I'm on a roll

I can't help it. These two videos need to be included in my video posting frenzy.



(Language in this next one. I met a guy just like this at work one time.)

Astronaut Jones

Hilarious!

Astronaut Jones
Uploaded by djgreenuts - See more comedy videos.

Jesus is a Friend of Mine

Someone posted a link to this recently. I LOVE it!. My favorite is a two way tie between the fat guy back up singer and the guitar player.

ENJOY!

(BTW, this song might get stuck in your head)

FYI

Madison's surgery went well Thurs morning. We got to Cook's at 6:30AM and they started the operation at about 8:50AM. The doctor came out and told us everything went well at about 9:20AM. They removed the rod that had been placed in her arm when she broke it back in August 2008. We were home by 11:00AM. She has to have her arm in a sling for a week and can't do any PE for a couple of weeks.

..and now you know...

American Idol: Observations from Finale

I've been watching American Idol all season. Last night was the finale and here are my thoughts on what went down.

If I'm voting on 1st song alone I think Adam did the best. I dig the Mad World song and think it was right up his alley. Kris's choice "Ain’t no Sunshine" was alright but not as good IMO.


Simon Fuller, the show's creator, supposedly hand picked "A Change Is Gonna Come" for Lambert and "What's Going On" for Kris Allen. These are some of the worst possible song choices for these two and thus began what was a steady hour long decline in to an abysmal show.

The Coup de Grace for this display of musical mediocrity was the utter abortion that was the third song, called “No Boundaries”. It was a song co-written by the brainless hack and 4th judge, Kara Dioguardi. First, “No Boundaries” is probably one of the cheesiest titles ever conceived for a song. Second, the lyrics sound like a love letter from an emo 7th grader. Third, all I could think while watching the show live was: “This sounds like something Dirk Diggler sang in “Boogie Nights” when he was trying to cut his rock album”.

Here are the lyrics. I listened to the show and typed them out. In doing so, I realized that Kris forgot the lines and did some pretty remarkable improvisation. Here goes:

Seconds, hours so many days
You know what you want but how long can you wait?
Every moment lasts forever when you feel you’ve lost your way
What if my chances are already gone
I started believing that I could be wrong
But you gave me one good reason to fight and never walk away
So here I am still holding on.

Chorus
With every step you climb another mountain
With every breath its harder to believe
You will make it through the pain
Weather a hurricane
To get to that one thing
Just when you think the road is going nowhere
Just when you almost gave up on your dreams
They take you by the hand and show you that you can

You can go higher
You can go deeper
There are no boundaries above or beneath you
You break every rule
But there is nothing between you and your dreams.

Chorus


BUAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!1!!!!

It’s so dreadful it’s almost good. It is overflowing with clichés and has a unique glam rock flare. I don’t mean to keep piling on here but doesn’t this song sound like something that would be played in the closing credits of an 80’s “teen angst” movie? What say you?
_________________

RE "Enemy Recon Plane is Fueled and Ready"

Update: As of now, I'm off this game. No more playing it. I'm only posting this here so that I will be less likely to go back on my word having made a public announcement. After a month, if I feel the same way about it and have lost all interest, I will sell it at Game Stop.

Life is too short.

(BTW, I know how crazy this sounds. To help put it in persepctive, it would be like giving up recreational internet or television use to the average American.)

"Our Recon Plane is Fueled and Ready"

As some of you may know, I just turned 32. There comes a time in a man's life when he stops and takes inventory of his situation. Birthdays seem to pull that out of me. So away we go...

I bought Call of Duty: World at War in the middle of December and started playing online sometime around Christmas. I really sucked when I started out. Most players on there had been playing the prequel, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare for over a year by then and other first person shooter games like Halo etc. Not me. Quake, Perfect Dark and 007 on the Nintendo 64 back in the mid/late 90’s was my only previous experience with first person shooter. BTW, “first person shooter” is a style of game where you only see a hand holding a gun and the perspective being shown on the television is supposed to be you in the “first person”.
Video games have come along way in the last dozen years. The speed of the games has increased tremendously coupled with being online versus other people and not just playing the computer. People can be unpredictable and random and therefore more challenging. Online play is a whole level of difficulty above the alternative.
Now, I’m not a complete retard although that is probably debatable. Bottom line: I suck at this game. No, no, it’s true. I really do suck at the game and it’s taken me several months to realize it. If you compare my play time versus other players, I should be ahead of them by leaps and bounds in the amounts of kills, wins, points etc. But I’m not. I’m neck and neck with some people who have spent half the time playing this game. What does that mean? It means I spend a lot of the time wandering around in some World War 2 video game battle field, not killing people, not scoring points and not winning team matches. And for what? I don’t know! Why am I playing this gawd forsaken game? Why don’t I just put it down and walk away? The game is absolutely fun to play and I’m 200% better than when I started playing. BUT, (big but) I’m not great and I don’t know if I ever will be. I don’t know if I should keep pursuing something if I can’t achieve a desired level of skill. I think this is the beginning of the end for me on this game but don’t quote me on it.

[BTW, don’t you wish you had my problems…then you’d have nothing to worry about. :-) ]

Clouds

We went out to eat tonight as a family. In the car on the way home we saw the sun set with the most amazing looking clouds. We were all looking, pointing and commenting when my 7 year old asked, "What are clouds made of"? Her mother responded, "Water". To which the 7 year old replied, "So we are living under water?"

:-)

Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

My responses to Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage. These arguments are a synopsis of the book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire and was found at this LINK.

Away we go...

Argument #1.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.
It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

--The “Weekly Standard” is not exactly the greatest example of an unbiased news source. Second, according to CNN , “Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers, according to data released last month by the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock births, of 4.3 million total births, marked a more than 25 percent jump from five years before.” Straight Americans are choosing to have children out of wedlock. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. In this particular situation, gay marriage is being used as a scapegoat.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

--Again, we are talking about straight couples making these choices. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. In fact, one ironic solution could be that maybe a gay married couple could adopt some of these poor disadvantaged children and give them some stability.

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV).

--See previous blog post for response to this.

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

--This is a false conclusion and is also the classic slippery slope argument. A slippery slope fallacy is one that claims that something is bad or wrong because it could snowball into something that is bad or wrong. It ignores middle ground or other possible outcomes and relies on a magic crystal ball to foretell the future. Not to mention, the person making this particular argument has yet to prove causation with the idea that gay marriage somehow takes away from “traditional” marriage.

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.
Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

--There are at least 3 fallacies at work here. First, there is appeal to tradition. Appeal to tradition is when you assume something is right or true because it has always been done that way. It’s like saying “We have been burning fossil fuels for years so it is obviously the best way to power a vehicle.” An example of this fallacy is evident when he says that “Despite 5,000 years of history” and “Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.” That last statement “overwhelming support of the people” is a fallacy of appealing to the majority. Appealing to the majority is when you claim a proposition is right or true because so many people believe it. In reality, a thing can be true even if no one believes it. Next is the fallacy of slippery slope where gay marriage opens the flood gates of polygamy (I’m for polygamy, BTW. Perhaps I will explain that in another post.).

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

--The first paragraph is future forecasting and appeal to fear. The last paragraph is one giant slippery slope. It’s beyond ridiculous. He makes the leap from two committed people getting married to some sort of orgy and some dude getting together with a donkey? What? I also chuckled when he said “rights” at the end of paragraph 1. The quotations around it made it seem to me like that word should be read as if it was a word uttered by a poor soul who just stepped in dog crap. Is it just me? Then he says, “those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots”. He’s probably right about that.

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

--I’ll have to take his word for this. I’m all for divorces being obtained instantly. Why not? In my opinion, people should be free to make these choices for themselves. I’m not saying it isn’t a sad thing when two people get divorced. I am saying that when two people want to get divorced they should be able to get divorced without expensive court fees and lawyers. I’m still not very clear on what this has to do with gay marriage other than accusing the “homosexual movement” of somehow destroying the “marital relationship”. I don’t think much of a point is being made in argument 3 so I’ll move on.

Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

--LOL. What? Where to start? Appeal to fear, slippery slope and crystal ball forecasting. A recent study found that about 7% of men reported having sexual contact with another man in the last year in the United States. That ain’t that much. Why are we assuming that this will open the flood gates to “equal space?” Also, what exactly is the fear here? Does homosexuality cease to exist if people prevent their kids from hearing about it? What happens when these kids grow up and step out into the real world? Do the words found in a book on a school library shelf trump the teachings of a parent? Is this really a concern?

Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

--OK…and? If you want to adopt a child you need to show that you are more capable of raising that child than the competition. If 2 gay dudes win that contest then more power to them. Guess what? In the courts view, you would suck as a parent. Sorry. Remember this: Just because you got 2 people with opposite “plumbing” doesn’t mean you are automatically more suited to raise a child. There are plenty of bum straight parents out there.

Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

--OK. So people will have to stop thinking for themselves and start promoting the agenda of “big brother”. Argument 6 is moronic.

Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

--Go with me back in time. Can’t you just hear this argument being made in the 1860’s? “We can’t free these slaves! What about our labor costs? How will we turn a profit on this cotton? This will ruin us financially!”

Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

--More slippery slope. At this point I don’t even care anymore.

Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, "Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth" (NIV).

That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to "normalize" and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!

--Appeal to tradition and slippery slope.

Argument #10
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.
This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I'm alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.
This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord's expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

--Appeal to fear, slippery slope, appeal to tradition. I’m spent.

Gay Marriage

In Christianity, the Bible is used as a guide for setting moral standards for society. Today I was talking with my brother about homosexual marriage and I rhetorically asked, “Why are we using obscure passages from an archaic book to dictate laws (whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry) in America?” It was pointed out that Paul condemned in Romans 1. I admit, I was more thinking of the Pentateuch passages dealing with this “abomination”. It was also pointed out that Paul is responsible for most of modern day Christian thought since his books, in number at least, contribute the most to the New Testament and also that his legitimacy was reinforced by Peter. I guess the word “archaic” is subjective in that the OT is 4000 years old versus 2000 years old for the NT. Either way; it is a long time ago and we are dictating law for our present day society with ideas from thousands of years ago in a completely different society.
The Romans passage says this (NIV):

“24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” ---Romans 1:24-32

This could be interpreted that homosexuality, according to Paul, is at the very least “unnatural”. So, don’t be gay. This is a home run for the Christian heterosexuals. That’s like asking me to not ever have a menstruation cycle. I CAN AND WILL FOLLOW THAT COMMANDMENT. Check that one off the list and let’s have a law that says that men can’t marry men and women can’t marry women.
Here is where the “pro-family” Christian movement loses all credibility. I’ve not heard of many (outside of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church) supporting any of the following. Even the most fundamental of Christians aren’t calling for laws supporting these passages:

Ex. 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Lev. 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.
Ex. 31:15 Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Ex. 21:15 He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Ex. 21:17 He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Ex. 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Lev. 20:13 If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.
Lev. 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer
and the adulteress shall be put to death.
Ex. 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Mal. 2:1-4 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name,...behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces. (Will Jesus do the spreading of the dung??)
Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Leviticus 12:2,5: 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean… 5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

But that is the OLD Testament! Modern day Christianity follows the NEW Testament. So it’s OK to have a law for something in America today because it is in the New Testament? Paul also wrote:

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Romans 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.
1 Timothy 2:9 – 15: 9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1 Corinthians 11:7 – 9: 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1 Corinthians 14:34 – 35: 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Peter says:

1 Peter 3:1 -3: 1. Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

In my opinion, the vast majority of Christians do not want a law for any of the above. Furthermore, very few believing Christians follow the above with any amount of regularity. But those same people want a law so that homosexuals can not be married. Why doesn’t the Christian community take the advice of Jesus and remove the plank in their own eye first? The arrogance and hypocrisy of the “pro-family” movement is this: They decide for everyone else and seek legislation based on their own beliefs, preferences and predilection without considering what life would be like if the shoe was on the other foot. And, all the while they decide to ignore and disregard other passages that are less convenient and relevant. In my opinion, this sort of thinking falls somewhere on a continuum of myopic and tyrannical.
One of the great things about our country is that we protect the minority from tyranny of the majority. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter if 99% believe that a Holy Book is telling them that women shouldn’t be able to vote or that dark skinned people should drink from a separate but equal water fountain. The law should protect the rights of the 1% regardless of the religious preferences of the majority and not the other way around. This is so fundamentally important to our free society. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. In my opinion, we should nurture that idea or we may eventually risk the possibility of a theocracy and we may or may not get to pick the God.

(More Later)

Update

I haven't fallen off the face of the Earth. Really, I'm still alive. I'm just up to my neck in a 4 month long call of duty binge.

My wife made me write that. Hope to blog soon....

(that's not true, I'd really rather play COD)