Saturday, October 23, 2004
For those of you who have already seen the movie: There's a little boy standing behind you.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
That said, I don't see why the Catholic and Orthodox churches would begin theological negotiation. Let's look at it logically. The Catholic church believes it is the true church descended from the church began by Christ and the apostles. They claim that their authority has been unbroken over the 2,000 years. The Orthodox church broke off for many reasons, but foremost being the strength of the Pope. I don't know if the doctrinal changes between the churches occurred then or later, but they exist now. Basically if any side concedes to change, that shows that it is incorrect. I don't think either side is really ready to change their doctrine. And then logistically, let's say the Orthodox church merges with the Catholic. Would all Orthodox members agree? Would all Orthodox members automatically be Catholic? And you know for sure there would more schisms because of the changes. Lastly, the Orthodox church is poor. I can't see the wealthy Catholic church taking on such a liability.
My opinions are mostly one-sided. I lived in Romania for two years. They are predominantly Romanian Orthodox. And I only know one Catholic.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Thursday, October 14, 2004
The Supreme Court handed Internet services providers and privacy advocates a crucial victory yesterday when it decided to pass on an important Internet piracy case. . . .
"The recording industry may not agree, but the U.S. Supreme Court thinks personal privacy is far more important that music piracy," Red Herring reported. "On Tuesday, the high court refused to entertain an appeal of a unanimous 2003 decision by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that held that copyright holders cannot force Internet providers to identify file sharers using a mere subpoena. Industry watchers see this as yet another blow that the recording industry has taken in its fight against online file sharing -- a fight it is slowly losing. The lawsuits in question were between New York's Verizon Internet Services and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), headquartered in Washington, D.C."
Yes that's right. Personal privacy is more important than music piracy. Blow after blow the music industry will be forced out their 'evil lawyer' cave.
Friday, October 08, 2004
"Beam me up!"
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
This news definitely clinches my vote for Bush.
Monday, October 04, 2004
That brings me to my question. Should government officials resign for any infraction in their past? I've been taught that the personal lives of government leaders should not be separated from their careers. I agree with that. But where should we draw the line? Should all officials be above reproach and never have made a mistake? Men and women are able to change themselves and leave behind past mistakes. I only wonder where the line should be drawn.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.
2. One who destroys sacred religious images.
The Lonestar Iconoclast claims itself as President Bush's homestar paper. And true to it's name, it is seeking to overthrow tradtional or popular ideas by now endorsing Kerry. Now I will admit, everything I know about Texas I learned from Fox's "King of the Hill". But apparently life in some parts of Texas is close to that of Arlen in "King". Check it out.
Apparently the Iconoclast only has 425 readers. And that is in a serious decline now. Once endorsing Kerry, the paper lost many of its advertisers. I'm left wondering if the paper was in a decline before declaring Kerry their candidate. Seems this could be a good way to get under people's skin. Any publicity is good publicity.
I won't be looking to the Iconoclast for political knowledge. But it is a portal into small town Texas. I wonder if I might see Hank Hill featured in an article.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
- Read any one of my blog entries below. I might suggest "Serious Wisdom..." or "The Debate" For extra credit actually write a reply to one of them. (I love when people do that.)
- Follow the link I am about to share. Remember, until you do the first step, don't do the second. This is important. Link.
Come back after you're done. Comment.
Friday, October 01, 2004
At the heart of this conflict is the new ability of gay couples to adopt. Some 60% of Spaniards favor gay marriage, but only around 40% favor adoption by gay couples. A 20% difference is a big thing. I would guess that most people (including myself) oppose it, not because the child wouldn't have good parents -gay parents can be as good as heterosexual parents- but because the child would think that homosexuality is normal and natural. It's fine to have adults make those choices but children shouldn't have that choice forced upon them. One Spanish gay activist said, "Most Spanish people think what is important in adoption is the well-being of the child quite apart from the sexual orientation of the parents." That is true only when you believe that sexual orientation doesn't matter.
But in closing, a whole TEN percent of Spain is gay!! I will be more wary if/when I should meet any Spanish.
Kerry believes that the war in Iraq is not a just cause and should not have been started. He does however believe in getting our troops home as soon as possible and in giving them the supplies they need. (Ironic.)
Bush believes that invading Iraq was a good choice. He believes America needs to have a strong, unwavering stance against terrorism and to root it out wherever it may be.
Now here is what I learned. Kerry focuses on the past. He kept on reiterating that we should have entered Iraq. He didn't focus on the now. And that is that we are in Iraq... saying again and again that we shouldn't be there won't change that we are. He also stated that by voting against giving our troops the needed money for supplies he was in actuality voting against invading Iraq. That seems a little convoluted.
Bush is committed to this war on terrorism. He believes that removing Saddam Hussein has made the world a better place. He doesn't like sending troops into harms way, but there are causes that justify the loss. It seems that Bush does not want to rely on foreign intervention or help to achieve the goals he has set out. He will go to them the first time, but after that he will take matters into his own hands.
I could go on and on about their motives and details I saw in the debate, but I'll say a little bit about how they spoke in the debate. Kerry is a polished speaker. Bush was a little slower and not as smooth. But Kerry is a senator and I think that oration and speech giving comes with the territory. But it seemed that Kerry's words were made to tug on heart strings and persuade the audience to his side. Bush seemed to be more sincere. Time will tell if he is right or wrong. But you can tell by the way he speaks that believes he is right.
What are you thoughts on the debate?