, February 24, 2004|
What's wrong with Christianity today? On one hand, they denounce homosexuality and public nudity. On the other hand, they think a bloody, violent, R-rated film about Christ's life is perfectly ok even though there are tons of studies that show the negative influence of violence in television and movies. To hold what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms and occasional images of the human form as being more worthy of disgust and condemnation than a movie filled with gore and violence is a view that I find inconsistent with the teachings of Christ and a view that I believe Christ would take issue with, were he given the chance today. |
|
Irony. And not in the Alanis Morissette sort of way either. 9:30:10 PM  What do you think? [] trackback []
|
|
I'm rapidly becoming addicted to my news aggregator, so much so that when I run across a blog I really like that has no XML or RSS feed, I'm instantly annoyed and wonder if I should really like that site. In case you're wondering, I use SharpReader, an aggregator written in C# that is pretty snazzy if you ask me. 9:21:53 PM What do you think? [] trackback []
|
|
This is truly hilarious. Dear God, if you exist, please let Edwards do something amazing in the next two weeks. Like cure cancer or something. 9:11:13 PM What do you think? [] trackback []
|
|
While I'm ragging on The Filibuster, I'd be remiss not to mention this link from their site to a truly doomsday view of what may happen released from the Pentagon and reported in the British press. The news article reads like something out of the Matrix in its doomsday predictions. I immediately smelled either a hoax or some sort of worst-case possible scenario. Then when I read the link to Calpundit on that same page, it's clear that it is a completely worst-case scenario and hardly one that you could say paints the Bush administration in a bad light. I used to really enjoy reading The Filibuster but based on today's readings, I begin to wonder if they've just completely lost it when it comes to the policies of the Bush administration. But even Calpundit leaves out the first part of the disclaimer from the document which you can read on his site and which I post here in its entirety:
The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security. We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller. We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately. I'm not sure how the unthinkable can be plausible but The Filibuster sure thinks so. You decide for yourself. 8:57:00 PM What do you think? [] trackback []
|
|
Is it too much to ask for the person posting a link to an article that he or she actually read the article? Apparently not for The Filibuster who claims that Bush called the National Education Association a "terrorist organization" when in fact, it was Rod Paige, Education Secretary who said that. I don't disagree that it's a ridiculous statement but it wasn't said by Bush. And to attribute it to him by proxy is unfair. 8:40:49 PM What do you think? [] trackback []
|
|
I've seen quite a few responses to the Bush support for a constitutional amendment in the blogosphere and elsewhere today but no one says it better than Daniel Drezner: "Bush to gays: go f@$# yourselves -- and do it out of wedlock" 7:21:44 PM What do you think? [] trackback []
|
|
Why would the Dallas Cowboys want a selfish, whiny, mediocre, second tier wide receiver? Beats me but this year has been the season of possible trades involving losers to Dallas sports teams. We managed to avoid Manny and Rasheed. Surely, we won't get someone as detrimental to team chemistry as Keyshawn. Why can't Jerry Jones take a page from the book of Robert Kraft and the New England Patriots who sign players based on what they contribute to the team as a whole? They have a whole roster of team players up there and they've won two Super Bowls recently to prove that's the way. Of course, with an ego like Jerry Jones' and his recent antics regarding a new taxpayer financed stadium, this really shouldn't surprise me. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. |
Last update: 7/14/2004; 8:01:26 AM .
