|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| *Stretches and cracks knuckles* What a boring doofus! I am referring to Gail Collins' NYT column. Since a column itself cannot be a boring doofus then I must be referring to Ms. Collins itself, but I am trying to be nicer than her so I will talk about the stupidity of the opinion instead. She basically is telling Georgie W. to leave immediately so that Obama can move in. Why does that make her - sorry, the column - stupid and boring-doofus-worthy? Because it plainly is one of the last kicks of a dying horse. Or the fossilization of a petty-minded dino. Or the hardening of dog poop. She, like other liberal columnists, have made their living off Georgie W. and it has dawned on her that his departure means that her livlihood is threatened. To earn her next paycheck, she needed to come up with as many insults and mediocre columns as possible, but at this late stage in the game there is very little W material to draw on. And so an entire completely inane, boring, column is devoted to asking him to leave. Mr Gore: Imagine the number of trees cut down and the carbon footprint to say that! She could have talked about the Congo. Or poverty. Or Iran. Or our man Ayman al-Zawahiri who decided to inject his brand of civil rights in his insult of Obama. (Who knew there was a phrase in Arabic that translates to "house Negro"? That is a whole column right there). No, she needed to call for W's resignation. Over in Chicago, text messages were quickly sent out to Obamatons all over the US to ask Ms. Collins to retract her opinion - they plainly are not ready for the White House just yet. Ms. Collins will be smart to clear out her desk and practice standing in line for unemployment benefits. W is gone. And all the media that created an industry out of Georgie W's misadventures. And so are you, Ms. Collins. Sorry, I was actually referring to your column, of course. | | |
| I had forgotten about my last post and that I had left it hanging until I got messaged this past week. Xanga does seem to be kinda on the downswing, and I have been writing elsewhere. So, God certainly has not placed any limit on certain types of sensual pleasure - music, for example. There are some types of music that send me into raptures and on the whole I am not negatively affected by music. I listen to it to my heart's content and only stop when I tire of it. The same with watching the ocean break on a beach. Not so with food. I can eat only so much of certain types of food before they become harmful to me, long before I tire. Not all pleasures are created equal. I am expected to limit certain of these pleasures, for my own good. That is just the way it is. Drug use, especially the hard ones that can be immediately addictive, is even more strictly controlled. There is no doubt that there must be some sort of pleasure in drug use, but it is obviously one that God has not intended for our consumption. And not all people are created equal either. Some people have a more acute sense of taste, feeling, etc - whether nurture or nature, one can only guess, since even the measurement of sense sensitivities is obvioulsy not easy. Nonetheless, what is spicy for one person is bland to others. What is addictive to one is a passing fancy to another. Adding to the confusion these variables already cause, we have our society putting very artificial standards on sensuality. Getting drunk or buzzed is obviously a form of escapism - there is a definite line that is crossed when someone sets out to get drunk, one that is frowned upon. But gluttony is another form of escapism that is generally not considered to be on the same level as drinking. So, where does sex fit in here? How much of the limits that our society has placed on sex, orgasms, pornography, etc is based on artificial standards that a corrupt religious order has imposed on us? Or are there real limits - such as would cause addiction to drugs? And are there variations in each human being that we need to consider? | | |
| To be complete. That is what God wants of us, a relationship with Him that results in us being perfect and complete. To be perfect is an unbearable burden until I understood that Jesus did not mean that I needed to be 'sinless' to be accepted by Him. Rather that He had already accepted me and all He wanted is for me to accept Him. He wants me to be complete, fulfilled, entirely whole for my own good. The word 'sin', rightly translated as 'missing the mark', then takes on a different meaning - we miss the mark in being complete when we, for example, oppress our fellow man or are cruel to animals. In this light, sin is something that we should hate in ourselves, much as an athlete should hate indolence. Sloth for her would be a sin, not because her Maker just hates it, but because He hates it since it causes her to miss the mark. To miss excellence in life. Church authorities have redefined sin so that it benefits them, of course. It is really interesting that Jesus reserved the use of the word 'sin' for the religious leaders of His time, and not for the fun loving drunkards, adulterers, and the like. So, there is no question that, dismissing hypocritical Church leaders, we would agree with God that oppression is wrong because it hurts us. Cruelty is wrong because it comes back to destroy us. We are arrogant when we disagree with our Maker and that eventually bites us. But what of pleasure? The struggle for me - and a number of sensual Christians - is that God created a desire for pleasure that conflicts with the standards He set for 'completion'. No one has to tell me that gluttony leads to obesity which hampers my completeness. I need to be healthy to enjoy God's gift of life, but the very sense of taste that helps me to enjoy life will destroy my pleasure if I let it run rampant. WHY? Why did He create pleasure for me if He also wants me to be disciplined in its enjoyment? I want to eat my cake and have it as well. What goes for food goes for sex, drink, comfort, and so on. Why should we not abandon ourselves to wanton sexual orgies and still be complete? Howeve, far from disagreeing with the precepts and principles that God has set, I actually agree with Him that His limits are absolutely correct. I just do not know why. In order to be fulfilled, I have to place limits on my desires. What a contradiction! And yet what truth - in all areas of life, including capitalism's engine, self-serving motivation. Without the limits of morality, this becomes greed that destroys the environment, oppresses the 'lower' classes, and generally makes brutes of men who then flame out after 50 or so years. Capitalism, the single most powerful force in raising the standards of living across the globe, has to be balanced out by a conscience or it will destroy the very society that it serves. China is a prime example of a country that will burn itself out for money if it does not limit its greed. So why did the Creator create desires that need to be disciplined if I want to be complete? I am excited to gain the wisdom He has in store, because it surely will be uncommon wisdom. | | |
| It is hard to imagine anyone killing a dog by repeatedly slamming it to the ground. It takes a particular kind of cold hearted viciousness and one hopes that Michael Vick did not do it, that it is an exaggeration or an outright lie. Unfortunately, hanging and drowning dogs isn’t much better, and it is growing more likely that he did those. If he is guilty of any of these things, he needs to be put away for some time and maybe then he’ll understand why the rest of us are horrified that he would enjoy this and consider it a normal pastime. But he was surrounded by others like him who enjoyed the clearly illicit and obviously barbaric violence, and they had all lulled themselves into believing there was nothing wrong with their enjoyment. The men that are now testifying against him are not doing so out of conviction that they were wrong – their motivation is fear and the safety of their own skin. They enjoy torturing animals that looked to them for protection. This is not a subculture of one but of many that fed and encouraged each other, and looked at the rest of us as fools who were constantly trying to ruin their fun. How did they get into this? At which point did the revulsion turn into fascination and obsession? Ah! Vick is not too different from other self-obsessed subcultures that have arrogantly thrown caution and good sense to the winds, but he made the mistake of picking something that is almost universally abhorred. Lindsey Lohan, Spears, that Hilton girl, and Anna Nicole Smith are an example of any group of people who have rushed headlong into obsessed self-destruction. Vick’s behavior is similarly self-destructive – who would risk all that he has for entertainment? Our protestations against the sexy women behavior is rather more muted probably because it is titillating and we enjoy watching them. The argument could be made that they are not harming anyone or anything else, but our behavior is only different from Vick’s in a matter of degrees. There may not be the gore and the screams of desperately wounded animals echoing in our ears, but watching beautiful women fall apart takes a particular type of cold detachment that we see in Vick and his cronies. We consider ourselves good people. Ask yourself, does Vick think he is a particularly bad person? Or does he just regret getting caught? As we rightly condemn Vick and his friends, we should also examine our own lives and our conscience. We may be law abiding, but are we blameless? Are we, as Vick did, losing perspective on what is right and wrong, justifying our actions because they are legal and his weren’t? We may not have created Vick but we surely set the stage with our callousness. Our whole culture – yours and mine - continues to glorify all manner of voyeurism and we draw fine lines that people like Spears and Vick cross over. The coliseums of Rome were once filled with people cheering blood sports that involved not dogs but humans. And that was legal. Just as our gossip rags, reality shows and video games are. | | |
|   
Music (Jimmy Bruno at Chris' Jazz Cafe) followed by more music (open air group in the Italian Market) 
Target Practicing (I killed the green man) at Philadelphia Archery and Gun Club | | |
|
