Check this out! Michael Moore Hates America.com. I really hope this guy can get some wide distrabution. I want to see what he produces. I don't even know the guy, but I suspect he's more trustworthy than Moore.
I think the best word to describe my dislike of Moore is to use an anology. People who are Linux lovers despise Bill Gates. And that's sorta how I feel about Moore. He's along the same line as Bill Gates. Though at least Gates tries to make himself user friendly... :P
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Moore 9/11 style
I found this article about that Moore movie called Fahrenheit 9/11. All I can say is if this guy is telling the truth, even half of it.... then Moore should just hang up his hat now. Because he obviously has no credibility whatsoever.
Different Take on Iraq
For a long time now our country has been meddling in other people's affairs [abroad]. It doesn't matter if it was Democrate of Republican, the American government likes to meddle abroad. (Perhaps they know things we don't...)
In Iraq, we technically should have been over there beating Saddam a long time ago. We promised things to a group of people over there (which, if I remember correctly, was to help oust Saddam), and we broke our promise, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent lives (not military ones!). There are huge graves over there because we thought it wasn't advantagous for us to stay over there and follow through.
Now, call me old fashion, but when you make a promise to someone, you better keep it! Especially when it's helping *oust* a dictator who likes murdering thousands of his own people, and financially helping murder thousands of other people (yes, Saddam does have terrorist ties.. no matter what some people are saying).
In my opinion, not one single military death (except for the ones caused by equipment malfunction) was pointless. Those men, even though they weren't around in the first Gulf War, were fulfilling a broken promise. I think that is most honorable!
This isn't to say that all US meddling has been justified. Some of it was down right stupid. But some of it, for better or worse, had justifiable causes. Some of it we know think is bad, is only so because of bad management skills.
But either way, people need to remember we aren't living in a Jefferson society (I think I got the right president). We don't keep to ourself. It not the nature of the beast. It's better to accept this and just work with it then going around ranting about something that's unlikely to change.
As for military deaths. Well, that's part of the job. You don't go into the military (especially the Army and Marines) and think you're gonna live a long and happy life! These guys aren't innocent, they are trained to kill. If they die in the line of duty, then they are dying doing their job. People who think otherwise are out of touch with the reality of military life.
And that's really all I can think of to say about that. :)
In Iraq, we technically should have been over there beating Saddam a long time ago. We promised things to a group of people over there (which, if I remember correctly, was to help oust Saddam), and we broke our promise, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent lives (not military ones!). There are huge graves over there because we thought it wasn't advantagous for us to stay over there and follow through.
Now, call me old fashion, but when you make a promise to someone, you better keep it! Especially when it's helping *oust* a dictator who likes murdering thousands of his own people, and financially helping murder thousands of other people (yes, Saddam does have terrorist ties.. no matter what some people are saying).
In my opinion, not one single military death (except for the ones caused by equipment malfunction) was pointless. Those men, even though they weren't around in the first Gulf War, were fulfilling a broken promise. I think that is most honorable!
This isn't to say that all US meddling has been justified. Some of it was down right stupid. But some of it, for better or worse, had justifiable causes. Some of it we know think is bad, is only so because of bad management skills.
But either way, people need to remember we aren't living in a Jefferson society (I think I got the right president). We don't keep to ourself. It not the nature of the beast. It's better to accept this and just work with it then going around ranting about something that's unlikely to change.
As for military deaths. Well, that's part of the job. You don't go into the military (especially the Army and Marines) and think you're gonna live a long and happy life! These guys aren't innocent, they are trained to kill. If they die in the line of duty, then they are dying doing their job. People who think otherwise are out of touch with the reality of military life.
And that's really all I can think of to say about that. :)
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Politicals...
Something that bothers me about politics these days is the utterly lack of selflessness. Everyone, at least the more popular political groups, only care about their own hides and their own pocket boks and their own reputation.
I'm also very disappointed in the selfishness of the citizens of the United States. They don't care about what is good for everyone-- it's only about what is good for themselves, what they can immediately benifit from.
This makes for a bad bad place for us to be. We are a people who produce shady, self-serving politicians. We are the people who blissfully wollow in our ignorance enough to vote for them, and then vote for them again.
It really bothers me.
This is what I wish we could do. I wish we could take people from both sides of the political spectrum, and give them their own countries. I want to see just which system will work the best... in the long run. (Because it's the effects on later generations that will count the most.)
Is it the governments responsibility to feed the poor? Teach the children? Is it the people's responsibility to meat out justice? Can the people be righteous even with those they don't agree with?
Like on the Iron Chef, I want to know... Who's reasoning will reign supreme?! Let's have a contest and see who's ideas will come out on top.
Everyone's arguing and pulling each other down to the point where NOTHING is getting done. I want to have a final say on the practicallity of the things people are pushing for. I want things, good things, to get going! Because the way I see it, it's all a bunch negatives everywhere.
I wish I was really really REALLY rich. Because then I'd just buy a whole bunch of land and make a bunch of little "countries". Then I'd have the top thinkers in each political spectrum make a government for those little "coutries", and let people live there. I'd watch and see which ones made it.
Yeah. I'm done with my ranting now.
I'm also very disappointed in the selfishness of the citizens of the United States. They don't care about what is good for everyone-- it's only about what is good for themselves, what they can immediately benifit from.
This makes for a bad bad place for us to be. We are a people who produce shady, self-serving politicians. We are the people who blissfully wollow in our ignorance enough to vote for them, and then vote for them again.
It really bothers me.
This is what I wish we could do. I wish we could take people from both sides of the political spectrum, and give them their own countries. I want to see just which system will work the best... in the long run. (Because it's the effects on later generations that will count the most.)
Is it the governments responsibility to feed the poor? Teach the children? Is it the people's responsibility to meat out justice? Can the people be righteous even with those they don't agree with?
Like on the Iron Chef, I want to know... Who's reasoning will reign supreme?! Let's have a contest and see who's ideas will come out on top.
Everyone's arguing and pulling each other down to the point where NOTHING is getting done. I want to have a final say on the practicallity of the things people are pushing for. I want things, good things, to get going! Because the way I see it, it's all a bunch negatives everywhere.
I wish I was really really REALLY rich. Because then I'd just buy a whole bunch of land and make a bunch of little "countries". Then I'd have the top thinkers in each political spectrum make a government for those little "coutries", and let people live there. I'd watch and see which ones made it.
Yeah. I'm done with my ranting now.
Links, Links!
Coolness. I figured out how to make links on my side bar because of my friend Neo. I have a lot of links up too! I really had no idea I was so... linky. Hehehe. But now that I think about it, I do have a biiiiig favorites/bookmarks file! It was actually kinda hard to stop myself from over linking! :)
I may post later, I dunno. I've already got three other places I have to write in (uJournal, LiveJournal, AND DeadJournal). (You can check out my uJournal by clicking on the "Personal Online Journal" link.) It's hard to keep up with them all.... and this blog is hard to keep up with simply because it's semi-political. And it takes me FOREVER to write something political. :P
Anyway, hope you're all having a nice day. :)
Toodles!
I may post later, I dunno. I've already got three other places I have to write in (uJournal, LiveJournal, AND DeadJournal). (You can check out my uJournal by clicking on the "Personal Online Journal" link.) It's hard to keep up with them all.... and this blog is hard to keep up with simply because it's semi-political. And it takes me FOREVER to write something political. :P
Anyway, hope you're all having a nice day. :)
Toodles!
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
On CCM & Bunnie
For those of you who read WORLD Blog, and it's subblogs, you are probably aware of "Bunnie Diehl". If you aren't, you can find her HERE.
Anyway, she's got a reputation (with me anyway) about dislike--I'd say hating-- Contemporary Christian Music. I don't really mind that she dislikes it. There are lots of people who do, and there's nothing wrong with that. Musical preferences have been around for ages you know. :)
Her attitude, however, towards CCM is just.. well, to be cliche, un-Christlike. It's mean, derogatory, arrogant, and argumentative. It's never meant to uplift other Christians, to guide people closer to God, or to correct a sinful behavior.
CCM can be vague, backward, and poorly written/sung. However, it can also be the complete opposite. It just depends on where you look, and looking on the top ten charts are obviously not the best place.
I would listen to Bunnie a lot more if she could get over her attitude. Perhaps even just let go of the CCM "debate". It hasn't done anything but tear people apart.
As Christians, we should be able to forgive and let go. Not everything is about being "right". Somethings are about doing what's best for other people (this is called "love").
Maybe Bunnie will figure out that arguing about things isn't always the best way to show Christlike love.
Anyway, she's got a reputation (with me anyway) about dislike--I'd say hating-- Contemporary Christian Music. I don't really mind that she dislikes it. There are lots of people who do, and there's nothing wrong with that. Musical preferences have been around for ages you know. :)
Her attitude, however, towards CCM is just.. well, to be cliche, un-Christlike. It's mean, derogatory, arrogant, and argumentative. It's never meant to uplift other Christians, to guide people closer to God, or to correct a sinful behavior.
CCM can be vague, backward, and poorly written/sung. However, it can also be the complete opposite. It just depends on where you look, and looking on the top ten charts are obviously not the best place.
I would listen to Bunnie a lot more if she could get over her attitude. Perhaps even just let go of the CCM "debate". It hasn't done anything but tear people apart.
As Christians, we should be able to forgive and let go. Not everything is about being "right". Somethings are about doing what's best for other people (this is called "love").
Maybe Bunnie will figure out that arguing about things isn't always the best way to show Christlike love.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
On Religion
I have no problem with religion, as long as it's not causing people to kill each other. And even then, I would be skeptical if it's the religion itself that's the problem or the people. Because sometimes a religion doesn't advocate violence (or a certain type of it) and is simply being used as an excuse for it. (A bad one..)
However, that's not to say that some religions aren't violent. There are some that claim to be peaceful but aren't. People have just made them to be, and this is why it's easy for "extremist" to use that religion to do very bad things.
And that's all I gotta say about that!
However, that's not to say that some religions aren't violent. There are some that claim to be peaceful but aren't. People have just made them to be, and this is why it's easy for "extremist" to use that religion to do very bad things.
And that's all I gotta say about that!
Friday, June 04, 2004
Modesty
So I was thinking about Modesty. You know, dressing modestly for women.
An artical by WorldBLOG ("Modest Clothing") got me thinking about this. I commented in the blog how ugly most of these "modest" clothes make women look (not to mention fat). I wanted to know-- is it possible to look good and still be modest? As I suspected, the responses were "Modesty isn't about pretty".
I disagree with the way many godly people view modesty. Which is essentially, women having to wear dresses, etc, or anything that's very unflattering. If they wear something that looks good on them, they are being immodest.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives this defination:
Main Entry: mod·es·ty
Pronunciation: 'mä-d&-stE
Function: noun
1 : freedom from conceit or vanity
2 : propriety in dress, speech, or conduct
Today, what is proper dress? If you ever watched "What Not to Wear" on TLC you'll have a good idea. There are RULES (yes, there actually are!) to what is appropriate in the fashion world, and what is tacky and ugly. These rules can be (and are) surprisingly "conservative". But in America, the masses seem intent on ignoring these rules completely or following the pop-stars who don't know how to dress anyway.
I went over to Scotland last winter for Christmas, and we (my husband and I) were astonished at how GOOD everyone looked there. The women seemed to know how to look professional and stylish, without ever coming off as sexually alluring. Even women who had three kids in toe looked like they were going to a business meeting or a nice restuarant. (And this was the COMMON dress over there.. what everyone was wearing.)
Now, onto Biblical modesty....
"In the same way also, I desire that women adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and sensibleness, not adorned with braiding, or gold, or pearls, or costly clothing, but with good works, which becomes women professing godliness." 1 Timothy 2:9-10
Now, people may try to say that "decent clothing" is dresses to their ankles, or whatever. But that's not BIBLICAL. Biblical dress was more like what conservative Muslim women wear today(you know, showing everything but the eyes?). Obviously conseravtive Christians aren't dressing their girls (much less their men..) like that.
So, lets just say that this verse is more cultural than anything else. That is, depending on the culture you live in will depend on what is "decent" and what is not. And if that's the case, what can we take from this verse?
Essentially it comes down to, "Does this outfit distract people from the good works I do for the Lord?" This is how women should gauge what they wear. This doesn't mean women should look ugly, it means they shouldn't look flashy. Big difference. :)
And that's really all my brain can chew right now. Hope that gives people some food for thought. Not that anyone reads this... *laughs*
An artical by WorldBLOG ("Modest Clothing") got me thinking about this. I commented in the blog how ugly most of these "modest" clothes make women look (not to mention fat). I wanted to know-- is it possible to look good and still be modest? As I suspected, the responses were "Modesty isn't about pretty".
I disagree with the way many godly people view modesty. Which is essentially, women having to wear dresses, etc, or anything that's very unflattering. If they wear something that looks good on them, they are being immodest.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives this defination:
Main Entry: mod·es·ty
Pronunciation: 'mä-d&-stE
Function: noun
1 : freedom from conceit or vanity
2 : propriety in dress, speech, or conduct
Today, what is proper dress? If you ever watched "What Not to Wear" on TLC you'll have a good idea. There are RULES (yes, there actually are!) to what is appropriate in the fashion world, and what is tacky and ugly. These rules can be (and are) surprisingly "conservative". But in America, the masses seem intent on ignoring these rules completely or following the pop-stars who don't know how to dress anyway.
I went over to Scotland last winter for Christmas, and we (my husband and I) were astonished at how GOOD everyone looked there. The women seemed to know how to look professional and stylish, without ever coming off as sexually alluring. Even women who had three kids in toe looked like they were going to a business meeting or a nice restuarant. (And this was the COMMON dress over there.. what everyone was wearing.)
Now, onto Biblical modesty....
"In the same way also, I desire that women adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and sensibleness, not adorned with braiding, or gold, or pearls, or costly clothing, but with good works, which becomes women professing godliness." 1 Timothy 2:9-10
Now, people may try to say that "decent clothing" is dresses to their ankles, or whatever. But that's not BIBLICAL. Biblical dress was more like what conservative Muslim women wear today(you know, showing everything but the eyes?). Obviously conseravtive Christians aren't dressing their girls (much less their men..) like that.
So, lets just say that this verse is more cultural than anything else. That is, depending on the culture you live in will depend on what is "decent" and what is not. And if that's the case, what can we take from this verse?
Essentially it comes down to, "Does this outfit distract people from the good works I do for the Lord?" This is how women should gauge what they wear. This doesn't mean women should look ugly, it means they shouldn't look flashy. Big difference. :)
And that's really all my brain can chew right now. Hope that gives people some food for thought. Not that anyone reads this... *laughs*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)