Friday, March 12, 2010

Hither and thither 3/12/10

If I do say so myself — and look! I am! — we are serving up a particularly tasty eclectic blend today. Enjoy.
  • From my dear wife comes this odd moment: do you have your tinfoil hat on?
  • It's pleasant to have a certain number of unmarketable talents. This gent has at least one.

 
  • Yikes. Or, to be exact, Yike bike. My mother-in-law pointed this one out. You can queue up to get one for yourself, for a mere $4500. Me, I see dead people.
  • Goodness, but I wish Mitt Romney would forget about running for president. Now he's wriggling about whether he ever called himself "pro-choice." Dude...look you can see how emphatic Romney was in his support of protecting the abortion status quo, running for governor as recently as 2002. His brave mom, standing up for the right to butcher inconvenient or imperfect babies, what a proud legacy, blah blah bloody-blah. If Romney wants to say he was being wiggly to win in a pro-abort state then (i.e. really pro-life, but sounding pro-abortion to get elected), then what is he doing now, to be nominated by a pro-life party?
  • Wellnow, I've found a page you should not go to if you are even one ounce overweight. Or hungry. Or human. This one. Three words...and you know what they are.
  • No, Josiah, this would not be an acceptable answer.  (c;
  • Elitists' favorite "conservative" (or one of them, at any rate), David Brooks, has given a game try at trashing the Tea Party Movement. Golly, what a surprise. Who could ever have guessed that a movement of Those People wouldn't be to Mr. Brooks' liking?
  • So then Lee Harris took a second look at Brooks' case and, in looking, pretty well demolished it.
  • Reader Pam Siegfried alerted me to some pretty neat garage covers with which you could amaze your neighbors. Here are a few (click to enlarge; more here).
  • Buck Murdock Alert. Oh my gosh, the irony is just priceless. Just listen "US president Barack Obama has said the 'time for talk is over'...Speaking to a crowd in Missouri, Mr Obama said ... {snip} ...the president hoped to rally support for his plans, saying: 'The time to talk is over...'" — and then he went on, and on, and on.
  • Translation: "Hey! No fair disagreeing and challenging and asking questions! Just do my will 'n' pass my bill!" (Look for that on a T-shirt... or an O-shirt: "Do my will 'n' pass my bill!")
  • Of course, I do agree with President Oblahblah: the time for talk is over. Dude, you've flogged it for over a year. We hate it. Drop it. Give it a rest. Give us a rest. Move on!
  • One last healthcare takeover note: the genius who Dem voters put in charge of Congress, Nancy Pelosi, actually said of the healthcare bill, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." I (A) am not making this up, and (B) feel so much better. Don't you?
  • Here's a sad graph, relating the number of abortions in a state to whether it votes Democrat or Republican. Sad, but no surprises. The most-Democrat states also have the most abortions. And the stand-out bloodiest state? My own. Horrible, horrible.
  • For the most part, seems like the homosexual agenda is very similar to the pro-abortion movement, in that there is no actual "there" there, beyond emotions, clichés, and selfishness. Current exhibit: I gather a songwriter named Ray Boltz at one point thought he was a Christian, as Nebuchadnezzar at one point thought he was an ox. Then Ray decided indulging sexually perverse desires was worth everything, so now he's that. Instead of the Lordship of Christ, he wrote a little song in which he preaches the Lordship of Ray and Ray's feelings and perverted desires, and equates sexual perversion to skin-color. My. All the originality and newness of...of... of things that have no originality nor newness. (Reader Jonathan Vowell pointed this item out.)
  • While doing background for that item, I stumbled across a thoughtful reflection by reader Fred Butler, on the sad occasion of Boltz' shaking his fist in God's face.
  • This is very cool. Dude spends three years building Minas Tirith... out of matchsticks.

  • I know I know I know. Raised-pinkie bloggers would never say this. There are two or three things wrong with my saying this. But sometimes you just have to say it. Here goes: don't you sometimes just thank God that you don't carry the burden of trying to explain or defend the Roman Catholic Church? Seriously?
  • Do not press the red button.















(or anybody, btw)






45 comments:

Barbara said...

All the originality and newness of...of...

..of a serpent?

Just a guess, since I can't actually get to Boltz's song from work, they block wordpress platforms but not blogger. Go figure.

DJP said...

That totally works, Barbara. After all, the Serpent's whole line (viewed one way) was, "What?! Is that mean ol' Yahweh trying to keep you from something you want? Who does He think He is — God?"

Fred Butler said...

I bet there are bureaucratic DMV hacks who will find a way to get hefty fees for driving one of those Yike Bikes.

Mark said...

"I care for the health and wellbeing of all my readers. So, here is a public service reminder: physical exercise of any sort is hazarrous and should be avoided at all costs."

On serious note: lack of adequately thinking things through (stupidity?) should be avoided. Facility: letting people like her into the fitness room without adequate supervision. Her: jeans, fast-moving treadmill.

DJP said...

You're implying I wasn't "serious"?

(c;

The Squirrel said...

The garage door covers are excellent. I think I'll get the tank... or the Arminian escalators...

~Squirrel

Mark said...

"I bet there are bureaucratic DMV hacks who will find a way to get hefty fees for driving one of those Yike Bikes."

There are already many people who think cyclists should have to pay license/registration/gas-taxes, just like autos. Of course, this does nothing but add to the income of government bureaucracies. And I already pay license/registration/gas-taxes. And the roadways have absolutely no need for upkeep/maintenance due to my bike.

Rhology said...

Listening to the Boltz drivel now. It's not even a nearly good song. Garbage lyrics, garbage song. Ick. Ick.

Citizen Grim said...

Hm. Boltz's kids went to the same college I did. They were a bit peculiar personalities, though very nice. The one was going through a hippie phase, as I recall. Very sad for them.

I think the standard homosexual line of defense is "God made me this way, I tried to change and failed, so now I embrace it." When what they need to be saying is "Sin made me this way, only God can change me, so now I embrace him." After all, anyone could justify their sin by claiming that God made them an alcoholic or an adulterer or lazy or exceedingly arrogant.

DJP said...

Here's what I'd like to see.

Some Christian man needs to ask the Boltz types, "Yeah, ever since puberty, I've fought these sexual desires for women. Should I follow your example, embrace those desires, declare that God has made me a rapist/adulterer/fornicator, and bask in His love and grace? And if not, why not?"

DJP said...

In case anyone doubts, I'm quite serious. Canonize and deify your desires, and there simply is no transcendent moral boundary for you -- which, honestly, I think is the whole point.

Look for the renaming of rapists as "sexual adventurers," and child molesters as... something. Look: there is NOTHING in Boltz's song that a rapist or a molester couldn't embrace with a glad smile. "That's right, brother! Don't tell me who to kiss or love!"

And if you're an evolutionist to boot, forget any counter-argument about whether or not the other is a willing participant. The less willing, the better for the advance of the species.

DJP said...

{ roll continues }

No no no, it wouldn't be "Sexual adventurers," it would be "Insistent lovers."

Now, you scowl. But look: if a culture can be forced to take the act of buggery and the destruction of the masculine soul, and call it "Gay" — then anything can be re-labelled as anything.

Sir Aaron said...

Dan, I'm glad you brought up that last point. Should I declare to my wife that I've tried to be monogamous and failed? First of all, my love for God prohibits it. Top reason which keeps me from failing, no doubt. But even if I didn't know God, how about sacrificing yourself for your wife and your kids? The people who do this are selfish beyond selfish. Having kids requires great sacrifice of self for the well being of your family.

Additionally, sin always seems great. Solomon's menagerie seems quite envious at first, but look how that ended? I can draw from personal experience there too.

Brad Williams said...

Oh man, I want to live in a hobbit house too. I have since I first read "The Hobbit" as a kid. In fact, I want to live in a hobbit house and eat those cakes that Bilbo made. And smoke pipe weed. Longbottom Leaf, preferably.

SolaMommy said...

I certainly hope I'm not the only one [mom] who cringed every time the guy rode his Yike Bike w/o a helmet.

Hmm, $40 for onion cream? I guess I'll be keeping my "badges of honor" then ;-)

The tinfoil hat song was hilarious!

Dan, your state's not the bloodiest...NY is. 500 babies are slaughtered here for every 1000 live births. Kind of makes me want to push the Armageddon button.

Well, that and Ray Boltz's new song.

CR said...

I pressed the red button.

DJP said...

Everybody D U C K ! ! ! ! !

Rabbit said...

David Brooks says in his article, "But the core commonality is this: Members of both movements believe in what you might call mass innocence. Both movements are built on the assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures. “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains,” is how Rousseau put it."

This assumption is dead wrong. Every person I know who identifies with the Tea Party movement does so because of a deep distrust of elevating sinful man to positions of power, and rejects Rousseau-style visions of innate virtue or perfection of society.

Yike Bike looks like fun, I'm jonesin for Oreos, and I can't understand why you wouldn't accept that answer from Josiah when it is perfectly accurate. Great batch of stuff to enjoy here today, Dan. Thank you!

Herding Grasshoppers said...

All due respect, Dan, but Valerie wins the prize this week...

I've got my tinfoil hat on...

DJP said...

Excellent point on Brooks, Rabbit. He is, as so often, dead wrong.

Fred Butler said...

No no no, it wouldn't be "Sexual adventurers," it would be "Insistent lovers."

We can begin first by calling it the Pepe Le' Pew Syndrome, or maybe Pepe Le' Pew Disorder. PLPS/PLPD.

Then, we can attempt various methods to change the personality, but once those fail, experts will recognize that it isn't specifically a disorder, but could be biological in nature.

Then an entire society of rapists can rise up and in the fashion of standing up for their rights and against those haters who say their lifestyle is sinful and wrong, they'll adopt the terminology and call themselves "Pepes." Advocacy and diversity groups will form like PLP NATION and the like, and the final triumph when Obama will appoint the first open "pepe" to head the new American Diversity and Tolerance Cabinet position.

Sir Aaron said...

I'm for sure trying Oreo pancakes.

CR said...

I liked how one of Jaba the Hut's men did a Vlade Divac. This reminds me how in Star Wars, Episode 4, when one of the Storm Troopers bumps his head in one of the holding rooms. It got overlooked when it went out on video (don't know if they forgot to take it out of the motion picture). I think they caught it in the new versions of the DVD.

Rabbit said...

Rapists and molesters ---> sexual adventurers ---> insistent lovers ---> Pepe le Pew Syndrome.

Best train of thought EVAAAHHHH. Sadly, it shouldn't surprise us in the slightest when it comes to pass!

Fred Butler said...

This reminds me how in Star Wars, Episode 4, when one of the Storm Troopers bumps his head in one of the holding rooms. It got overlooked when it went out on video (don't know if they forgot to take it out of the motion picture). I think they caught it in the new versions of the DVD.

*geek on*

Actually, that scene became something of a joke at Skywalker Ranch that when it was revealed in Episode 2 that Janga Fett was the template for the clone troopers, they had him bang his head as he was running up the plank into the Slave 1 when he was fighting Obi Wan. The way it was explained on the director's commentary for the DVD was that Janga was something of a klutz and that gene got cloned into the make up of the stormtroopers, hence the reason that one hit his head on the door in episode 4.

*geek off*

Chuck said...

I've been to that statue in Metropolis! Thankfully, Obama was not there...

Rachael Starke said...

The other problem with the Yike Bike is it looks to be designed for the average size New Zealander or European, not AOUSs (Americans of (increasingly) Usual Size). He's going to have to make a titanium model for the U.S. market.

Rachael Starke said...

And Brooks lost me with his "they probably dress at Wal-Mart" dig.

Excuse me, but isn't this the same movement that just months ago was accused of being "suspiciously well dressed"??

The mindless bigotry of people in liberal urban centers towards suburban/rural conservatives is truly staggering. Makes me want to organize some kind of Paris Hilton-esque Simple Life show to set them straight.

(And I'll note just for the record that I've seen it work the other way also - I've gotten criticism from some circles for recycling and not preferring to consume processed food.)

Andy Dollahite said...

Enjoyed the follow-up article by Lee Harris; Brooks, not so much. DB is certainly off his rocker. However, if Brooks was trying to make buddy-buddy with elitists, why compare the Tea Party with leftist heroes? With the bile they spew toward anything Tea Party, it seems like a disastrous way to maintain status as their favorite "conservative." In fact, it seems like a terrible way to make friends with either end of the spectrum. Is it just the false humility of so-called moderates?

Sir Aaron said...

Rachael: no worries. Some people tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I believe some things from the whacky environmentals have been positive. I keep those things and support them. I just make it known that I do so from a radically different perspective.

Liz said...

Citizen Grim -- I'm not sure which of us was going through a hippie phase at Taylor, but I suppose you could be talking about my brother or me. (We preferred to think of it as bohemian, though.) Glad you thought we were nice. I think we kids were only perceived as peculiar because we've grown up with people peering into our lives and trying to figure us out. . .which led us to a "Screw you guys, we'll do what we want," way of life. (Note to those who like to read into unrelated comments: this does not mean that Ray Boltz lived a "screw you guys, I do what I want" existence. It means WE did. His kids.)

As far as being sad for us -- stop it. We've got pretty much the best family ever. Including our gay dad. And our gay-affirming mother. And our parents' three little grandchildren (including my daughter) who will grow up learning that Christ is LOVE, and there's nothing wrong with their grandfather just because he's gay.

If you want the REAL story on Ray Boltz, visit http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com.

But don't be sad for us. We are great, thanks.

DJP said...

Yet this comment gives all the more reason to be sad, Liz. You affirm the fear that it has all been adjusted down to the sheerly horizontal: you're fine because you say you're fine; you say you're fine because you (say you) feel fine.

Maybe you've heard of the man who leapt off the 20-story building. Someone shouted at him from the 10th floor, "How are you doing?"

"So far, so good," the plummeting man replied.

Like him, though, your calculation leaves out the most critical factor. Hence, the sad.

More later, DV.

liz said...

No, we're fine because we know the love and peace of Christ.

Mike Riccardi said...

The sad part, dear friend, is that you don't seem to know His righteousness, justice, or holiness.

liz said...

In the words of the Dude, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Mike Riccardi said...

I don't know if I'd call that my opinion as much as I'd call it my evaluation.

...My evaluation, that is, of your position in light of the Word of God, which says that homosexuality:

- is the result of lusts of people's heats (Rom 1:24),
- is impurity (Rom 1:24),
- dishonors one's body (Rom 1:24),
- is the result of the exchange of the truth for a lie (Rom 1:25),
- is worship of the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25),
- results from degrading passions (Rom 1:26),
- is the unnatural function (Rom 1:27),
- results from burning desire (Rom 1:27),
- is indecent (Rom 1:27),
- does not acknowledge God (Rom 1:28),
- is characteristic of a depraved mind (Rom 1:28),
- is improper (or, not fitting, Rom 1:28),
- disqualifies one from inheriting the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:10),
- and is a characteristic of someone before they were saved by faith in Jesus Christ (1Cor 6:11).

You'd be right to be skeptical or even dismissive of my opinion. Will you dismiss the opinion of the Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God Himself (2Tim 3:16-17; 2Pet 1:20-21)?

Mike Riccardi said...

Ah, I see from reading the most recent post on your blog that your response to presentations like the one I've just given is that it's "an outdated and incorrect interpretation of the Bible."

Interpretation.

That's interesting. Because I didn't do much interpreting at all. I simply copied and pasted the passages and bullet-pointed them.

I'd be interested in knowing what your 'interpretations' of Romans 1:24-32 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 are, provided that you 'interpret' them in their contexts and on their own terms. I'm particularly interested in how your 'interpretation' will take you from "...homosexuals... will not inherit the kingdom of God" to "Homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God."

Just A Fellow Traveller said...

How big a man you are to give such pity to one you've never met.

I can only hope that you confront the sin in your own life with as much "honesty" so that God's grace and truth are more apparent in your life than it is in this post and these comments. I'm quite certain that this will be caught by your "taking a stand for the truth" self-construct, and I'm not saying that I disagree with you wholesale. I simply wish that you would let love, grace, and truth replace accusation, vilification, and straw man treatment of real, loved, made-in-the-image-of-God people.

Comment or approve as you wish, I do not plan on revisiting this blog as you've made it clear that this is a place for judgement and not discussion. And in case of mud slinging: Jesus and I are doing well, by His grace and love alone.

DJP said...

Ah. A hit-and-run sniper. Such bravery, and eagerness to learn and grow.

Well, for the sake of others:

If anyone ever sees me say "Gee, that guy looks like a faggot," and then go on and on about what a degenerate I am certain that he is — well then, have at me, and I will thank you for it.

But when a man chooses to address the world, and say "I plan to pursue a particular form of degenerate sexual immorality — and, what's more, I'm going to spit in God's face by forging His name in approval" — his audience has the right to respond, and to comment.

To say the least.

Mike Riccardi said...

...I'm going to spit in God's face by forging His name in approval...

That's really what gets me. We expect such behavior from sinners; we remember all too well the days of our graceless depravity, and are even daily painfully reminded of our lingering depravity even in a state of grace.

But what grieves me and gets me angry at the same time is the attempt to unite such sinfulness to the name of Christ under some man-made definition of love as unconditional acceptance. That's what I meant about not understanding His holiness. He will have nothing to do with such perversions, except to save people from them by receiving upon Himself the full wrath of God against that sin.

I need to remember that my anger doesn't achieve God's righteousness. But there's that sadness again. God's anger will achieve His righteousness. That day is coming; it won't be kept at bay by telling God, "That's just your opinion." It's that day that we're trying to help people avoid.

Seriously. This is the day of mercy. There will be no mercy on that day. Repent and be saved.

Sir Aaron said...

Ok, putting aside the homosexuality for a minute. When you get married you swear an oath to God and your spouse. I'm sorry, but a lot of spouses have it much worse than those who claim to not be able to continue in a heterosexual relationship. Those whose spouses become disabled, etc have just as much reason as anybody else
to seek comfort in the arms of another. And yet they don't. It really offends me to claim that leaving your spouse or your family after many years, is a God honoring act.

Tim said...

RE: the Texas Board of Education race, the smear campaign against McLeroy is like nothing else I've seen in over 30 years of observing Tx politics. His "moderate" opponent didn't mind at all being a tool of the left.

Solameanie said...

Dan,

The line about "forging God's name" is worthy of a post in and of itself.

Rita Martinez said...

"Beatification requires at least one miracle. A second is needed for sainthood."
my goodness...i'm speechless...

Rita Martinez said...

you know first of all..that's obviously not even close to being anything Bíblical...but..the apostles never had an "accident" oh woops! I thought the person was healed! guess not!....so...catholics trust these men...but they refuse to trust the Word of God which is never mistaken and was written by men inspired by God....we have to be very thankful to God that he has opened our eyes so that we could see..