New blog from the phone!

Hi, everyone! i really hope this works...

It's been a while...

Hey, people. I know I've been gone for a bit, but I'll get all this website/blog thing sorted out and give them a good updatin'! See ya soon!

Sheep...Not Food.

Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of wolves would prey upon the flock.

One day a group of sheep, bolder than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. "Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand. What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!"

One sheep spoke up, saying "It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it, but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we could fight back, and stop this savagery." The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them into weapons.

That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them, crying, "Begone! We are not food!" and drove off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth? It was unthinkable!

The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh,the flock huddled together and cried out, "Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things!

You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!"

The brave sheep stopped, amazed. "But we are your brethren!" they cried. "We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves, they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!"

"Baaaaaaad!" cried the flock, "the things are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock!" So the armed sheep resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.

In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from which more than one wolf did not return.

Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep’s weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in terror again, "Baaaaaad! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you from our presence!"

And so they did. The great chief sheep and his council, encouraged by the words of their advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested before the council, saying, "It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!" But the flock drowned them out with cries of "Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!"

Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying "Baaaaddd! Bad things!"

That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep’s totems and signs, and said, "Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth! Brothers, let us feed!" And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the slaughter.

It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, only to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so again. This they did, and do still.

In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, "See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!" But the flock cried out, more feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, "Baaaaaaaad! These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaad!"

So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.

They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!

God and Guns

Here is an article I found interesting. I was confronted by a "friend" one day about the supposed contradiction between my Christianity and my owning/using (a) gun(s). (Don't you just love punctuation?) He's very anti-God/Jesus/Conservative, in other words...A good little liberal.

I don't have a link to this article but it was on a PDF which I have pasted and copied right here. Please to enjoy...
Sorry about the length. I don't know how to format it! LOL

THE BIBLICAL, CHRISTIAN RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY OF SELF-DEFENSE
--by Mark Anderson
When you carry a firearm or other
weapon for self-defense, you must come
to grips with one very cold, hard fact:
You are putting yourself in a position
where you might have to use deadly force
to injure, maim or kill another human
being. For all but the psychopath, the
taking of the life of another human being
is far from trivial. People who object to
others carrying firearms and using force
to defend themselves will often universally
condemn the use of such force as
immoral. Something God Himself would
condemn. Where are they getting that
notion from and is that really true? Is it a
sin to use force to defend ourselves
against criminals?
Many misuse or misunderstand the
Bible as justification for those anti-selfdefense
views. A careful study of the
Bible reveals that not only does God allow
for the use of force, including deadly
force, in defense of self and family, He
expects it of us.
A major error many make is taking
passages from the Bible and failing to
understand their translation or context.
This can lead to an incorrect application
of the scripture. For example, the Bible
reveals (Exodus 20) that Moses brought
us the 10 commandments. The sixth
commandment (Exodus 20:13) is translated
into English in the King James Version
of the Bible as: "Thou shalt not
kill." Now that sounds pretty black and
white. Don’t kill anything, anytime, for
any reason; and certainly not to defend
your sorry self. But is that what it really
means? This particular translation of this
commandment is often used to justify
everything from pacifism to vegetarianism.
The words "Thou shalt not kill" are
thrown at us in TV and movies and
throughout our culture in such a way as to
dissuade us from fighting wars, opposing
tyrants, resisting rapists and protecting
our families. Somehow, soldiers, police
officers and civilians who have or would
defend themselves are portrayed as evil
creatures who have blood dripping from
their hands. Nothing could be further
from the truth!
Could it be that God is inconsistent
and capricious, saying something is
wrong one moment, "Thou shalt not kill",
and right the next ("Treat the Midianites
as enemies and kill them" Numbers
25:17)? Not at all. The Bible reveals to
us that God and His word expressed in the
Bible are completely consistent and unchanging:
"For I am the Lord, I do not
change" (Mal. 3:6). King David had no
problem bearing weapons or fighting war
in a just cause when he praised God:
"Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who
trains my hands for war, my fingers for
battle. " (Psalms 144:1). God wasn’t
training King David in the ways of warfare
and killing for nothing.
The issue with the sixth commandment
and "killing" is one of translation and
interpretation. The Hebrew word translated
in the King James translation of the
Bible (KJV) as "kill" is actually a word
that denotes illegal activity. The meaning
of the word "kill" in modern English is
quite broad and does not necessarily indicate
a criminal act ("The vegetarian killed
a head of lettuce for his salad"). A more
precise translation of the sixth commandment
reads in modern English: "You
shall not murder" (New International Version,
NIV, and other translations). The
word "murder" in modern English is quite
different from the word "kill" and is
much more specific. Murder requires
criminal intent, and is the criminal, willful,
unjustified taking of a human life,
something that is clearly wrong. "But if a
man schemes and kills another man deliberately,
take him away from my altar and
put him to death (Exodus 21:14)." God
apparently doesn’t have any problem with
the death penalty, either.
Indeed, the Bible instructs us that killing
in defense of self or our family is
fully justified. "If a thief is caught breaking
in and is struck so that he dies, the
defender is not guilty of bloodshed."
(Exodus 22:2). This passage clearly indicates
that killing in self-defense is not a
violation of the sixth commandment at
all. The circumstances are clearly defined.
There is a "thief", a robber, a bad
guy with evil intent to commit what we
call today a home invasion burglary or
robbery. There is a "defender", the innocent
homeowner, who seeks not to kill for
the sake of killing, or for revenge or out
of anger, but only to defend his home and
loved ones. The defender kills as a consequence
of, and during the course of, a
criminal attack. Killing in such a circumstance
appears to be just fine as far as
God is concerned.
In fact, not only is self-defense justified,
a good case can be made that God
wants us, as a matter of duty and responsibility,
to defend ourselves and our families.
In 1 Timothy 5:8 we are told, "If anyone
does not provide for his relatives and
especially for his immediate family, he
has denied the faith and is worse than an
unbeliever." The Greek word "pronoe"
translated here as "provide for" also
means, "to care for". This passage could
be interpreted a number of ways. It
makes no sense to work hard to buy a
house to live in and "provide for" your
family, if you aren’t going to protect that
house, and its occupants, from criminal
attack. If we fail to "provide for" (or
"care for") our relatives, we have "denied
the faith" and are "worse than unbelievers".
"Denying the faith" is tantamount to
thumbing your nose at God. It implies a
conscious act of disobedience, telling
Him you are going to knowingly and willfully
ignore His commandments. Not a
good thing to do. These passages, as well
as Luke 22:36 (discussed near the end of
this article) provide strong evidence that
we are not only allowed to defend ourselves
and family, God intends that we do
so. This not mean that someone who fails
to "provide for" his family cannot be
saved, or loses their salvation. Nor does
it mean, in any legalistic sense, that all are
compelled to use deadly force in defense
of self and family. It means just what it
says: we should love our families and do
our best to "provide for" and "care for"
them.
Our popular culture takes other Bible
passages out of context and attempts to
twist them into an anti-self-defense mantra,
leading many to ignore or deny God’s
intent that we should protect ourselves
from criminal attack. Even those who
have never seen the inside of a church
have heard the phrase "turn the other
cheek". We are led to believe that this
means we should simply let aggressors
and criminals run roughshod over us. We
hear "it’s not worth fighting for" and
"fighting never solved anything". School
children are punished for displaying even
the slightest hint of self-defense or resistance
to a bully. Rape victims are told to
"lay back and enjoy it". Can’t we all just
get along? Is there a Biblical basis for
this? The "turn the other cheek" passage
is found in Matthew 5:38-39. In this
verse Christ said: "You have heard that it
was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth
for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an
evil person. But whoever slaps you on
your right cheek, turn the other to him
also." The "eye for an eye" phrase comes
from Exodus 21:24-25, and refers to how
civil authorities should mete out punishment
for crime (basically, let the punishment
fit the crime). In Christ’s time,
many were led to believe that the "eye for
an eye" passage justified the taking of
personal vengeance for a crime or alleged
injustice. Christ was teaching against this.
It does not appear that He intended the
"turn the other cheek" phrase to be applied
to resisting aggression or criminal
attack, or for it to be used as justification
for pacifism.
Another Bible phrase commonly used
to disarm us is "He who lives by the
sword will die by the sword". Our modern,
popular culture would have us believe
that not only should we stop carrying
that sword around with us everywhere
we go, but also any other weapon as well.
We should never take up weapons for any
purpose, whether it be in defense of country,
family or self. People who have
weapons or practice using weapons, and
especially gun owners, are evil and not
following God’s will and deserve to be
punished severely for it ("die by the
sword"). This phrase is found in Matthew
26:52-54: "Put your sword back in its
place," Jesus said to him, "for all who
draw the sword will die by the sword."
In this passage, Jesus was rebuking
Peter when Peter cut off the ear of a man
who was among those coming to arrest
Jesus (Peter is identified as the sword
wielder in a briefer account of Jesus’ arrest
in John 18:10). "Jesus commanded
Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not
drink the cup the Father has given me?"
(John 18:11)." Christ did not tell Peter to
throw his sword away forever, but to put
it away for now. Had Peter successfully
prevented Christ’s arrest at that moment,
he would have obstructed Christ in His
mission: to die on the cross for our sins.
The phrase "for all who draw the sword
will die by the sword" implies that those
who draw the sword to commit violent,
criminal acts cannot escape God’s judgment
for those acts. The phrase "die by
the sword", and others similar to it occur
many times throughout the Bible and almost
universally refer to a consequence,
literal or symbolic, for evildoers and opponents
of God’s will. These few verses
from Psalm 37 sum this concept up
nicely: "13 but the Lord laughs at the
wicked, for he knows their day is coming.
14 The wicked draw the sword and bend
the bow to bring down the poor and
needy, to slay those whose ways are upright.
15 But their swords will pierce their
own hearts, and their bows will be broken."
This "dying by the sword" is not
intended for the righteous person defending
themselves from attack, but it is
directed at "the wicked".
One of the most direct passages in the
Bible supporting our right and duty to
defend ourselves is found in Luke 22:36.
Here, just before Christ was arrested, He
told His disciples "He who has no sword
should sell his coat and buy one." This is
no small instruction. Most people living
in this time didn’t have closets full of
coats and shoes and clothes like we do
today. Telling someone to "sell his coat"
could very likely have entailed a significant
sacrifice, particularly for Christ’s
disciples, who generally left behind everything
they had to follow Him. Christ
appears to be telling His disciples that
having and carrying a sword, a personal
weapon, a means of self-defense, is important
enough that, if necessary, they
should sell the clothes off their back in
order to do so. It is perhaps equivalent to
being told today to "sell your only car and
go buy a gun". Christ certainly didn’t
mean they should buy that sword (after a
waiting period and background check)
and display it over the fireplace, right
next to the commemorative plaque from
the National Sword Association and the
signed picture of Moses, (or would that be
Charlton Heston). Or put it away in the
sword safe where it couldn’t be used to
defend against an intruder. Or put a
sword lock on it to keep the wild, undisciplined,
"educated"-and-medicated-by-thestate
kids from hacking up their playmates
in the schoolyard.
The sword was the assault weapon of
its day. It was used in battle and was also
the most effective means of defense
against criminal attack. Nehemiah records
that workers routinely carried weapons
for protection during the rebuilding of the
wall around Jerusalem. "Those who carried
materials did their work with one
hand and held a weapon in the other, 18
and each of the builders wore his sword at
his side as he worked... (Nehemiah 4: 17 -
18)." The Greek word for sword
("machaira") that Christ uses in Luke
22:36 is for a short, dagger-like sword. It
would be smaller and lighter than a sword
used for battle and could be more easily
concealed under a garment, much like the
current crop of light, small, but significant
caliber handguns would be today. One
can easily imagine that a robber or criminal
in the first century might think twice
before attacking a man armed with such a
sword. His would-be victim might know
how to keep it sharp and use it in a fight.
And if enough people were inclined to
carry their swords concealed, the robber
would never know if a potential victim
was armed and might decide not to attack
at all. More likely, he would move to
some town or province across the river
that had stricter sword control laws and
lots of unarmed, vulnerable victims.
Truly, some things never change.

God bless this liberal pinhead!

I never thought I'd agree with this guy on ANYTHING except how cool Apple is. Come on, Steve...just a few more steps and you're there!

The Charismatic Conservative

Since Charles' blog doesn't seem to have a comment section, I'm puttin' mine right here!

EDISON FORCE:
"The rest of the film plays like an episode of "Lou Grant," as alliances are formed, investigations are launched, and viewers are bored."
-Justin Timberlake DOES remind me a bit of Ed Asner, but with less back hair. Unless, of course, he's making out with Joey Fatone! (Ba-da BING!)

But seriously, folks...Head on over to The Complaining Conservative's blog. Just knock on his iDoor. I'm sure he'll be there. And he'll be ePissed off about something! (Cue "wa-wa" trumpet sound)

Pete Seeger...who the F*** is THAT?

Bruce...BRUUUUUUCCCCE!!! What's been going on, man? Seriously. What up, dawg?
I've been replacing all my cassettes and vinyl with CD, lately. Well, I'm actually KEEPING all the vinyl. I'm just "upgrading".
Anywho, a few posts back I discussed my aversion to MOST of the new music and the aforementioned "upgrade". You can read it if you want. I'll wait here.......................................................Back already? Gee, you're a fast reader. Give yourself a smiley face!
I wore out Bruce Springsteen's "The River" on cassette. (I wore out TWO copies of the "Live" album, but that's another story.) This album (along with, probably, The Wall, Zenyatta Mondatta, something by Elton, and a few more that escape me at the moment) was a turning point. I know it sounds cliche, and it is. But it's MY cliche and this is MY blog so shut the f*** up!
It's kind of fun to look back on your life and really see, for the first time, how something that seemed so trivial really affected you. Listening to "The River" was like walking around the city and ducking into a strange building you've never seen before. Perhaps an old hotel. Inside the building, maybe in an old ballroom, is a crowd of strangers. Characters. Listening to "The River" was like "working the room" and not leaving until every one of these characters had told you his story. These were individual stories. Human stories set to great music.
Back in high school, I wanted to be Bruce. Or, at least, I wanted to be like one of these characters. Even my high school girlfriend's name was Sherry. (Although, I liked her mom a lot better than Bruce did in HIS song!) Yes, this was one of THOSE albums. And, dare I say, I believe I even felt the first stirrings of desire to do some songwriting.
But something happened between "The River" and "The Seeger Sessions" and even "Devils And Dust". Sure there were smatterings of Socialism in Bruce's early stuff. Unions. The little guy not getting his fair share. Good song fodder. I ain't got no problem with that. On an individual basis, it's brilliant. Most of the characters in Bruce's earlier stuff were losers, but they took personal responsibility for their failures. These days Bruce has aligned himself with the party of "Bush is Hitler", higher taxes, and "I voted FOR the war before I voted AGAINST it".
Yeah, maybe I'm living in the past by re-purchasing all of these cassettes and LP's. I don't hear anyone telling Bruce he's living in the past by exhuming Pete Seeger's stuff. These musicians (young and old) yearn for the sixties so bad it hurts. They want to be in "charge" again. Is it so wrong that I'm living in the past, too? I just didn't go back as far as the "freak" sixties, just the "me" '80's.
HEY! HIPPIE FREAKS! You're not in charge anymore! Don't cry, though. We still put on your records every now and then. Records that have been cleaned up. Pops and scratches digitally removed. A lot of it was good stuff. I really mean that. But please step aside and let the neo-cons through. You're just making fools of yourselves.
And Bruce...Why? Why did you have to align yourself with them? I love most of your albums but I'm afraid I can't pay full price for them anymore. Half.com baby!
I'd go see Bruce again. I saw him a few years ago at the Fargo Dome. Awesome show! The most radical thing he did at the show was ask for food donations to the local pantries. That's cool! Don't tell me I'm a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Don't equate me with Hitler. Just sing your damn songs and entertain me!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to turn up "The River". Go away!