Read this story and tell me if it gives you the creeps also.
I just think that we may be starting something that we will lose control of.
10/17/2007
10/16/2007
Sea Story
My First Haircut
Life on a submarine for a new sailor (Non-qual, dink, scumbag, puke, nub) is very interesting and full of excitement. Even the most mundane of activities has an exciting air for a non-qual. I remember my first day underway. This is after I had awaken from a long sleep following finishing up my tour as a Crank (a guy on K.P. duty AKA cooks slave). I had quals to work on. So... being the smart non-qual that I was , I headed back to Machinery Two. As fortune would have it, there was a crowd of about 7 A-Gangers in AMR third level. I walked in and announced that I was ready for a checkout on some system (can't remember which one). Well, the COB (Chief of the Boat, [command Master Chief for you skimmers]) happened to be in the room shooting the breeze with the guys. He said I could have a checkout under one condition. I had to sit in the stool and everytime I got a wrong answer they would; spin me in circles, stop my spinning by grabbing my hair, cut off a handful of hair with the COB's pocketknife. Sounded good to me...
I didn't know as much about the system as I thought I knew. Wow!! there's a lot of little specific information to know for even the simplest equipment on a submarine. Like, "How many times did I have to retap the thread on the third bolt securing that pump to the deck?" I sure had a great haircut though. I looked like a Chernoble survivor! I walk up to the computer room which is just past the XO's and CO's staterooms. The XO notices me and gasps.
XO- "Sailor!? What happened to your hair?
ME- "I got it cut XO." (ask a dumb question...)
XO- "What the hell was used to cut your hair?"
ME- "It was a knife."
XO- "Did you do it yourself?"
ME- "No sir, it was done by some other people."
XO- "Who did this to you?"
ME- "You know sir, I'm so new that I can't really remember who they were."
XO- "You're not that new... Who was it!!?"
ME- "Sorry sir, I'm just not sure."
XO- "OK, where did it happen?"
ME- "Again sir, I'm so new that I don't really know my way around well enough. I'm not sure where I was."
XO- "Bullshit! You're dismissed!"
I took off and went and hid in DPER (pronounced deeper [the computer room]). Within 20 seconds you here over the 1MC, "Chief of the Boat, report to the XO's stateroom!" Well you could hear the XO explaining to the COB that he had better get to the bottom of the story regarding my haircut.
About 30 minutes later the messenger of the watch finds me and tells me to report to the Goat Locker (Chiefs Quarters). I walk in and find the COB and about 6 other chiefs sitting around in their lounge area. There is a stool, a towel, and some haircutting clippers. The COB sits me down and begins to cut my hair. He and the other chiefs visit with me, asking me questions about my childhood and my plans for the future. In the end the COB tells me, "You need to get out there and familiarize yourself with the boat and the rest of the crew now." Then he grabbed my qual card and signed it off for the system that my original "pocketknife checkout" had been for.
That COB saved my butt about a year in the future when I did something dumb on base. He had the reputation as being a mean old hardass. But, he took care of "his boys". Since the day I didn't rat him out, I became one of "his boys". That XO never did like me. But that's OK.
Life on a submarine for a new sailor (Non-qual, dink, scumbag, puke, nub) is very interesting and full of excitement. Even the most mundane of activities has an exciting air for a non-qual. I remember my first day underway. This is after I had awaken from a long sleep following finishing up my tour as a Crank (a guy on K.P. duty AKA cooks slave). I had quals to work on. So... being the smart non-qual that I was , I headed back to Machinery Two. As fortune would have it, there was a crowd of about 7 A-Gangers in AMR third level. I walked in and announced that I was ready for a checkout on some system (can't remember which one). Well, the COB (Chief of the Boat, [command Master Chief for you skimmers]) happened to be in the room shooting the breeze with the guys. He said I could have a checkout under one condition. I had to sit in the stool and everytime I got a wrong answer they would; spin me in circles, stop my spinning by grabbing my hair, cut off a handful of hair with the COB's pocketknife. Sounded good to me...
I didn't know as much about the system as I thought I knew. Wow!! there's a lot of little specific information to know for even the simplest equipment on a submarine. Like, "How many times did I have to retap the thread on the third bolt securing that pump to the deck?" I sure had a great haircut though. I looked like a Chernoble survivor! I walk up to the computer room which is just past the XO's and CO's staterooms. The XO notices me and gasps.
XO- "Sailor!? What happened to your hair?
ME- "I got it cut XO." (ask a dumb question...)
XO- "What the hell was used to cut your hair?"
ME- "It was a knife."
XO- "Did you do it yourself?"
ME- "No sir, it was done by some other people."
XO- "Who did this to you?"
ME- "You know sir, I'm so new that I can't really remember who they were."
XO- "You're not that new... Who was it!!?"
ME- "Sorry sir, I'm just not sure."
XO- "OK, where did it happen?"
ME- "Again sir, I'm so new that I don't really know my way around well enough. I'm not sure where I was."
XO- "Bullshit! You're dismissed!"
I took off and went and hid in DPER (pronounced deeper [the computer room]). Within 20 seconds you here over the 1MC, "Chief of the Boat, report to the XO's stateroom!" Well you could hear the XO explaining to the COB that he had better get to the bottom of the story regarding my haircut.
About 30 minutes later the messenger of the watch finds me and tells me to report to the Goat Locker (Chiefs Quarters). I walk in and find the COB and about 6 other chiefs sitting around in their lounge area. There is a stool, a towel, and some haircutting clippers. The COB sits me down and begins to cut my hair. He and the other chiefs visit with me, asking me questions about my childhood and my plans for the future. In the end the COB tells me, "You need to get out there and familiarize yourself with the boat and the rest of the crew now." Then he grabbed my qual card and signed it off for the system that my original "pocketknife checkout" had been for.
That COB saved my butt about a year in the future when I did something dumb on base. He had the reputation as being a mean old hardass. But, he took care of "his boys". Since the day I didn't rat him out, I became one of "his boys". That XO never did like me. But that's OK.
10/15/2007
This Is Stupid
So I'm watching the news out of PRS, (The People's Republic of Seattle), and they ran this big story about a family cat that had been shot. It was very serious and reporters were out on location to bring us the latest on this very important news event. The News reported that the cat had been shot and that the ".22 caliber bullet was still lodged in the abdomen" (of the cat). Now, most everybody is appalled that someone in the PRS was using a .22 to shoot cats. That is a dangerous thing since a .22 projectile travels with such high velocity.
NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY... It's not what the news said that's important here, it's what they didn't say, or chose to leave ambiguous so as to encourage us to believe something that wasn't true. Watch closely the video at the news link, at 40 secs into the video they show an x-ray of the "bullet" lodged in the cat. It's a .22 cal PELLET, shot from an AIR POWERED PELLET GUN. Now technically any projectile is a bullet, whether it's shot from a sling-shot, a hunting rifle, or a pellet gun. But here I think they wanted us to believe that something happened that didn't; That some crazed lunatic is out shooting a .22 caliber rifle in the PRS.
What's the agenda??? probably another brick getting set in the wall that is being erected to usurp our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The lady probably didn't follow the laws for controling your animals in the PRS anyway (leash laws). The person with the pellet gun was probably tired of having cat crap from her "Daisy Mae" in their flower bed. After never receiving a good response from the owner or the animal control folks they enacted a little "frontier justice".
Sorry if I sound cold but... I grew up on a farm, if you don't keep your animals on your own property, they're fair game. What happens if you don't is your fault.
NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY... It's not what the news said that's important here, it's what they didn't say, or chose to leave ambiguous so as to encourage us to believe something that wasn't true. Watch closely the video at the news link, at 40 secs into the video they show an x-ray of the "bullet" lodged in the cat. It's a .22 cal PELLET, shot from an AIR POWERED PELLET GUN. Now technically any projectile is a bullet, whether it's shot from a sling-shot, a hunting rifle, or a pellet gun. But here I think they wanted us to believe that something happened that didn't; That some crazed lunatic is out shooting a .22 caliber rifle in the PRS.
What's the agenda??? probably another brick getting set in the wall that is being erected to usurp our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The lady probably didn't follow the laws for controling your animals in the PRS anyway (leash laws). The person with the pellet gun was probably tired of having cat crap from her "Daisy Mae" in their flower bed. After never receiving a good response from the owner or the animal control folks they enacted a little "frontier justice".
Sorry if I sound cold but... I grew up on a farm, if you don't keep your animals on your own property, they're fair game. What happens if you don't is your fault.
10/14/2007
Applause for "The Vatican"
This story has so much possibility for discussion. I will focus on on one thing however.
Referring to homosexual activity as something that is "against Vatican teaching" shows a lack of understanding of what the Catholic Church is, and what the Vatican is in regards to the Church.
There aren't several different Catholic teachings regarding homosexuality. There is only one teaching, click here to see what that is. Any "Catholic teaching" that is presented or offered regarding homosexuality that differs from the one at the link, is simply a personal opinion that is in error.
Jesus Christ established a Church. A visible Church with an official organization and leader. The Catholic Church recognizes itself as that Church and teaches that the fullness of God's revelation subsists within the Catholic Church.
The Bishop of Rome is the successor of the Apostle Peter as the Earthly head of Christ's Church. The Bishop of Rome maintains his "government" at a place named Vatican City. The Bishop of Rome (the Pope) maintains sovereign leadership over the Church. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from the Pope teaching in error with regards to matters of faith and morals (Papal invalibility).
I have found that when the media reports that "The Vatican" has made some "declaration", "announcement", or "determination" it is insinuating that it is only the Vatican that is saying something, and that the rest of the Church or other teachers in the Church, have seperate yet equal opinions or positions. They prop up "The Vatican" or "The Pope" or "The Roman Curia" as being simply some type of ignorant tryanical government that doesn't really speak for the people.
As Jesus told the Apostles, "He who rejects you, rejects Me."
The Church is Apostolic, has been since before the Catholic Bishops canonized scripture in the 400's. The Apostolic Church has but one voice, the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Pope.
Referring to homosexual activity as something that is "against Vatican teaching" shows a lack of understanding of what the Catholic Church is, and what the Vatican is in regards to the Church.
There aren't several different Catholic teachings regarding homosexuality. There is only one teaching, click here to see what that is. Any "Catholic teaching" that is presented or offered regarding homosexuality that differs from the one at the link, is simply a personal opinion that is in error.
Jesus Christ established a Church. A visible Church with an official organization and leader. The Catholic Church recognizes itself as that Church and teaches that the fullness of God's revelation subsists within the Catholic Church.
The Bishop of Rome is the successor of the Apostle Peter as the Earthly head of Christ's Church. The Bishop of Rome maintains his "government" at a place named Vatican City. The Bishop of Rome (the Pope) maintains sovereign leadership over the Church. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from the Pope teaching in error with regards to matters of faith and morals (Papal invalibility).
I have found that when the media reports that "The Vatican" has made some "declaration", "announcement", or "determination" it is insinuating that it is only the Vatican that is saying something, and that the rest of the Church or other teachers in the Church, have seperate yet equal opinions or positions. They prop up "The Vatican" or "The Pope" or "The Roman Curia" as being simply some type of ignorant tryanical government that doesn't really speak for the people.
As Jesus told the Apostles, "He who rejects you, rejects Me."
The Church is Apostolic, has been since before the Catholic Bishops canonized scripture in the 400's. The Apostolic Church has but one voice, the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Pope.
10/12/2007
Submarine Bubblehead Humor
OK..., Tubedaze and "Hey, Shipwreck" is very very funny
I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Go to this website or here on Youtube to see what I'm talking about. It's an animated series from a talented bubblehead. Basically it's a social commentary on the funny, rediculous, stupid, crazy, zany, frustrating things that happen on a submarine from the perspective of a "blueshirt". Kind of a "Dilbert" for sailors, specifically submarine sailors. But the great thing is that besides some inside jokes everybod could relate to most of the observations. I know that it greatly resembles the fire department where I work.
WATCH ALL THE EPISODES IN ORDER, IT IS VERY REWARDING
To read about the artist in the Navy Times, click here.
I just wish he didn't call Henry M. Jackson an "obscure politician". Scoop was the man!! And "Scoops Diner" is a great place to eat.
I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Go to this website or here on Youtube to see what I'm talking about. It's an animated series from a talented bubblehead. Basically it's a social commentary on the funny, rediculous, stupid, crazy, zany, frustrating things that happen on a submarine from the perspective of a "blueshirt". Kind of a "Dilbert" for sailors, specifically submarine sailors. But the great thing is that besides some inside jokes everybod could relate to most of the observations. I know that it greatly resembles the fire department where I work.
WATCH ALL THE EPISODES IN ORDER, IT IS VERY REWARDING
To read about the artist in the Navy Times, click here.
I just wish he didn't call Henry M. Jackson an "obscure politician". Scoop was the man!! And "Scoops Diner" is a great place to eat.
Medal Of Honor
Lt. Mike Murphy, a navy SEAL who was killed in action high in the mountains of Afghanistan, will receive the Medal Of Honor for his heroic actions. His parents will accept the Medal on his behalf from President Bush on October 22nd. To learn more about this great American read the book written by Marcus Luttrell, the sole surviving member of his SEAL team. The book is titled "Lone Survivor".
"Murph" wore the station patch from FDNY Engine 53 and Ladder 43 on the right sleeve of his uniform. He also aquired patches for each of his team members. They wore them so as not to forget how this war started with the cowardly attacks of 9/11/01 and in honor of the 343 firefighters who died in the line of duty with bravery and selfless dedication to the citizens of New York City.
God Bless America, God Bless the Murphy family, and may Lt. Murphy and his fellow team members who fell with him RIP, "....no greater love..."
"Murph" wore the station patch from FDNY Engine 53 and Ladder 43 on the right sleeve of his uniform. He also aquired patches for each of his team members. They wore them so as not to forget how this war started with the cowardly attacks of 9/11/01 and in honor of the 343 firefighters who died in the line of duty with bravery and selfless dedication to the citizens of New York City.
God Bless America, God Bless the Murphy family, and may Lt. Murphy and his fellow team members who fell with him RIP, "....no greater love..."
10/11/2007
Where would you send the letter?
Muslim academics send out an open public letter addressed to Pope Benedict XVI, Bartholemew I - Patriarch of Constantinople, all other Orthodox Patriarchs, the Archbishop of Canterberry, and other leading Protestant's. I believe this to be an interesting development. I would rather it be a hopeful development, but due to the actions of many Muslim leaders I have a hard time trusting the sincerity of the stated intention (check out this site for examples).
That being said, I began to wonder what took so long for Muslim "leaders" to send out a communication such as this? Does it have anything to do with the Election cycle in the United States? Does it have anything to do with the beginning of the new U.N. session? And who would the letter have been sent to if it had been sent to the heads of all Christian Churches sometime in the past? On that note... let's step backwards in time using 100 year increments:
1907- Pope Pius X, Joachim III (Orthodox Patriarch Constantinople), Photius (Orthodox Patriarch Alexandria), Damianus I (Orthodox Patriarch Jerusalem) Ignatius Agdeb Aloho II (Syriac Coptic Patriarch Antioch), Randall Thomas Davidson (Church of England- Archbishop of Canterbury), Franz August Otto Pieper (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Scientist), General William Booth (Salvation Army), Henry Niehaus (New Apostolic Church), OK there are more leaders to list from the various churches around at that time (Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quacker, et. al.) but it's taking too long... there are probably 100 more names I could put here.
I'll start going in 200 year increments
1707- Pope Clement XI, Cyprianus I (Constantinople), Gerasimus II (Alexandria), Chrysanthus (Jerusalem), Ignatius George II (Antioch), Thomas Tenison (Archbishop Canterbury), Can't really find a definitive list... but letter would have been sent to Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, (Methodism is 30 years from it's inception), Quackers, and various national/regional Orthodox Churches.
1507- Pope Julius II, Pachomius I (Constantinople), Joachim (Alexandria), Dorotheus II (Jerusalem), Ignatius Nuh of Lebanon (Antioch), Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Henry VIII were at least 10 years away from the inception of their churches. This is also very shortly after King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella drove the last of the Moors from the Iberian peninsula.
1307- Pope Clement V, Athanasuis (Constantinople), Athanasius III (Alexandria), VACANT (Jerusalem), Michael II (Antioch),
1107- Pope Paschal II, Nicholas III Gramaticus (Constantinople), Sabbas (Alexandria), John VIII (Jerusalem), Athanasius VI bar Khamoro (Antioch),
I'll continue listing seperately the 4 patriarchs of the East, though they recognized the unique Primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter before 1054.
907- Pope Sergius III, Nicholas I Mystikos (Constantinople), Christodoulus (Alexandria), Elias III (Jerusalem), Dionysius II (Antioch)
707- Pope John VII, Cyrus (Constantinople), Theophylactus (Alexandria), John V (Jerusalem), Julian II (Antioch)
Follwing the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon of 451 the Bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem were added as Patriarchs, joining the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Thus 507 A.D. is the first year they will be listed seperately. Here is the council of Chalcedon's Confession;
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.
507- Pope Symmachus, Macedonius II (Constantinople), John III (Alexandria), Elias I (Jerusalem), Flavian II (Patriarch of Antioch)
307- Peter's chair vacant after the martyrdom of Pope Marcellinus by Diocletian in 304, Peter I (Alexandria), Tyrannus (Antioch)
107- Pope Alexander I (martryd by Trajan), Primus (Alexandria), Heron (Antioch)
Church in Rome established by Peter and Paul (the Apostles), Alexandria by Mark (the Apostle), Antioch by Peter (the Apostle).
Cardinal John Henry Newman, (prominant 18th century Anglican bishop and Catholic convert) had this to say after spending many years studying and wrestling with Christian history.
"And this one thing is certain... the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If there ever were a safe truth, it is this. And Pretestantism has ever felt it so... This is shown in the determination... of dispensing with historical Christianity althoghter, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it [historical Christianity] aside, unless they had despaired of it... To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
That being said, I began to wonder what took so long for Muslim "leaders" to send out a communication such as this? Does it have anything to do with the Election cycle in the United States? Does it have anything to do with the beginning of the new U.N. session? And who would the letter have been sent to if it had been sent to the heads of all Christian Churches sometime in the past? On that note... let's step backwards in time using 100 year increments:
1907- Pope Pius X, Joachim III (Orthodox Patriarch Constantinople), Photius (Orthodox Patriarch Alexandria), Damianus I (Orthodox Patriarch Jerusalem) Ignatius Agdeb Aloho II (Syriac Coptic Patriarch Antioch), Randall Thomas Davidson (Church of England- Archbishop of Canterbury), Franz August Otto Pieper (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Scientist), General William Booth (Salvation Army), Henry Niehaus (New Apostolic Church), OK there are more leaders to list from the various churches around at that time (Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quacker, et. al.) but it's taking too long... there are probably 100 more names I could put here.
I'll start going in 200 year increments
1707- Pope Clement XI, Cyprianus I (Constantinople), Gerasimus II (Alexandria), Chrysanthus (Jerusalem), Ignatius George II (Antioch), Thomas Tenison (Archbishop Canterbury), Can't really find a definitive list... but letter would have been sent to Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, (Methodism is 30 years from it's inception), Quackers, and various national/regional Orthodox Churches.
1507- Pope Julius II, Pachomius I (Constantinople), Joachim (Alexandria), Dorotheus II (Jerusalem), Ignatius Nuh of Lebanon (Antioch), Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Henry VIII were at least 10 years away from the inception of their churches. This is also very shortly after King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella drove the last of the Moors from the Iberian peninsula.
1307- Pope Clement V, Athanasuis (Constantinople), Athanasius III (Alexandria), VACANT (Jerusalem), Michael II (Antioch),
1107- Pope Paschal II, Nicholas III Gramaticus (Constantinople), Sabbas (Alexandria), John VIII (Jerusalem), Athanasius VI bar Khamoro (Antioch),
I'll continue listing seperately the 4 patriarchs of the East, though they recognized the unique Primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter before 1054.
907- Pope Sergius III, Nicholas I Mystikos (Constantinople), Christodoulus (Alexandria), Elias III (Jerusalem), Dionysius II (Antioch)
707- Pope John VII, Cyrus (Constantinople), Theophylactus (Alexandria), John V (Jerusalem), Julian II (Antioch)
Follwing the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon of 451 the Bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem were added as Patriarchs, joining the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Thus 507 A.D. is the first year they will be listed seperately. Here is the council of Chalcedon's Confession;
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.
507- Pope Symmachus, Macedonius II (Constantinople), John III (Alexandria), Elias I (Jerusalem), Flavian II (Patriarch of Antioch)
307- Peter's chair vacant after the martyrdom of Pope Marcellinus by Diocletian in 304, Peter I (Alexandria), Tyrannus (Antioch)
107- Pope Alexander I (martryd by Trajan), Primus (Alexandria), Heron (Antioch)
Church in Rome established by Peter and Paul (the Apostles), Alexandria by Mark (the Apostle), Antioch by Peter (the Apostle).
Cardinal John Henry Newman, (prominant 18th century Anglican bishop and Catholic convert) had this to say after spending many years studying and wrestling with Christian history.
"And this one thing is certain... the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If there ever were a safe truth, it is this. And Pretestantism has ever felt it so... This is shown in the determination... of dispensing with historical Christianity althoghter, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it [historical Christianity] aside, unless they had despaired of it... To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
10/10/2007
Are you prejudice?
When you see a headline like this United Auto Workers Union Sets Wednesday Morning Strike Deadline for Chrysler do you have an automatic/initial reaction or thought? Is that initial thought one of these two;
1-Good! I hope the union sticks it to those Chrysler jerks.
2-What a bunch of whiney jerks! I hope all those union guys lose their jobs.
If your initial reaction is one of those two, then you are prejudice either for or against organized labor.
I support the ideals of organized labor, but the manner in which labor unions excercise their power in this country is oftentimes stupid, immoral, and dishonest. The news report from the headline story reports that the average worker at Chrysler earns $75.86 per hour in wages, pension, and health care benefits. I believe this figure to be a mistake. It is a bad statistic designed to obfuscate. Let's look at some figures and then see if the numbers add up...
$75.86 = 157,788.80 per year assuming a 40 hour work week (that's the total compensation #)
$1,400 = a conservative (high) monthly health care package cost for a family of 5
$1,274.50 = a conservative (high) estimate of monthly pension contributions (15%) of wage (after FICA)
$132,000 = yearly take home (rounded down to nearest thousand)
That is a grossly inflated number, I suspect that the statistic ($75.86 per hour) includes ALL CHRYSLER "WORKERS" (e.g. the CEO, V.P.'s) and not just the hourly UAW wage earners on the line who the article is supposed to be about. I bet the actual number is about 3-4 times less than reported.
I think the media, (in this case FOXNEWS) is partisan and prejudiced against the union employees.
1-Good! I hope the union sticks it to those Chrysler jerks.
2-What a bunch of whiney jerks! I hope all those union guys lose their jobs.
If your initial reaction is one of those two, then you are prejudice either for or against organized labor.
I support the ideals of organized labor, but the manner in which labor unions excercise their power in this country is oftentimes stupid, immoral, and dishonest. The news report from the headline story reports that the average worker at Chrysler earns $75.86 per hour in wages, pension, and health care benefits. I believe this figure to be a mistake. It is a bad statistic designed to obfuscate. Let's look at some figures and then see if the numbers add up...
$75.86 = 157,788.80 per year assuming a 40 hour work week (that's the total compensation #)
$1,400 = a conservative (high) monthly health care package cost for a family of 5
$1,274.50 = a conservative (high) estimate of monthly pension contributions (15%) of wage (after FICA)
$132,000 = yearly take home (rounded down to nearest thousand)
That is a grossly inflated number, I suspect that the statistic ($75.86 per hour) includes ALL CHRYSLER "WORKERS" (e.g. the CEO, V.P.'s) and not just the hourly UAW wage earners on the line who the article is supposed to be about. I bet the actual number is about 3-4 times less than reported.
I think the media, (in this case FOXNEWS) is partisan and prejudiced against the union employees.
10/08/2007
Keeping my brother off my back
Columbus Day,
I just read this news report regarding a protest at a Columbus Day parade. I marvel at the different ideas and manifestations of protest you see in this country. Just yesterday we had the Life Chain, a protest against the continuing brutality against human babies in their mothers womb. This protest is done by simply standing silently on the side of the road with signs that affirm the position of life. Political conservatives don't make the news by throwing paint on other people's property. They don't block other people's ability to freely move from one location to another. Political conservatives don't trespass. They don't cloak themselves in the 1st Ammendment and then interrupt and shout down others in the act exercising their 1st ammendment rights. Isn't it ironic that political liberals claim the titles; lovers of peace and tolerance, defenders of the oppressed and marginalized, champions of human rights?
Back to Christopher Columbus... In keeping with his tradition of discovery and exploration; let's investigate the politics and history of the European discovery of the Americas. Let's go back through history and review the facts. I know that doesn't necessarily suit certain people's agendas... however, it suits mine.
Christopher Columbus (Cristoval Colon Spanish, Cristoforo Columbo Italian) was born in Genoa, or at least in Genoese territory in 1451, he died at Valladolid Spain in 1506. He developed a remarkable knowledge in Cosmography (mapping of the universe) and was an accomplished seaman and navigator by the 1460's (some records support the age of 14 but definately by the age of 19). He arrived in Portugal in the early 1470's and began to petition the King for support of the novel idea of sailing West to reach the Far East and the lucrative spice trade located there. He then went to Spain with the same idea and pitched that idea through various circles through the 1480's. Columbus was rejected by the King Ferdinand of Spain. This rejection stemmed from an unfavorable report from the Junta (commission) made up of Church and University leaders assigned to investigate the proposal. Remember that at the time King Ferdinand was busy pushing the Moors out of the Iberian Penninsula and was reluctant to divert his attention and resources to a risky scheme.
Coulumbus approached Henry VII of England to no avail and Charles VIII of France, but neither showed any interest. He returned to Spain to begin again with the Spanish Court. The Spanish were involved in one of the final acts of returning Spain completely to Christian rule, the Seige of Granada. This was in 1491. He was again rejected. Disheartened he began traveling on foot to Cordova. He stopped at a convent/monestary for the night. While there he told his story to the Prior... who just happened to be the personal confessor (the priest who is hears the confessions of and provides spiritual direction/advice) of Queen Isabella.
Columbus gained an audience with the Royal Court after gaining Queen Isabella's support. Isabella fronted Columbus money from her personal treasury (which was derived from ecclesiastical sources) in order for Columbus to present himself respectfully before the King. With the Queen, (who was advised by certain people in the Church) championing his cause, Columbus was awarded a contract in April of 1492. After receiving the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist, the expidition left the port city of Palos on Aug 3, 1492. They sighted land (the Bahamas) at 2:00 AM on October 12, 1492.
He returned to Barcelona in March of 1493 and was received as a national hero. Spain was poor and the riches found in the new world were of great interest to the King and Queen. He made at least two return trips to the New World, colonies were established and Columbus and his sons were essentially the governors of the colonies. Then greed, abuse of power, and politics (not just Columbus', but the settler's also) resulted in Columbus and his sons being stripped of their offices and returned to Spain.
Obviously, the next several centuries resulted in the complete colonization of the America's. Independence from the European powers followed. Now it's 515 years later. What's the beef?
Here's the way I see it.
1. The persecution and enslavement of native people was nothing new to them, they had been doing it to eachother for centuries. Just like all human persons and cultures have done to each other in all geographic locations.
2. When technology and learning pass you by, you will be at a disadvantage. The Europeans arrived in a land that was undeveloped and only sparcely populated (relative to Europe, North Africa, Middle East, Persia, Asia). The natives were initially peaceful and welcomed the settlers.
3. A knowledge, technology, and development disparity will not long exist between human cultures. The strong will take advantage of their superiority and exploit it for their benefit. This happens in todays world politically, economically, intellectually, culturally, and militarily. That's just the way it is.
4. The native people's of North and South America are actually fortunate that it was European Christians and not people from the Muslim, or Far Eastern civilizations who "Discovered" America, becuase the brutality and subjugation that they now claim occured would have many times worse.
5. The people of the America's today, with native blood and ancestery, are much better off than they would have been if Columbus hadn't made that voyage in 1492. Especially those in the United States and Canada. Where else do you find the defeated and conquered able to maintain a degree of soveriegnty (the indian reservations) and with special rights (e.g. tax, fishing-hunting) simply becuase of your race?
6. And the single greatest thing the native peoples received from the Europeans who gave them an instant advancement in technology (of 3,000 - 5,000 years!!) was the truth of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, some of todays current Native Americans are rejecting that truth, (along with many others in our Post-Christian West) and reverting back to animism, shamanism, and other forms of paganism in a misguided attempt to return to what they romantically and naively have convinced themselves was a better and more peaceful time. Perhaps they'll start kidnapping each other again and enslaving one another. Will the Aztec and Mayan human sacrifice rituals start up again??
7. Happy Columbus Day!! Give thanks that the Christian West was first to settle the New World for I fear the World would be a much more dreary place if not for the influence of a strong, Europeanized North and South America.
Christopher Columbus, Queen Isabella, and King Ferdinand... visionaries who have made a positive difference for the world.
I just read this news report regarding a protest at a Columbus Day parade. I marvel at the different ideas and manifestations of protest you see in this country. Just yesterday we had the Life Chain, a protest against the continuing brutality against human babies in their mothers womb. This protest is done by simply standing silently on the side of the road with signs that affirm the position of life. Political conservatives don't make the news by throwing paint on other people's property. They don't block other people's ability to freely move from one location to another. Political conservatives don't trespass. They don't cloak themselves in the 1st Ammendment and then interrupt and shout down others in the act exercising their 1st ammendment rights. Isn't it ironic that political liberals claim the titles; lovers of peace and tolerance, defenders of the oppressed and marginalized, champions of human rights?
Back to Christopher Columbus... In keeping with his tradition of discovery and exploration; let's investigate the politics and history of the European discovery of the Americas. Let's go back through history and review the facts. I know that doesn't necessarily suit certain people's agendas... however, it suits mine.
Christopher Columbus (Cristoval Colon Spanish, Cristoforo Columbo Italian) was born in Genoa, or at least in Genoese territory in 1451, he died at Valladolid Spain in 1506. He developed a remarkable knowledge in Cosmography (mapping of the universe) and was an accomplished seaman and navigator by the 1460's (some records support the age of 14 but definately by the age of 19). He arrived in Portugal in the early 1470's and began to petition the King for support of the novel idea of sailing West to reach the Far East and the lucrative spice trade located there. He then went to Spain with the same idea and pitched that idea through various circles through the 1480's. Columbus was rejected by the King Ferdinand of Spain. This rejection stemmed from an unfavorable report from the Junta (commission) made up of Church and University leaders assigned to investigate the proposal. Remember that at the time King Ferdinand was busy pushing the Moors out of the Iberian Penninsula and was reluctant to divert his attention and resources to a risky scheme.
Coulumbus approached Henry VII of England to no avail and Charles VIII of France, but neither showed any interest. He returned to Spain to begin again with the Spanish Court. The Spanish were involved in one of the final acts of returning Spain completely to Christian rule, the Seige of Granada. This was in 1491. He was again rejected. Disheartened he began traveling on foot to Cordova. He stopped at a convent/monestary for the night. While there he told his story to the Prior... who just happened to be the personal confessor (the priest who is hears the confessions of and provides spiritual direction/advice) of Queen Isabella.
Columbus gained an audience with the Royal Court after gaining Queen Isabella's support. Isabella fronted Columbus money from her personal treasury (which was derived from ecclesiastical sources) in order for Columbus to present himself respectfully before the King. With the Queen, (who was advised by certain people in the Church) championing his cause, Columbus was awarded a contract in April of 1492. After receiving the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist, the expidition left the port city of Palos on Aug 3, 1492. They sighted land (the Bahamas) at 2:00 AM on October 12, 1492.
He returned to Barcelona in March of 1493 and was received as a national hero. Spain was poor and the riches found in the new world were of great interest to the King and Queen. He made at least two return trips to the New World, colonies were established and Columbus and his sons were essentially the governors of the colonies. Then greed, abuse of power, and politics (not just Columbus', but the settler's also) resulted in Columbus and his sons being stripped of their offices and returned to Spain.
Obviously, the next several centuries resulted in the complete colonization of the America's. Independence from the European powers followed. Now it's 515 years later. What's the beef?
Here's the way I see it.
1. The persecution and enslavement of native people was nothing new to them, they had been doing it to eachother for centuries. Just like all human persons and cultures have done to each other in all geographic locations.
2. When technology and learning pass you by, you will be at a disadvantage. The Europeans arrived in a land that was undeveloped and only sparcely populated (relative to Europe, North Africa, Middle East, Persia, Asia). The natives were initially peaceful and welcomed the settlers.
3. A knowledge, technology, and development disparity will not long exist between human cultures. The strong will take advantage of their superiority and exploit it for their benefit. This happens in todays world politically, economically, intellectually, culturally, and militarily. That's just the way it is.
4. The native people's of North and South America are actually fortunate that it was European Christians and not people from the Muslim, or Far Eastern civilizations who "Discovered" America, becuase the brutality and subjugation that they now claim occured would have many times worse.
5. The people of the America's today, with native blood and ancestery, are much better off than they would have been if Columbus hadn't made that voyage in 1492. Especially those in the United States and Canada. Where else do you find the defeated and conquered able to maintain a degree of soveriegnty (the indian reservations) and with special rights (e.g. tax, fishing-hunting) simply becuase of your race?
6. And the single greatest thing the native peoples received from the Europeans who gave them an instant advancement in technology (of 3,000 - 5,000 years!!) was the truth of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, some of todays current Native Americans are rejecting that truth, (along with many others in our Post-Christian West) and reverting back to animism, shamanism, and other forms of paganism in a misguided attempt to return to what they romantically and naively have convinced themselves was a better and more peaceful time. Perhaps they'll start kidnapping each other again and enslaving one another. Will the Aztec and Mayan human sacrifice rituals start up again??
7. Happy Columbus Day!! Give thanks that the Christian West was first to settle the New World for I fear the World would be a much more dreary place if not for the influence of a strong, Europeanized North and South America.
Christopher Columbus, Queen Isabella, and King Ferdinand... visionaries who have made a positive difference for the world.
10/05/2007
Peace Activists
An American submarine pulls in to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Peace activists, the geniuses that they are, protest the presence of this "nuclear weapon" in their city. They make a case for it being dangerous to the people and the environment.
It's a nuclear reactor on a ship. It's a propulsion system. I think if they search their souls and start being honest, they will just admit that they hate the United States of America and any ship that came there would be a target of their ire.
It reminds me of when my submarine pulled in to Long Beach we were attacked by Greenpeace. I happened to be the Topside Petty Officer on duty, (I was in charge of security and access at the brow and I was armed with a .45). Two Greenpeace zodiacs and a Greenpeace helicopter suddenly appeared and were racing toward the boat. The had threatened in the paper that they were going to board our submarine and paint it red to symbolize the murder and death we represented. I called away "Repel Boarders" and sounded the alarm. Within 30-45 seconds there were 100 sailors topside armed with fire hoses, billy clubs, big wrenches, brooomsticks, mops, and several other people under me with shotguns and .45's. Greenpeace decided not to get to close. It was great.
Not sure if that was the last time a real live "repel boarders" was called on a U.S. Navy submarine (this was in 1989) but it isn't common.
It's a nuclear reactor on a ship. It's a propulsion system. I think if they search their souls and start being honest, they will just admit that they hate the United States of America and any ship that came there would be a target of their ire.
It reminds me of when my submarine pulled in to Long Beach we were attacked by Greenpeace. I happened to be the Topside Petty Officer on duty, (I was in charge of security and access at the brow and I was armed with a .45). Two Greenpeace zodiacs and a Greenpeace helicopter suddenly appeared and were racing toward the boat. The had threatened in the paper that they were going to board our submarine and paint it red to symbolize the murder and death we represented. I called away "Repel Boarders" and sounded the alarm. Within 30-45 seconds there were 100 sailors topside armed with fire hoses, billy clubs, big wrenches, brooomsticks, mops, and several other people under me with shotguns and .45's. Greenpeace decided not to get to close. It was great.
Not sure if that was the last time a real live "repel boarders" was called on a U.S. Navy submarine (this was in 1989) but it isn't common.
This time it's Giuliani
Making news recently was Archbishop Raymond Burke because he is reported as saying he would deny the Eucharist to a Catholic politician who persisted in the serious sin of supporting/promoting legalized abortion. His comments even became a hot topic on "The View" (here's a transcript). At least Rosy O. is gone so nothing stupid would be said about it...
r-i-g-h-t!!
It's funny to me how incensed people get when the Catholic Church exercises it's rights and sovereignty over it's own discipline and governance.
r-i-g-h-t!!
It's funny to me how incensed people get when the Catholic Church exercises it's rights and sovereignty over it's own discipline and governance.
9/26/2007
My Brothers Three Cents Worth
The following is the letter which my brother wrote. He sent it to several of the big liberal papers, (Seattle P.I. N.Y. Times...) but they probably won't give him the forum. I will however, for I am the AntiSophist!!
To the editor.
I have sat back observing the lead up to President Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University. I have watched, read, and listened to almost every argument both pro and con on this issue, and feel the need to add my two cents as well.
I would first like to describe myself as an independent conservative who holds disdain for many politicians in both parties. I would also like to say that I am pleasantly surprised to find my views in lockstep with J. Byron Holcomb from Bainbridge Island, WA. Who describes himself as “an ACLU liberal and proud of it” in his recent letter to the editor of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
I am absolutely offended by Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, wrongly spinning this into a freedom of speech issue, when it clearly is not. Mr. Holcomb was correct in his assessment that freedom of speech is a right granted in the U.S. Constitution to U.S. citizens. Notice I say, “granted” by the U.S. constitution not “guaranteed”.
This may be an unpalatable and inconvenient truth for some to hear, but listen well. Only by being protected and defended at the tip of a spear, and having the lifeblood of willing patriots nourishing it. Our U.S. Constitution is merely an inanimate scrap of old parchment and faded ink.
I have willingly served at the tip of that metaphorical spear. My wife as well as our three children and I have risked everything in defense of that document and our country. I will always stand ready to nourish it with my very life’s blood if required of me.
I am not a special person. I am not a hero. I don’t do it for thanks, money or fame. I do it because I am an American. There are many people like me who have chosen for innumerable reasons to be the defenders of this great nation and all her citizens. Our rights and freedoms are granted by the Constitution, but guaranteed by American patriots who serve in her defense
It is beyond my comprehension how the President of Columbia University can be so magnanimous, as to bestow these freedoms purchased with, and defended by the blood of patriots on President Ahmadinejad, while citing “freedom of speech”. This is one of the most contemptible acts I have ever witnessed.
I did not risk everything for President Ahmadinejad. I did it for you Lee Bollinger, and it was my pleasure.
It’s startling how the words of St.Thomas More from the 16th century still ring true today. “One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”.
Lignarius Rex
Operation Iraqi Freedom Veteran
To the editor.
I have sat back observing the lead up to President Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University. I have watched, read, and listened to almost every argument both pro and con on this issue, and feel the need to add my two cents as well.
I would first like to describe myself as an independent conservative who holds disdain for many politicians in both parties. I would also like to say that I am pleasantly surprised to find my views in lockstep with J. Byron Holcomb from Bainbridge Island, WA. Who describes himself as “an ACLU liberal and proud of it” in his recent letter to the editor of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
I am absolutely offended by Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, wrongly spinning this into a freedom of speech issue, when it clearly is not. Mr. Holcomb was correct in his assessment that freedom of speech is a right granted in the U.S. Constitution to U.S. citizens. Notice I say, “granted” by the U.S. constitution not “guaranteed”.
This may be an unpalatable and inconvenient truth for some to hear, but listen well. Only by being protected and defended at the tip of a spear, and having the lifeblood of willing patriots nourishing it. Our U.S. Constitution is merely an inanimate scrap of old parchment and faded ink.
I have willingly served at the tip of that metaphorical spear. My wife as well as our three children and I have risked everything in defense of that document and our country. I will always stand ready to nourish it with my very life’s blood if required of me.
I am not a special person. I am not a hero. I don’t do it for thanks, money or fame. I do it because I am an American. There are many people like me who have chosen for innumerable reasons to be the defenders of this great nation and all her citizens. Our rights and freedoms are granted by the Constitution, but guaranteed by American patriots who serve in her defense
It is beyond my comprehension how the President of Columbia University can be so magnanimous, as to bestow these freedoms purchased with, and defended by the blood of patriots on President Ahmadinejad, while citing “freedom of speech”. This is one of the most contemptible acts I have ever witnessed.
I did not risk everything for President Ahmadinejad. I did it for you Lee Bollinger, and it was my pleasure.
It’s startling how the words of St.Thomas More from the 16th century still ring true today. “One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”.
Lignarius Rex
Operation Iraqi Freedom Veteran
8/21/2007
Breaking My Silence
Rejoice oh world Rejoice. I have something new to procrastinate about, so I will be doing more blogging (instead of preparing for a promotional exam!).
I originally set out to blog about the recent Democratic debate where the subject of prayer was discussed. After reading through the comments from the candidates I decided that my blog would actually be on something different. Not that the Dems didn't have something stupid to say about prayer, just that they had nothing surprising to say. Basically they were asked if prayer could affect/prevent tragedy (9-11, Katrina...). In general they responded in the negative. Then several of them commented on how faith is important but personal and that they wouldn't be public about their personal faith when holding public office.
In my opinion their comments are illuminating of the simplistic way they believe/disbelieve in God and the supernatural. On one hand they were asked if prayer could be a preventative action. They didn't believe so and then they cited examples of recent disasters that occured in spite of prayer asking for the prevention of the disaster (Hurrican Katrina, family illness...). It is a mistake to look at what HAS HAPPENED when deciding if something has been prevented FROM HAPPENING. To draw an anology, billions of dollars every year are poured into fire prevention programs (e.g smoke alarm campaigns, family exit drills, cooking safety, fire codes, burn bans, home and commercial fire inspections...) yet it can never be quantified exactly how many fires were prevented from happening or how many deaths were averted. When was the last time you saw a newspaper headline that stated that "No Fire At Sears Last Evening Around 11:00 PM Thanks To Adherance To Fire Code". Every day dozens of fires don't occur due to prevention programs and activities. Also, the severity of fires that do happen are lessened due to preventative actions, such as a family escaping a home fire in the middle of the night because of properly working smoke alarms.
My point is this, perhaps Katrina would have been 20 times as destructive if all those prayers hadn't been offered up. Perhaps the family member who died was brought to saving faith through God's abundant grace through the intercessory prayer of the loved ones. Their Earthly life not being preserved is not nearly as important as their eternal life being spent in Heaven.
Why will Democrats pour billions of dollars and hours into secular/social prevention programs (e.g. fire prevention, suicide prevention, crime prevention, poverty prevention, unemployment programs) without ever really being able to quantify the actual prevention of negative events, and yet refuse to invest prayer into the prevention of the same? Or to at least not acknowledge the efficacy of preventative prayer, also known as lamentations or prayers of deliverance.
Do they actually believe in God? Are they afraid they will alienate the Democratic constituancy of athiests, agnostics, and alternative religionists if they admit to believing in God's sovereign power?
Scripture and history are full of examples of God's intercession. Read these accounts about the Battle of Lepanto (another account) for example.
I originally set out to blog about the recent Democratic debate where the subject of prayer was discussed. After reading through the comments from the candidates I decided that my blog would actually be on something different. Not that the Dems didn't have something stupid to say about prayer, just that they had nothing surprising to say. Basically they were asked if prayer could affect/prevent tragedy (9-11, Katrina...). In general they responded in the negative. Then several of them commented on how faith is important but personal and that they wouldn't be public about their personal faith when holding public office.
In my opinion their comments are illuminating of the simplistic way they believe/disbelieve in God and the supernatural. On one hand they were asked if prayer could be a preventative action. They didn't believe so and then they cited examples of recent disasters that occured in spite of prayer asking for the prevention of the disaster (Hurrican Katrina, family illness...). It is a mistake to look at what HAS HAPPENED when deciding if something has been prevented FROM HAPPENING. To draw an anology, billions of dollars every year are poured into fire prevention programs (e.g smoke alarm campaigns, family exit drills, cooking safety, fire codes, burn bans, home and commercial fire inspections...) yet it can never be quantified exactly how many fires were prevented from happening or how many deaths were averted. When was the last time you saw a newspaper headline that stated that "No Fire At Sears Last Evening Around 11:00 PM Thanks To Adherance To Fire Code". Every day dozens of fires don't occur due to prevention programs and activities. Also, the severity of fires that do happen are lessened due to preventative actions, such as a family escaping a home fire in the middle of the night because of properly working smoke alarms.
My point is this, perhaps Katrina would have been 20 times as destructive if all those prayers hadn't been offered up. Perhaps the family member who died was brought to saving faith through God's abundant grace through the intercessory prayer of the loved ones. Their Earthly life not being preserved is not nearly as important as their eternal life being spent in Heaven.
Why will Democrats pour billions of dollars and hours into secular/social prevention programs (e.g. fire prevention, suicide prevention, crime prevention, poverty prevention, unemployment programs) without ever really being able to quantify the actual prevention of negative events, and yet refuse to invest prayer into the prevention of the same? Or to at least not acknowledge the efficacy of preventative prayer, also known as lamentations or prayers of deliverance.
Do they actually believe in God? Are they afraid they will alienate the Democratic constituancy of athiests, agnostics, and alternative religionists if they admit to believing in God's sovereign power?
Scripture and history are full of examples of God's intercession. Read these accounts about the Battle of Lepanto (another account) for example.
6/01/2007
Good Cop, Dumb Cop... errr Bad Cop
O.K. One of my favorite lines from the movie "Full Metal Jacket" was when the Drill Instructor (R. Lee Ermey, who in my opinion deserved the Academy Award for his performance) told "Pyle" after finding his foot locker unlocked, ".... if it wasn't for #^*#* like you, there wouldn't be thieves in this world."
I just read a news story which relates the experience of a police officer who had his food messed with while going through a drive through while in uniform. Should a police officer be able to order food without having to worrry about it being messed with? absolutely! Would a prudent police officer order food from teenage fast food workers assuming that it wouldn't be messed with? Absolutely not!
I hope that the officer wins, it's a horrible thing to have your sandwich spit in. Should a police officer be able to order food without having to worry about spit or worse being put in his food? YES!! That being said, there's a distinct difference between wishful thinking and reality. The reality is that cops can't have a reasonable expectation of receiving uncontaminated food going through a drive thru.
Pyro
I just read a news story which relates the experience of a police officer who had his food messed with while going through a drive through while in uniform. Should a police officer be able to order food without having to worrry about it being messed with? absolutely! Would a prudent police officer order food from teenage fast food workers assuming that it wouldn't be messed with? Absolutely not!
I hope that the officer wins, it's a horrible thing to have your sandwich spit in. Should a police officer be able to order food without having to worry about spit or worse being put in his food? YES!! That being said, there's a distinct difference between wishful thinking and reality. The reality is that cops can't have a reasonable expectation of receiving uncontaminated food going through a drive thru.
Pyro
A Story That Bears Watching: Follow Up
The National Catholic Register, a weekly periodical, published an interview with Dr. Beckwith in it's latest issue. In it, Dr. Beckwith illuminates some of the story of his conversion and talks about some of the reactions to his conversion. Especially interesting to me are the things he says about the people who convert from one side to another within the different Christian traditions (he basically expressed an idea similar to the one I made in the first blog article I wrote regarding this topic... yea for me!). And his opinion on what Catholics have to learn and gain from Evangelical Christians, namely better and more dynamic preaching in the Parishes.
Pyro.
Pyro.
5/30/2007
The Battle
I just read this article and I think all good Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants) should read it also. If you are Episcopalian it may be a tough read. But I don't think the focus should be on the specific tradition (Episcopalian) that the article is about. All of Christendom has examples of fifth columnists making life Hell for sincere believers. That said, What are those people thinking? Why can't liberals (or conservatives for that matter) use their religion to inform their politics and not the other way around?
Pyro
Pyro
5/18/2007
A story that bears watching
I have been following a conversion story through alternative information media (AIM) on the internet for the past few weeks. Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), converted and entered into full communion in the Catholic Church. There have been some understandable, yet unfortunate, uncharitable dissertations regarding Dr. Beckwith since his announcement. These were done by well intentioned Evangelicals who were probably offended and felt betrayed by Dr. Beckwith's conversion, which to them is incomprehensible. Some were also done by gloating Catholics who were uncharitably reveling in triumphalism. However, there have also been many charitable expressions regarding his conversion from evangelicals and Catholics alike.
There is a letter in the Wall Street Journal from a former collegue in the ETS that provides a fine example of charity. Also, the ETS released a statement regarding the situation that calmly expresses their thoughts without being uncharitable. The Wall Street Journal letter points to the fact that there have been a growing number of high profile conversions by people from the evangelical tradition to Catholicism since the mid 1960's. This is possibly due to the emphasis on ecumanism promulgated by the Second Vatican Council.
Converting from one Christian tradition to another is a two way street. The process of converting and the impetus behind them differ dramatically in my opinion. From what I have witnessed, Catholics who convert to newer traditions of Christian expression (e.g Calvanism, Lutheranism, Pentacostalism, Evangelicalism) do so out of ignorance born from an indifferentism towards their spiritual life prior to their conversion. Practicing the faith and living a committed spiritual life in Christ was not an important or consistent part of their family life. Because of this, they never learned the reasons, facts, and explanations for Catholic theological beliefs. They did however learn many basic core Christian beliefs; e.g. the existence of God as a Trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus, the inspiration and truth of Sacred Scripture. When these Catholics then begin to desire to become serious in the spiritual life, they are very often susceptable to being influenced by co-workers, friends, and romantic interests who grew up practicing a Christian faith expression in a Protestant tradition. Many of the things they are told by these people sound very familiar to them because of their Catholic upbringing. The theological conclusions end up being different because of the Protestant tradition of personal infallibility in Biblical interpretation and exegesis. These fallen away Catholics end up embracing doctrines such as; Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, symbolic Communion, symbolic Baptism, total depravity. They also end up learning erroneous "facts" regarding the Catholic faith.
The Protestant converts to the Catholic Church are very much the opposite. They come from a wide variety of Christian Traditions, (e.g. Lutheran, Prysbeterian, Assembly of God, Baptist.) And they convert though they were very knowledgable of what their tradition taught. Their impetus is usually that they honestly read Scripture with a desire to closely follow Scripture and understand the Christian faith as it was passed on by Jesus to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Church Fathers, and so on... and they discovered that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church that Christ founded.
Summary: Most Catholics who convert to Protestantism were very ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually professes. They then fill in this ignorance with erroneous beliefs regarding the Catholic Church and they embrace false theological beliefs born of the Protestant tradition. Most Protestants who convert to the Catholic Church were very knowledgable of what their church professed. They were however honest enough to look at all traditions of Christianity with a critical eye. And being docile to the Holy Spirit, they were able to embrace the Catholic Church with the knowledge that within it subsists the fullness of God's revelation.
I am an example of both; going from lax indifferent Catholicism, to becoming a committed Protestant; (jumping between several non-denominational/evangelical traditions, Methodistism, and Lutheranism), and finally returning to the Catholic Church after honestly and vigorously studying Scripture, theology, and Chistian history.
Pyro
There is a letter in the Wall Street Journal from a former collegue in the ETS that provides a fine example of charity. Also, the ETS released a statement regarding the situation that calmly expresses their thoughts without being uncharitable. The Wall Street Journal letter points to the fact that there have been a growing number of high profile conversions by people from the evangelical tradition to Catholicism since the mid 1960's. This is possibly due to the emphasis on ecumanism promulgated by the Second Vatican Council.
Converting from one Christian tradition to another is a two way street. The process of converting and the impetus behind them differ dramatically in my opinion. From what I have witnessed, Catholics who convert to newer traditions of Christian expression (e.g Calvanism, Lutheranism, Pentacostalism, Evangelicalism) do so out of ignorance born from an indifferentism towards their spiritual life prior to their conversion. Practicing the faith and living a committed spiritual life in Christ was not an important or consistent part of their family life. Because of this, they never learned the reasons, facts, and explanations for Catholic theological beliefs. They did however learn many basic core Christian beliefs; e.g. the existence of God as a Trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus, the inspiration and truth of Sacred Scripture. When these Catholics then begin to desire to become serious in the spiritual life, they are very often susceptable to being influenced by co-workers, friends, and romantic interests who grew up practicing a Christian faith expression in a Protestant tradition. Many of the things they are told by these people sound very familiar to them because of their Catholic upbringing. The theological conclusions end up being different because of the Protestant tradition of personal infallibility in Biblical interpretation and exegesis. These fallen away Catholics end up embracing doctrines such as; Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, symbolic Communion, symbolic Baptism, total depravity. They also end up learning erroneous "facts" regarding the Catholic faith.
The Protestant converts to the Catholic Church are very much the opposite. They come from a wide variety of Christian Traditions, (e.g. Lutheran, Prysbeterian, Assembly of God, Baptist.) And they convert though they were very knowledgable of what their tradition taught. Their impetus is usually that they honestly read Scripture with a desire to closely follow Scripture and understand the Christian faith as it was passed on by Jesus to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Church Fathers, and so on... and they discovered that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church that Christ founded.
Summary: Most Catholics who convert to Protestantism were very ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually professes. They then fill in this ignorance with erroneous beliefs regarding the Catholic Church and they embrace false theological beliefs born of the Protestant tradition. Most Protestants who convert to the Catholic Church were very knowledgable of what their church professed. They were however honest enough to look at all traditions of Christianity with a critical eye. And being docile to the Holy Spirit, they were able to embrace the Catholic Church with the knowledge that within it subsists the fullness of God's revelation.
I am an example of both; going from lax indifferent Catholicism, to becoming a committed Protestant; (jumping between several non-denominational/evangelical traditions, Methodistism, and Lutheranism), and finally returning to the Catholic Church after honestly and vigorously studying Scripture, theology, and Chistian history.
Pyro
5/17/2007
"Catholic" politicians
By now everyone has probably heard of the letter that Connecticut's 3rd Dist. Rep Rosa DeLauro and 17 other "Catholic" politicians published chastising Pope Benedict XVI for his statements/teaching regarding pro-abortion behavior of Catholic politicians.
What a crock!! Rep. deLaura didn't seem to mind trotting out the teachings of the Church when it concurs with her to pursuit of a social agenda such as workers rights.
Representative DeLauro suffers from a serious condition called sin. We all do. Her sin is public and heinous. Thankfully most of mine are private. Her letter is the epitome of irony however. I guess in her mind the seperation of church and state is like one of those turnstyles at the entrance to a stadium; a unidirectional impediment.
Here is what one priest had to say about this "statement".
Pyro
What a crock!! Rep. deLaura didn't seem to mind trotting out the teachings of the Church when it concurs with her to pursuit of a social agenda such as workers rights.
Representative DeLauro suffers from a serious condition called sin. We all do. Her sin is public and heinous. Thankfully most of mine are private. Her letter is the epitome of irony however. I guess in her mind the seperation of church and state is like one of those turnstyles at the entrance to a stadium; a unidirectional impediment.
Here is what one priest had to say about this "statement".
Pyro
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
