Not to gross you out, but fireworks are dangerous
Far far far more disturbing photos here. (You’ve been warned…..)
A Famous Evangelical Sees The Light
Then:
It is the afternoon of September 25, 2000, and Jonathan Edwards is making his way to the triple jump final at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney. In his kitbag are some shirts, spikes, towels – and a tin of sardines.
Why the sardines? They have been chosen by Edwards to symbolise the fish that Jesus used in the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. They are, if you like, the physical manifestation of his faith in God.
As he enters the stadium, he offers a silent prayer: “I place my destiny in Your hands. Do with me as You will.” A few hours later he has captured the gold medal, securing his status as one of Britain’s greatest athletes.
***
By the time Edwards retired from athletics in 2003, he had established himself as one of Britain’s most prominent born-again Christians. He soon landed the job of fronting a landmark documentary on the life of St Paul and also secured the presenting role on the BBC’s flagship religious programme, Songs of Praise. He looked to have made the transition to life after sport with a sureness of touch that eludes so many professional athletes. Perhaps this was another advantage of his bedrock faith in God.
But then, something happened to Edwards. He was struck by reason:
But even as he toured the nation’s churches with his BBC crew, Edwards was confronting an apocalyptic realisation: that it was all a grand mistake; that his epiphany was nothing more than self-delusion; that his inner sense of God’s presence was fictitious; that the decisions he had taken in life were based on a false premise; that the Bible is not literal truth but literal falsehood; that life is not something imbued with meaning from on high but, possibly, a purposeless accident in an unfeeling universe.
Having left his sport as a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical, Edwards is now, to all intents and purposes, an atheist.
What happened? Let him explain in his own words:
“I was so preoccupied with training and competing that I did not have the time or emotional inclination to question my beliefs. Sport is simple, with simple goals and a simple lifestyle. I was quite happy in a world populated by my family and close friends, people who shared my belief system. Leaving that world to get involved with television and other projects gave me the freedom to question everything.
“Once you start asking yourself questions like, ‘How do I really know there is a God?’ you are already on the path to unbelief …During my documentary on St Paul, some experts raised the possibility that his spectacular conversion on the road to Damascus might have been caused by an epileptic fit. It made me realise that I had taken things for granted that were taught to me as a child without subjecting them to any kind of analysis. When you think about it rationally, it does seem incredibly improbable that there is a God.”
Ah, yes. Blind faith. In the end, it’s the "blind" part that gets ya. Especially when you start to actually think about things, using the brain that God (supposedly) gave you.
The Washcloths Of Lower Manhattan
I’m not going to make fun of Marie Jon Apostrophe’s latest editorial, because she’s being all patriotic and stuff by reminding her readers that this is a great Christian nation which tolerates atheists. Far be it for me to hurl snarky comments at my benefactor who allows me to live here.
I will, however, laugh loudly at this sentence:
As we approach this national holiday, let us not forget that it was little more than five plus ago when we were attacked by madmen who garbed themselves in Islam. They slammed planes into the Twin Towels of New York and the Pentagon, killing thousands of our citizens.
(Emphasis added)
Twin towels?
The Sleaziness Of The Libby Clemency
How can this be viewed as anything other a brazen admission that Bush & Co. feels they are above the law?
Scooter Libby was convicted by a jury consisting of the American people who heard all the evidence, and concluded that he committed purjury and obstructed justice. Even Bush admits that he respects the jury’s verdict; his only issue was with the "excessive" sentence. So the unquestioned guilt of Scooter Libby is not a disputed issue. Why then he is spending less time in prison than Paris Hilton? Is that the message — serving any time in prison for obstructing justice and lying under oath is "excessive"? WaPo editorial:
The probation office, as the president noted, recommended less time — 15 to 21 months. But Mr. Bush, while claiming to "respect the jury’s verdict," failed to explain why he moved from "excessive" to zero. It’s true that the felony conviction that remains in place, the $250,000 fine and the reputational damage are far from trivial. But so is lying to a grand jury. To commute the entire prison sentence sends the wrong message about the seriousness of that offense.
Also, let’s remember that Bush — both as governor and president — is notorious for not giving pardons and clemency.
Bloomberg notes, “Bush has granted fewer pardons — 113 — than any president in the past 100 years, while denying more than 1,000 requests, said Margaret Colgate Love, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997. In addition, Bush has denied more than 4,000 commutation requests, and hundreds of requests for pardons and commutations are still pending, Love said.”
A death row inmate was born-again, and even a plea from the Pope himself would not stop then-governor George Bush from sending that woman to the chair.
So why does Libby get special treatment? Not because he was innocent. But because he was one of the Bush Administration’s "inner circle".
[UPDATE: Did I write "special treatment"? Incredibly, the White House is trying to pass this off as — what chutzpah! — "routine":
“The president spent weeks and weeks consulting with senior members of this White House about the proper way to proceed,” said [WH Press Secretary Tony] Snow, adding, “I think it handled it in a routine manner in the sense that the president took a careful look.”
This exchange with a reporter is mind-numbingly telling:
QUESTION: Can I follow on that? If there are more than 3,000 current petitions for commutation — not pardons, but commutation — in the federal system, under President Bush, will all 3,000 of those be held to the same standard that the president applied to Scooter Libby?
SNOW: I don’t know.
QUESTION: Tony, I’m trying to get a handle on it. Are you saying this White House handled this in an extraordinary manner or in a routine manner?
SNOW: I think it handled it in a routine manner in the sense that the president took a careful look.
Snow is not even trying to answer the question. He’s just stuck on trying to say that the whole thing is "routine". Yet, unlike the pending thousands of petitioners, Libby didn’t even seek a pardon or commutation. And certainly, Bush is not going to "spend weeks and weeks consulting with senior members of this White House about the proper way to proceed" when it comes to other people.
As Sully says: "If Bush is not actually, you know, creating one system of justice for his friends and employees and another for everyone else, why doesn’t Snow have an answer to that question?"]
How brazenly partisan is that? For the President to commute the sentences of HIS OWN PEOPLE, who were convicted IN COURT — ist there any other word to use besides "corrupt"?
And where is the right on this? Many, as suspected, as supporting Bush — and these are the same people who cried "foul" when it came to amnesty for illegal immigrants!! Go figure.
I also wonder how a sentence which is within the sentencing guidelines can bee deemed "excessive" by Bush. If it is within the guidelines, is it not, by definition, NOT "excessive"? Mogolori points to this WaPo story on Rita v. U.S.:
Victor Rita, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, asked for a lighter sentence based in part on his past military service. But the judge gave him 33 months, as suggested by the guidelines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld the sentence, saying that penalties within the guidelines are "presumptively reasonable."
Anonymous Liberal talks about the "manifest sleaziness" of the whole thing:
Let’s put it this way: if this had happened in the Clinton administration, this would have been the lead count in the House’s bill of impeachment. Does anyone doubt that? Republicans would have demanded Clinton’s immediate resignation.
Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald speaks too:
We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.
"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."—Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
"The arrogance of this administration’s disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking. Will the president also commute the sentences of others who obstructed justice and lied to grand juries, or only those who act to protect President Bush and Vice President Cheney?"—New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
"It is time for the American people to be heard—I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law."—Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.
"The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own vice president’s chief of staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law."—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"When it comes to the law, there should not be two sets of rules—one for President Bush and Vice President Cheney and another for the rest of America. Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail. No one in this administration should be above the law."—Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
"This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people’s faith in a government that puts the country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years."—Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
The [Washington] Post, which had often mocked the court case, declares today: "We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did — to probation and a large fine — is not defensible. … Mr. Bush, while claiming to ‘respect the jury’s verdict,’ failed to explain why he moved from ‘excessive’ to zero.
"It’s true that the felony conviction that remains in place, the $250,000 fine and the reputational damage are far from trivial. But so is lying to a grand jury. To commute the entire prison sentence sends the wrong message about the seriousness of that offense."
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "President Bush’s commutation of a pal’s prison sentence counts as a most shocking act of disrespect for the U.S. justice system. It’s the latest sign of the huge repairs to American concepts of the rule of law that await the next president."
The Denver Post found that "such big-footing of other branches of government is not unprecedented with this administration. The president’s abuse of signing statements show his disrespect for Congress’ power to make law. His insistence that terror detainees at Guantanamo Bay be denied Habeas Corpus rights mocks legal tradition. It’s a shame that his actions in the Libby affair will add to that list. Libby should be held accountable for his crimes."
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s editorial declares that "mostly this commutation fails on the most basic premise. There was no miscarriage of justice in Libby’s conviction or his sentence. The trial amply demonstrated that he stonewalled. Like President Clinton’s 11th-hour pardons of an ill-deserving few, this commutation is a travesty."
New York’s Daily News: "However misbegotten was the probe by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the fact is that Libby did commit a federal crime and the fact is also that he was convicted in a court of law. Thankfully, Bush did not pardon Libby outright, but time in the slammer was in order. Sixty days, say, wouldn’t have hurt the justice system a bit."
Chicago Tribune believes that "in nixing the prison term, Bush sent a terrible message to citizens and to government officials who are expected to serve the public with integrity. The way for a president to discourage the breaking of federal laws is by letting fairly rendered consequences play out, however uncomfortably for everyone involved. The message to a Scooter Libby ought to be the same as it is for other convicts: You do the crime, you do the time."
The Arizona Republic: "We thought Scooter Libby was going through the criminal justice system. Just like anyone else. Then, President Bush whipped out a get-out-of-jail-free card. This is the wrong game to play on a very public stage."
San Jose Mercury News: "Other presidents have doled out pardons and the like, usually on the way out of office. It’s never pretty. But few have placed themselves above the law as Bush, Cheney and friends repeatedly have done by trampling civil liberties and denying due process. Chalk up another point for freedom. Scooter’s, at least."
The Sacramento Bee: President Bush, a recent story in the Washington Post tells us, is obsessed with the question of how history will view him. He has done himself no favors on that count by commuting the prison term of I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby."
Blogosphere:
Atrios: President Bush engages in ongoing obstruction of justice by commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence.
And all of the Wise Men of Washington cheered.
Politely tell the White House what you think about this.
….WH has closed the comment line. We can call tomorrow.
FDL: Demonstrating his complete contempt for trial by jury, rule of law and his own Department of Justice appointees, George Bush thumbed his nose once again at the very concept of democracy and the Beltway Brahmins are cheering. The dirty unwashed masses who populate our juries are fit to judge each other, but evidently not the ruling class. David Broder can breathe a sigh of relief that People Like Him are safe from those overly zealous US Attorneys who might want to hold them accountable to the same absurd standards that the little people must live by.
How quaint.
Josh Marshall: There is a conceivable argument — a very poor one but a conceivable one — for pardoning Scooter Libby, presumably on the argument that the entire prosecution was political and thus illegitimate. But what conceivable argument does the president have for micromanaging the sentence? To decide that the conviction is appropriate, that probation is appropriate, that a substantial fine is appropriate — just no prison sentence.
This is being treated in the press as splitting the difference, an elegant compromise. But it is the least justifiable approach. The president has decided that the sentencing guidelines and the opinion of judge don’t cut it.
The only basis for this decision is that Libby is the vice president’s friend, the vice president rules the president and this was the minimum necessary to keep the man silent.
Glenn Greenwald: What kind of country do we expect to have when we have a ruling Washington class that believes that they and their fellow members of the Beltway elite constitute a separate class, one that resides above and beyond the law? That is plainly what they believe. And we now have exactly the country that one would expect would emerge from a political culture shaped by such a deeply insulated, corrupt and barren royal court.
and
A lawyer, former prosecutor, and current GW law professor weighs in, and this one a Republican. Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy:
…I find Bush’s action very troubling because of the obvious special treatment Libby received. President Bush has set a remarkable record in the last 6+ years for essentially never exercising his powers to commute sentences or pardon those in jail. His handful of pardons have been almost all symbolic gestures involving cases decades old, sometimes for people who are long dead. Come to think of it, I don’t know if Bush has ever actually used his powers to get one single person out of jail even one day early. If there are such cases, they are certainly few and far between. So Libby’s treatment was very special indeed.
Sanford Levinson‘s cogent and extended remarks are worth reading, especially this part:
As it happens, the commutation also connects with my general theme in most of my Open University postings, which involves criticisms of various aspects of our Constitution. Interestingly enough, if one reads the so-called "anti-Federalist" papers, collected together some years ago in a magnificent edition by Herbert J. Storing, one discovers that a number of the opponents of the Constitution were quite concerned by the power to pardon. George Mason, a distinguished Virginian who refused to sign the Constitution, noted that "the President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardon for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from Punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, and thereby prevent a Discovery of his own guilt." Luther Martin, another non-signatory, also objected to the potential "attempt [of the President] to assume to himself powers not given by the constitution, and establish himself in regal authority; in which attempt a provision is made for him to secure from punishment the creatures of his ambition, the associates and abettors of his treasonable practices, by granting them pardons should they be defeated in their attempts to subvert the constitution."
No one, of course, believes that Mr. Libby committed Treason; indeed, his most ardent defenders view him as attempting to save the Republic from the like of Joseph Wilson. But, just as obviously, Mr. Libby was convicted of perjury after an extensive trial, and the judge quite justifiably thought that Mr. Libby’s actions demonstrated utter contempt for what the Constitution calls a "Republican Form of Government." Even if one agrees with President Bush that 30 months was "excessive," it is obviously a logical fallacy to assume that the alternative to 30 months is not a single day. More to the point, it is altogether tempting to put the pardon within the framework set out by Mason and Martin: The best explanation of the pardon is not compassion but, rather, fear that Mr. Libby might be tempted to provide more information about the cabal to turn the presidency (and vice-presidency) into "regal," if not out-and-out dictatorial, authorities totally independent from any scrutiny or accountability. This is simply one more illustration of the mendacity and corruption at the heart of the Bush Administration (and, therefore, of the present American system of government).
No one should doubt that we are in a constitutional crisis. And part of the crisis can be found within the Constitution itself. Perhaps it is a good idea that the President can pardon (or commute) convicted criminals. This is the notion that justice should be tempered by mercy. But it is also clear that the pardoning authority can be abused by unscrupulous presidents. Bill Clinton, of course, was roundly criticized for his last-day pardon of Marc Rich, though no one can seriously believe that high issues of the polity were involved. Some attributed it to campaign contributions; others, to the possibility of a "relationship" between the President and Rich’s former wife, Denise. As with so much of the Clinton presidency, the act was tawdry but unthreatening to a Republican Form of Government. Mr. Bush’s commutation, is such a threat, unless, of course, one defines a "Republican Form of Government" as "Government by the Republican Party." It will be interesting to see if any of those who look to the Founding Generation for wisdom about current realities will give any credence to the timely warnings of Mason and Martin (and others) about the potentially cancerous consequences of the Pardoning Power.
Anti-Federalist Paper No. 67, Cato, 1787, weighs in:
It is, therefore, obvious to the least intelligent mind to account why great power in the hands of a magistrate [i.e., a single executive], and that power connected with considerable duration, may be dangerous to the liberties of a republic. . . . [T]he unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be used to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt; his duration in office for four years-these, and various other principles evidently prove the truth of the position, that if the president is possessed of ambition, he has power and time sufficient to ruin his country.
Though the president, during the sitting of the legislature, is assisted by the senate, yet he is without a constitutional council in their recess. He will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites, or a council of state will grow out of the principal officers of the great departments, the most dangerous council in a free country.
21% of Americans familiar with the legal case involving former White House aide Scooter Libby agree with President Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s prison sentence, according to a SurveyUSA nationwide poll conducted immediately after the decision was announced. 1,500 Americans were surveyed. Of them, 825 were familiar with the Libby case. Only those familiar were asked to react to the President’s action. 17% say Bush should have pardoned Libby completely. 60% say Bush should have left the judge’s prison sentence in place. 32% of Republicans agree with the President’s decision, compared to 14% of Democrats and 20% of Independents. 26% of Republicans say Libby should have been pardoned completely, compared to 21% of Independents and 8% of Democrats. Conservatives split evenly: 31% say Libby should have been pardoned. 35% say the judge’s sentence should have been left in place. 31% agree with the President’s decision to commute the prison sentence, but to leave the fine and conviction in place.
SO…. what to do? There’s a call to action:
So, you can sit around grousing and moaning until the cows come home, wallowing in your misery and cursing the heavens about George Bush. Or…you can do something about him and his corrupt Grand Ole Imperial Party.
I’ll take fighting back for $1000, Alex.
****
Call your elected representatives and the White House and register your disgust:
White House Phone Numbers Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461
U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Rubber Ducky, You’re The One….
In January 1992, a container full of 29,000 rubber duckies (and blue turtles and green frogs) broke free from a cargo ship leaving China and somewhere in the Pacific.
Fifteen years later, what remains of them are about to wash up on the shores of England, halfway around the world. The Daily Mail discusses their journey, complete with this cool graphic:
THE JOURNEY SO FAR:
10 JANUARY 1992: Somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean nearly 29,000 First Years bath toys, including bright yellow rubber ducks, are spilled from a cargo ship in the Pacific Ocean.
16 NOVEMBER 1992: Caught in the Subpolar Gyre (counter-clockwise ocean current in the Bering Sea, between Alaska and Siberia), the ducks take 10 months to begin landing on the shores of Alaska.
EARLY 1995: The ducks take three years to circle around. East from the drop site to Alaska, then west and south to Japan before turning back north and east passing the original drop site and again landing in North America. Some ducks are even found In Hawaii. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) worked out that the ducks travel approximately 50 per pent faster than the water in the current.
1995 – 2000: Some intrepid ducks escape the Subpolar Gyre and head North, through the Bering Straight and into the frozen waters of the Arctic. Frozen into the ice the ducks travel slowly across the pole, moving ever eastward.
2000: Ducks begin reaching the North Atlantic where they begin to thaw and move Southward. Soon ducks are sighted bobbing in the waves from Maine to Massachusetts.
2001: Ducks are tracked in the area where the Titanic sank.
JULY TO DECEMBER 2003: The First Years company offers a $100 savings bond reward for the recovery of wayward ducks from the 1992 spill. To be valid ducks must be sent to the company and must be found in New England, Canada or Iceland. Britain is told to prepare for an invasion of the wayward ducks as well.
2003: A lawyer called Sonali Naik was on holiday in the Hebrides in north-west Scotland when she found a faded green frog on the beach marked with the magic words ‘The First Years’. Unaware of the significance of her find she left it on the beach. It was only when she was chatting to other guests at her hotel that she realised what she had seen.
Because of their interest to scientists and oceanographers studding currents, there’s a bounty on them. If you find one, you get 50 pounds sterling.
Star Trek XI Cast
Fresh from Ocean’s 13 and The Departed, [Matt] Damon is pegged for the role of a young Captain James T. Kirk, previously played by the Shat-tastic William Shatner.
Meanwhile, Oscar winner [Adrian] Brody (King Kong, The Pianist) is slated for the role of Mr. Spock, which was immortalized by Leonard Nimoy, and CSI: New York’s [Gary] Sinise could revive the cranky Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (made famous by DeForrest Kelley).
Also, this week Lost creator J.J. Abrams announced he will direct the film.
Christians And Their Bikinis
I came across this and decided that it needed unpacking….
Bikinis are Inappropriate Swimwear According to ChristiaNet Poll
ChristiaNet.com, the world’s largest Christian portal with twelve million monthly page loads, recently conducted a poll asking participants to decide if bikinis are appropriate swimwear. It is interesting to note with this poll that many voters felt that the attitude and the behavior of the one wearing the bathing suit is the most important issue. One voter said, "It depends on the way in which the swimwear is worn. The body-language of the person is what makes the person an object of lust."
And, I might add, if the bikini is worn inside out, it might make the person an object of ridicule.
Out of 257 participants —
Okay, first of all, this site gets "twelve million" hits a month, and only 257 answered this survey???
Out of 257 participants, 55 voted "yes" emphasizing that the garment shouldn’t be too revealing. The majority of 153 voted "no" and commented on what God’s word says about dressing decently. Many voters felt that Christians should not wear bikinis because it is not pleasing to God nor does this type of dressing glorify him.
Here’s where they lost me. Does that mean that wearing a one-piece bathing suit glorifies God? What about this?
And what about Adam and his rib-spawn, Eve? What did they wear? My understanding was that there wasn’t a lot of clothes in the Garden of —
Oh, right. Victorian clothes. I forgot.
The remainder of the 49 participants voted "unsure" emphasizing that it depends upon the attitude of the one wearing it and the style of the garment.
Right. Because if the Christian bikini-wearer is all up in yo face, dissin’ you ‘n shit, then that’s ungodly.
One voter supported the idea of wearing a bikini and commented, "Swimwear is appropriate for Christians because it makes your movement easier in water."
This is a sound argument because, um, because — Christians need to swim faster when the Rapture comes, I guess, or, um, something.
Another voter made the point that even one piece bathing suits can be too revealing.
Well, screw it. Women should just wear burqinis then (pictured, at right).
Many of the participants that voted in favor noted that it is important to choose a bathing suit that is appropriate for the activity but that it should not be "too skimpy."
I think that’s a polite way of say, "It depends on who is wearing it". I suspect, on that particular point, Christians and non-Christians agree.
The overall consensus of the poll seems to agree that a Christian woman (or young lady) should be decently covered because it might cause another to sin.
Ah, yes. Blame the victim for other’s sin. By the logic, we should prevent children from going outdoors (going to school, etc.) because it might cause child molesters to sin. Make sense?
One voter wrote, "I think as Christians we should set boundaries for our lives, and in all we do Christ should be glorified."
Of course, that voter probably responds that way in every Christia.net poll.
Some of the voter’s who felt that wearing bikinis is inappropriate, made the point that it might be okay if it is worn in private company.
Yeah, but God still sees you, right? In fact, doesn’t He see you in the shower?
Comments of the unsure voters emphasized that one’s attitude plays a big part in whether a garment is right or wrong to wear. In this category, participants made a point that as Christians we shouldn’t judge others for the choices they make but we should have the welfare of others in mind in what we decide to wear since it could cause another to be guilty of lust.
There it is again. The misogynist it’s-your-fault-ladies-for-looking-good meme. Ugh. Because apparently we men can’t control ourselves, and that’s your fault, gals.
Here is the same sentiment, at another website:
Nevertheless, the simple fact is that the woman’s body is naturally beautiful and sensuous. Women learn this as they grow up and discover that boys (young men) —
Glad he made it clear that boys are "young men", because I was thinking they were young ostriches or something….
Nevertheless, the simple fact is that the woman’s body is naturally beautiful and sensuous. Women learn this as they grow up and discover that boys (young men) will be attracted to them and will do all sorts of antics to earn a young woman’s attention and favor.
Unless that young man is me, who just stands there stuttering and mumbling bad jokes in a lame effort to be both pathetic and charming.
Many young women find this appealing and often take advantage of their power over males by displaying their bodies.
Must …resist …female …power …over …me
Therefore, some young (and older) women will purposely dress in seductive ways so as to further their sense of attractiveness and control. The males are drawn to this and are easily enticed.
This is beginning to sound like a Christian version of National Geographic.
Finally, the author gets to the all-important Christian/bikini question:
Is it right for a woman, especially a Christian woman, to use her body in such a way? The answer is obviously no.
Why "obviously" no? And what does that mean "in such a way"? Does this mean a woman can "use her body" in some ways to entice men? And not others? And where’s the line? Help, I’m confused.
The same website offers this obvious factoid:
Don’t forget, Bikinis were never an issue in New Testament times because no woman would ever display herself in such a way back then. It isn’t until the last few decades that such public displays have become acceptable.
Hmmm. Well, this is undoubtedly true — the New Testament doesn’t address bikinis specifically. But it does say this?
Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. (NIV, 1 Peter 3:2-5)
and this
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:9-10)
So, if bikinis are, in your view, ungodly — well, that’s cool, but you’ll also have to get rid of your gold and pearls and expensive clothes. Any Christian woman ready to do that?
It must be hard to dress like a good Christian. Fortunately, there’s a little cottage industry for those who want to dress in a God-worshipping way.
Sun in your eyes? Try Disciple Shades (Warning: shitty Christian rock)
Why you can even accessorize in a Christian way, with Christian iPod covers (pictured here).
And nothing glorifies God better than a "Know God" tank top, wouldn’t you agree?
Actually, on the right body, that could look sexier than a bikini. Oh, well.
So where do I come down on the hotly-debated Christians-in-bikinis issue?
Well, first of all, I think "Christians in Bikinis" is a great name for a punk rock band.
But beyond that, I think the whole issue is rather silly. If God cares about the amount skin/cleavage you have, and/or how much you jiggle when you run down the beach in your anticipated embrace of Dudley Moore, then God has His priorities out of order. Personally, if you just make an effort to look decent for who you are, that’s fine with me.
And as for Christians, I think they should keep out of the fashion business, unless their last name happens to be Dior.
Just sayin’…
But Can I Bill For It?
Guess what? When you space out, you’re actually problem-solving:
Daydreaming might feel like the ultimate waste of time, but it’s just the opposite. Recent research from Dartmouth College suggests that during daydreaming, your brain may actually be processing important issues that aren’t relevant at that immediate moment — anything from strategizing about tonight’s dinner to wondering about your kid’s mysterious bug bite. So forgive yourself for spacing out during that boring PTA meeting: Though you may not even be aware of it, you’ve got other things on your mind.
Just because your idea of "organized" is scattered or mixed up doesn’t mean you’re necessarily slower or less efficient; you may just have your own system. And if you’re naturally a little sloppy, what really wastes time is struggling to maintain strict order. Sure, always searching for your keys isn’t exactly time efficient, but think of the treasures you’ll discover in the depths of your bag!
And there’s additional good news for gossipers:
Gossiping, whether positive ("Lily’s pregnant!") or negative ("Lily is definitely gaining weight"), is a great way to pass some time, according to research surveyed by the Social Issues Research Centre in England. Gossiping helps us relate and bond with our peers over shared values. In fact, it may even increase your endorphin levels, which reduces stress and lowers your heart rate. No wonder they call it the "gift" of gab.
Turning Peanut Butter Into Diamonds
Yes, it’s possible:
Peanut butter is being turned into diamonds by scientists with a technique that harnesses pressures higher than those found at the centre of the earth.
Edinburgh University experts say the feat is made possible by squeezing the paste between the tips of two diamonds creating a "stiletto heel effect".
The scientists also revealed they can turn oxygen into red crystals using the same method.
Demonstrations take place at Royal Society exhibition shows from 2 July.
Professor Malcolm McMahon, based at the Centre for Science and Extreme Conditions at Edinburgh University, is one of the scientists involved.
****
He added: "Obviously large gem-quality diamonds would be extremely expensive, so we are looking at ways to make them artificially.
"Many carbon containing materials can be converted into diamond including peanut butter."
There’s a joke to be made here, but I can’t seem to get the bat off my shoulder…..
iCandy
Yeah, it’s cool and good-looking and golly gosh gee whiz, but you know what?
It’s really just a cell phone, and when all is said and done, that’s mostly what people are going to use it for. The iPod part is nice, but I really don’t need to surf the web on something that small.
And then there’s this:
iPhone Launch Marred by Activation Delays
Delays in AT&T’s phone activation system left some people unable to use their new toy throughout the weekend.
Apple Inc.’s iPhone launch has been marred by delays in AT&T Corp.’s phone activation system, leaving some people unable to use their new toy throughout the weekend.
Heh.
Bush Looking For Answers Or Grasping At Straws?
WaPo:
At the nadir of his presidency, George W. Bush is looking for answers. One at a time or in small groups, he summons leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians to the White House to join him in the search.
Over sodas and sparkling water, he asks his questions: What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I’m facing? How will history judge what we’ve done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?
[snip]And yet Bush does not come across like a man lamenting his plight. In public and in private, according to intimates, he exhibits an inexorable upbeat energy that defies the political storms. Even when he convenes philosophical discussions with scholars, he avoids second-guessing his actions. He still acts as if he were master of the universe, even if the rest of Washington no longer sees him that way.
"You don’t get any feeling of somebody crouching down in the bunker," said Irwin M. Stelzer, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who was part of one group of scholars who met with Bush. "This is either extraordinary self-confidence or out of touch with reality. I can’t tell you which."
Who says it can’t be both????
By the way, today marks the fourth anniversary of a phrase that will go down in infamy. On July 2, 2003, George W. Bush was asked about the rising casualty rates in Iraq. His response?
…anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice. There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don’t understand what they’re talking about, if that’s the case.
Let me finish. There are some who feel like — that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on.
Four years later, here’s one soldier’s take on "Bring ‘Em On":
Today, in 2003, President Bush declared his brash challenge to insurgents in Iraq, and to this day, it still sticks in my mind as the single biggest morale buster in the course of the war.
I was in Iraq when the president said these words. As you can imagine, internet access wasn’t an everyday thing. A few days after the President made his challenge, I logged on, and the first thing I saw was that he uttered these words. My head was spinning and I was sick. He said what??? We had just lost a number of soldiers, including one who had his head blown off. How could anyone say "Bring them on?" How could our Commander in Chief be so detached from what we were going through?
That’s the point, I later realized. It’s really easy to say "Bring them on" when all you know about the war is limited to some video-game-like graphics in the situation room, and waging war is reduced to moving pieces around like it was Stratego. Go to any arcade, and you’ll see kids playing some shoot ’em up game, taunting each other with cries of "Bring it on!" as they’re getting blown up on screen. It’s easy to say when something isn’t real to you.
It’s always somewhat tough for a President to truly appreciate what’s happening on the ground, that’s true. But that’s why Presidents, for the most part, have relied on their commanders on the ground to give them a clear idea. Had the President asked any of his commanders if "Bring them on" was a smart thing to say, I have no doubt that each and every one of them would have explained to him the losses we were taking, and how hard it was on our troops, and that such a statement wouldn’t just be hurtful to morale, but would only serve to stoke the fire of the insurgency and place our troops in greater danger.
But, as we know now, the President didn’t listen to his commanders on the ground. Rather than realize his mistake, and fix it by truly keying in on what his commanders were telling him, and running things past them, the President is still not listening. The escalation of the war in Iraq is the policy equivalent of "Bring them on." The refusal to engage in serious diplomacy, and fire up the economic and political engines in Iraq, is just another slap in the face to the troops and commanders.