First off, a statement of the obvious: the Middle East is one messed up place. I think we can all agree upon that. And no matter what anyone has done, peace in that region has been a fairy tale dream at best; a major catastrophe of "biblical" proportions at worst.
I keep wondering why we are so heavily invested in trying to barter peace there. The Left says that it is all about oil. The Right says we need so support our allies there. In one sense, they are both right. In another, I think they are standing on flimsy arguments. Let's take a look at the Left's side of it first.
Oil. Black gold. Texas "T". (Wait, did I just alienate some of my readers? Sorry 'bout that. Guess I'll have to go dunk my head in the ol' "cement pond".) No matter what Earth Day advocates have said, oil is still this nation's blood. No other energy source even comes close to the power and convenience of oil. We, in the United States, used to produce most of what we needed ourselves. Thus the "Texas 'T'" reference. But costs to produce it here have become so astronomical that it became cheaper to import it. That's where the Middle East comes in. That area of the world is one of the areas we get it. It's not the only place, but any drop in production there has a significant enough impact upon our nation that we will do anything to keep it flowing. Even poke our heads in wars of solely religious significance to those who live there.
Now, the Right says that we are there to support our allies. You know, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the on-again-off-again love affair with Iraq and Iran.
When we went into Iraq under President G.W. Bush, we were going in based on "supposed" Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Saddam Hussein even used them on his neighbor (Kuwait). We had "Intelligence" reports (I put that in quotation marks to signify that I question the validity of the existence of governmental "intelligence") that said he had them. After much feet dragging with the useless entity known as the United Nations, we finally went in to find that no, he didn't have any. "Bush lied / People died" became the chant of the left. But did he really lie?
Saddam DID indeed have WMDs. I'm not going to argue what happened to them during the foot dragging. That's not the issue. He DID have them. How do I know? Let me ask you a question: Where do you think he got them? Saddam was put in power by the U.S. as an "ally". We supplied him with the weapons to protect him from his neighbors. Do you honestly believe that Iraq had the technical knowledge to actually create and store such weapons? Really? Hell, even Iran - the country most-likely-to-get-a-nuke relies heavily on Russia for weapons. Most of the weapons these countries use are stamped "Made in" some other country than their own.
Which brings me to the whole "ally" argument of the Right. Why do we consider those religious nut jobs our allies in the first place? If we, the U.S., were to be invaded by a hostile nation, do you think any of those nations are going to send troops over here to support us?!? Yet, we send our troops there to protect them. Why? I'll tell you why: those nations are not our allies - they are our vendors. Our suppliers. I'd like to see the cost analysis comparing the cost of producing our own oil, or obtaining from non-hostile environments, versus the cost in weapons, aid, and the lives of our troops (yeah, place a dollar amount on THAT) currently spent.
"But J.P., Israel is not a source of oil. They ARE our ally." Israel "needs" our support. Is it really supporting them that when they are attacked we help barter a TEMPORARY cease fire that their enemies have CONSISTENTLY broken? You want to support Israel? Let them take care of themselves. They are fully capable of doing it on their own. Sure, that means those attacking them will have civilian casualties. In war they are called "collateral damage". If those civilians are in support of their government attacking Israel, they cannot be considered innocent civilians. If those civilians are not in support of their government attacking Israel, they have the responsibility to do something about that government.
I've read that the worst kind of call to respond to for the police is a domestic dispute. There's something to that.
As I mentioned above, those in the Middle East are fighting over religious differences. Do you realize, that before the Islamic takeover of those nations (think: sharia law), Muslims in that area were the leaders in technological and scientific advancements? Not so much any more. Their religious system has stifled any growth in those nations. And they want to force everyone else to follow suit. According to them, Israel has no right to exist. I've read the bible. It's hard to make the argument whether they have the right to that land or not. But they've been there for years. Should they now be kicked out because it belonged to someone else years ago? Let me ask my fellow Americans specifically: Would you move out of your house freely and hand your land over to the Native Americans/Indians/whatever-is-PC who lived there before? Do you think Alaska needs to go back to Russia? Heck, it was their land before it was our land.
This is a religious war. I say leave them alone and let the best God win.
© Emittravel 2014
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Sunday, August 3, 2014
The Light of the Moon
I’m writing you this
in the light of the moon,
under the stars
and dark of night.
Alone on the sea,
With nothing but the waves
striking my vessel.
The breeze is warm;
that which gently moves my hair.
And the sound of the earth
fills my soul
with solitude.
There is nothing to bother,
nothing to hamper,
the peace of night
on the ocean.
Yet,
in the midst
of all this beauty,
a cloud covers
the light of the moon,
and darkness fills the night.
My vision fades to that
which can be seen
by the sparseness of stars,
that still peer
through the shadow.
And with the darkness
that encompasses all,
comes the knowledge of the breeze,
in its never-ending movement,
that shall remove the cloud
from its path,
and once again fill the void
with that
of the light of the moon.
Oh how much does this,
this vision of mine eyes,
reflect an overpowering likeness,
of that
which envelopes our love.
I sit here
in the light of your love,
under the beauty
of God’s divine power.
Alone with myself,
with nothing but the thoughts of you
striking (oh so gently) my heart.
The time is slow,
that which gently moves our lives,
and the sound of my heart
fills my soul
with loneliness.
There is nothing to disturb,
nothing to hinder,
the peace of love
in my heart.
Yet,
in the midst
of all this love,
a cloud covers
the joy in my heart,
and despair fills my soul.
My hope fades to that
which can be hoped
with what love
that could survive,
through this cloud
which is separation.
And with the loneliness
that envelopes my being,
comes the knowledge of time,
in its never-ending movement,
that shall bring us together,
and once again fill the void
with that
of the light of the moon.
J.P. Wiegand
© Emittravel 1985
This one is kind of long, but it was written in two stages. The first portion was written while sitting on the deck, off the port side, of the USS Elrod (FFG-55) - you'll notice in the picture the "motor-whale boat" in the upper left portion of the shot. This part was actually written EXACTLY the way it took place. I went back in to finish the second portion due to lack of light.
The photo was taken back in 1986 while our ship was in the Caribbean. The USS Elrod has recently finished her last deployment and will be decommissioned. -j.p.
© Emittravel 2014
Monday, July 28, 2014
Stuck in Beta?
I just recently made the jump and installed the Developer Preview version of Windows Phone 8.1 (WP8.1) on my Lumia Icon phone.
(For those of you "non-tech-geeks" still reading this, don't worry - this isn't necessarily a "tech article", so you can keep reading.)
One of my co-workers was installing it on his phone and, through a chat, I decided to do the same thing. Only took about two hours in total (if that). There were multiple downloads and reboots that took place. Again, this is the Developer Preview version. When the "official" version gets rolled out via the cell phone carriers (I'm a Verizon customer), it should be the "complete" version (including updates and patches) and consist of only one download.
One of the neat features that came with WP8.1 is Cortana - a Siri / Google Now type interface. Previously, when you touched the search button on the phone, Bing search would launch and you would type your search (or, select the microphone icon and speak your search). Bing always provided textual results - like searching with Google on your desktop. Cortana replaces Bing (Bing is incorporated into Cortana), so Cortana launches when you click the search button. You can either type or speak your search. If you type, you get a textual result like before. If you speak, Cortana will respond verbally (and/or give you textual results if warranted.)
I noticed in the top right corner of the screen when Cortana is "running" the word "Beta". This is one of those terms that floats around that belong to the inner world of geeks and techies. I looked up a Wikipedia article on the Software Release Cycle that has a simple graph showing the testing and development periods of software. They are as follows:
Pre-alpha (a.k.a. development releases nightly builds)
Alpha
Beta
Release Candidate (a.k.a. Gamma Delta)
RTM (Release to Manufacturing) (a.k.a. Release to Marketing)
GA (General Availability)
Production or Live Release (a.k.a. Gold)
WP8.1 is either in RTM, GA, or Production - being that it is in the hands of carriers. As of this writing, AT&T has started rolling out 8.1, whereas Verizon still shows as "under testing". There is a firmware (software that directly affects the hardware - like drivers and such) update called "Cyan" that is due to be available at the same time as WP8.1, which was not available to download with the Developer Preview. When Verizon releases 8.1, it will include Cyan. But back to the Beta of Cortana.
One of the reasons I've read for how long Cortana will remain in Beta concerned the ever-evolving nature of the software. As more people use it, and it's database grows (and the software is tweaked with more features), Cortana will continue to become "more". At what point will Cortana leave the Beta stage is difficult to determine, mainly because of this type of growth.
Like I said in the second sentence of this article, the focus here is not "tech".
My question to you is, are you still in Beta? And if so, for how long?
Like Cortana, are you ever evolving? Are you constantly growing? Do you look for new experiences (and people) to facilitate this growth?
The bible makes reference to three basic salvations (being born again, born anew, or born from above - Greek shtuff). It says you've been saved (Ephesians 2:8), you are being saved (2 Corinthians 2:15), and you will be saved (Acts 15:11). It says you are saved by faith (or acceptance of…), not of works (you can't please your way to God - salvation is a gift, freely given, from God alone) (Ephesians 2:9). It also tells us to "work out your own salvation" (Philippians 2:12). Of course, this kind of "confusion" helps provide one of the reasons for all of the different denominations in Christianity. And yet, I don't think this is what the 5,000 foot view meant. And how does this connect with Beta? Continue!!
The bible considers that we are triune beings, made of Spirit (the part that is "like God"), the Soul (your will, intellect, emotions), and the Body (the physical part of you). When a person accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior, his Spirit is saved - or made new. That is the "been saved" (since the above references are from the letters written to Christians). When the rapture occurs (rapture is a word not in the bible - it is referred to in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17) the person receives a new body like the kind the risen Jesus has). This is the "will be saved". What about the "being saved"? This is where we get the "work out your own salvation" part. This is your Beta state. This is where you develop your Soul (your character, your intellect, your emotions, etc.).
You see, the Spirit part of you is pure - like God. You become "separated" from God by an act of your will (known as the age of "understanding"). When you are too young to understand the gospel (good news), your Spirit is still "connected" to God. Have you ever heard someone speaking in tongues? Sounds just like baby talk. Ever wonder why?
The Soul part is the part that communicates between the Spirit and the Body. We really see the connection with the Body. When any of the three parts is out of balance, there are problems. Mental illness, for the most part, is both a problem of the Soul AND the Body (issues with the brain that are often "adjusted" via medication).
This is why you and I are still in Beta - and will be for the rest of our lives. The only other way to get out of Beta is to stop updating. But, would you really like to consider yourself "perfect" at this point and stop experiencing new things in life?
I wouldn't.
© Emittravel 2014
(For those of you "non-tech-geeks" still reading this, don't worry - this isn't necessarily a "tech article", so you can keep reading.)
One of my co-workers was installing it on his phone and, through a chat, I decided to do the same thing. Only took about two hours in total (if that). There were multiple downloads and reboots that took place. Again, this is the Developer Preview version. When the "official" version gets rolled out via the cell phone carriers (I'm a Verizon customer), it should be the "complete" version (including updates and patches) and consist of only one download.
One of the neat features that came with WP8.1 is Cortana - a Siri / Google Now type interface. Previously, when you touched the search button on the phone, Bing search would launch and you would type your search (or, select the microphone icon and speak your search). Bing always provided textual results - like searching with Google on your desktop. Cortana replaces Bing (Bing is incorporated into Cortana), so Cortana launches when you click the search button. You can either type or speak your search. If you type, you get a textual result like before. If you speak, Cortana will respond verbally (and/or give you textual results if warranted.)
I noticed in the top right corner of the screen when Cortana is "running" the word "Beta". This is one of those terms that floats around that belong to the inner world of geeks and techies. I looked up a Wikipedia article on the Software Release Cycle that has a simple graph showing the testing and development periods of software. They are as follows:
Pre-alpha (a.k.a. development releases nightly builds)
Alpha
Beta
Release Candidate (a.k.a. Gamma Delta)
RTM (Release to Manufacturing) (a.k.a. Release to Marketing)
GA (General Availability)
Production or Live Release (a.k.a. Gold)
WP8.1 is either in RTM, GA, or Production - being that it is in the hands of carriers. As of this writing, AT&T has started rolling out 8.1, whereas Verizon still shows as "under testing". There is a firmware (software that directly affects the hardware - like drivers and such) update called "Cyan" that is due to be available at the same time as WP8.1, which was not available to download with the Developer Preview. When Verizon releases 8.1, it will include Cyan. But back to the Beta of Cortana.
One of the reasons I've read for how long Cortana will remain in Beta concerned the ever-evolving nature of the software. As more people use it, and it's database grows (and the software is tweaked with more features), Cortana will continue to become "more". At what point will Cortana leave the Beta stage is difficult to determine, mainly because of this type of growth.
Like I said in the second sentence of this article, the focus here is not "tech".
My question to you is, are you still in Beta? And if so, for how long?
Like Cortana, are you ever evolving? Are you constantly growing? Do you look for new experiences (and people) to facilitate this growth?
The bible makes reference to three basic salvations (being born again, born anew, or born from above - Greek shtuff). It says you've been saved (Ephesians 2:8), you are being saved (2 Corinthians 2:15), and you will be saved (Acts 15:11). It says you are saved by faith (or acceptance of…), not of works (you can't please your way to God - salvation is a gift, freely given, from God alone) (Ephesians 2:9). It also tells us to "work out your own salvation" (Philippians 2:12). Of course, this kind of "confusion" helps provide one of the reasons for all of the different denominations in Christianity. And yet, I don't think this is what the 5,000 foot view meant. And how does this connect with Beta? Continue!!
The bible considers that we are triune beings, made of Spirit (the part that is "like God"), the Soul (your will, intellect, emotions), and the Body (the physical part of you). When a person accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior, his Spirit is saved - or made new. That is the "been saved" (since the above references are from the letters written to Christians). When the rapture occurs (rapture is a word not in the bible - it is referred to in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17) the person receives a new body like the kind the risen Jesus has). This is the "will be saved". What about the "being saved"? This is where we get the "work out your own salvation" part. This is your Beta state. This is where you develop your Soul (your character, your intellect, your emotions, etc.).
You see, the Spirit part of you is pure - like God. You become "separated" from God by an act of your will (known as the age of "understanding"). When you are too young to understand the gospel (good news), your Spirit is still "connected" to God. Have you ever heard someone speaking in tongues? Sounds just like baby talk. Ever wonder why?
The Soul part is the part that communicates between the Spirit and the Body. We really see the connection with the Body. When any of the three parts is out of balance, there are problems. Mental illness, for the most part, is both a problem of the Soul AND the Body (issues with the brain that are often "adjusted" via medication).
This is why you and I are still in Beta - and will be for the rest of our lives. The only other way to get out of Beta is to stop updating. But, would you really like to consider yourself "perfect" at this point and stop experiencing new things in life?
I wouldn't.
© Emittravel 2014
Monday, July 21, 2014
Too Much of a Good Thing?
"Everything in moderation" is a piece of wisdom we've all heard many times. If you haven't, welcome to the wisdom club. Too much of anything is bad for you. Too little as well. Take oxygen for example: too much and you get cell damage, problems with the lungs, and seizures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity). Too little and … well … you die.
Most commonly that piece of wisdom focuses on not having "too much" of something. Don't believe that too much of something is hazardous? Outside of the oxygen reference above, have too much prune juice and see what happens. Or, have too much cheese and see what doesn't!
This wisdom is found across cultures, countries, and even religions. The bible makes reference to moderation in many areas. Actually, most things considered "sin" in the bible are just taking things to an unhealthy extreme. What is lust? Natural attraction on steroids.
There is one area I want to focus on in this article: alcohol. It is a topic of much discussion in the church, and there are people on both sides of it. In America, there is a serious problem with alcoholism. When it comes to discussions concerning legalizing marijuana, the harmful effects are often compared with the harmful effects of alcohol.
What are some of the things the bible says about alcohol?
"The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard …" (Isaiah 24:20a NKJV)
"Thus says the Lord God: 'You shall drink of your sister's cup. The deep and wide one; You shall be laughed to scorn and held in derision; it contains much. You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, the cup of horror and desolation, the cup of your sister Samaria. You shall drink and drain it, you shall break its shards, and tear at your own breasts; for I have spoken,' says the Lord God." (Ezekiel 23:33,34 NKJV)
"But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly." (Luke 21:34 NKJV)
"Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness …" (Romans 13:13a NKJV)
"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard …" (1 Corinthians 5:11a NKJV)
"And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit," (Ephesians 5:18 NKJV)
"For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober, …" (1 Thessalonians 5:7,8a NKJV)
"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles - when we walked in licentiousness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries." (1 Peter 4:3 NKJV)
Apparently, quite a lot. It is such verses as the above, and the affects of alcoholism on families and individuals touted in the media, that the church uses to condemn ANY drinking whatsoever. But is the condemnation of alcohol biblical?
I have a great pastor. One of the great things about him is that he puts up with the likes of me! As I've mentioned previously, I like to poke a stick at things. One time he was mentioning in part of a sermon that, according to science, we all had a little bit of Neanderthal in us. I texted him after that sermon asking him, "Does that mean Adam and Eve were Neanderthals?" (He never responded.) He is a fastidious teacher/preacher. He has often said that you must look at scripture in the context in which it was written, and to not add meaning that the writer did not intend. He is also not afraid to condemn alcohol from the pulpit based on the destructive qualities it has on families (his family in particular). I say those two ideas are in conflict with each other.
Alcoholism is a destructive thing in our society to be sure. But you can't use the bible to condemn it. The bible does not condemn drinking: it condemns drunkenness. And what is drunkenness? Drinking that is not in "moderation". Excessive.
"And put a knife to your throat if you are a man given to appetite." (Proverbs 23,2 NKJV)
"Do not mix with winebibbers, or with gluttonous eaters of meat; for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags." (Proverbs 23:20,21 NKJV)
"Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness …" (Ezekiel 16:49a NKJV)
"The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (Luke 7:34 NKJV)
As is shown in the above verses, gluttony, or overeating, is also a sin. In fact, in the bible it is on the same footing as drunkenness. Yet I've never seen a church who shunned pot luck dinners.
Once, at a men's advance (or "retreat"), a group of us went out to dinner at a local steakhouse. We had a rather long table with guys on both sides. I sat at the end. As the waiter went down one side of the table taking drink orders, he was told, "Coke", "Coke", "Diet Coke", "Pepsi. No Pepsi? Okay, Coke", "Iced tea", "water", "water", etc. He got to the guy across from me who ordered in a similar manner. He then started up the side I was on with me. I said, "I'll have a 'Corona'." The guy across from me asked me, "You're ordering a beer?!?" I said, "Yes. Beer and steak go well together." He turned to the waiter and said, "Can I change my order?"
Culture has a major impact on how the church handles itself. In places where the water isn't the greatest, wine and beer are preferred due to the sterilization that occurs during processing. We in America don't have that concern. But the church shouldn't add to scripture what wasn't intended. You can preach against alcohol in light of drunkenness, but don't condemn.
Like I like to say, if you consider one beer drunkenness, than you have to consider that small order of fries gluttony.
Moderation is the key to everything.
© Emittravel 2014
Most commonly that piece of wisdom focuses on not having "too much" of something. Don't believe that too much of something is hazardous? Outside of the oxygen reference above, have too much prune juice and see what happens. Or, have too much cheese and see what doesn't!
This wisdom is found across cultures, countries, and even religions. The bible makes reference to moderation in many areas. Actually, most things considered "sin" in the bible are just taking things to an unhealthy extreme. What is lust? Natural attraction on steroids.
There is one area I want to focus on in this article: alcohol. It is a topic of much discussion in the church, and there are people on both sides of it. In America, there is a serious problem with alcoholism. When it comes to discussions concerning legalizing marijuana, the harmful effects are often compared with the harmful effects of alcohol.
What are some of the things the bible says about alcohol?
"The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard …" (Isaiah 24:20a NKJV)
"Thus says the Lord God: 'You shall drink of your sister's cup. The deep and wide one; You shall be laughed to scorn and held in derision; it contains much. You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, the cup of horror and desolation, the cup of your sister Samaria. You shall drink and drain it, you shall break its shards, and tear at your own breasts; for I have spoken,' says the Lord God." (Ezekiel 23:33,34 NKJV)
"But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly." (Luke 21:34 NKJV)
"Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness …" (Romans 13:13a NKJV)
"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard …" (1 Corinthians 5:11a NKJV)
"And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit," (Ephesians 5:18 NKJV)
"For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober, …" (1 Thessalonians 5:7,8a NKJV)
"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles - when we walked in licentiousness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries." (1 Peter 4:3 NKJV)
Apparently, quite a lot. It is such verses as the above, and the affects of alcoholism on families and individuals touted in the media, that the church uses to condemn ANY drinking whatsoever. But is the condemnation of alcohol biblical?
I have a great pastor. One of the great things about him is that he puts up with the likes of me! As I've mentioned previously, I like to poke a stick at things. One time he was mentioning in part of a sermon that, according to science, we all had a little bit of Neanderthal in us. I texted him after that sermon asking him, "Does that mean Adam and Eve were Neanderthals?" (He never responded.) He is a fastidious teacher/preacher. He has often said that you must look at scripture in the context in which it was written, and to not add meaning that the writer did not intend. He is also not afraid to condemn alcohol from the pulpit based on the destructive qualities it has on families (his family in particular). I say those two ideas are in conflict with each other.
Alcoholism is a destructive thing in our society to be sure. But you can't use the bible to condemn it. The bible does not condemn drinking: it condemns drunkenness. And what is drunkenness? Drinking that is not in "moderation". Excessive.
"And put a knife to your throat if you are a man given to appetite." (Proverbs 23,2 NKJV)
"Do not mix with winebibbers, or with gluttonous eaters of meat; for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags." (Proverbs 23:20,21 NKJV)
"Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness …" (Ezekiel 16:49a NKJV)
"The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (Luke 7:34 NKJV)
As is shown in the above verses, gluttony, or overeating, is also a sin. In fact, in the bible it is on the same footing as drunkenness. Yet I've never seen a church who shunned pot luck dinners.
Once, at a men's advance (or "retreat"), a group of us went out to dinner at a local steakhouse. We had a rather long table with guys on both sides. I sat at the end. As the waiter went down one side of the table taking drink orders, he was told, "Coke", "Coke", "Diet Coke", "Pepsi. No Pepsi? Okay, Coke", "Iced tea", "water", "water", etc. He got to the guy across from me who ordered in a similar manner. He then started up the side I was on with me. I said, "I'll have a 'Corona'." The guy across from me asked me, "You're ordering a beer?!?" I said, "Yes. Beer and steak go well together." He turned to the waiter and said, "Can I change my order?"
Culture has a major impact on how the church handles itself. In places where the water isn't the greatest, wine and beer are preferred due to the sterilization that occurs during processing. We in America don't have that concern. But the church shouldn't add to scripture what wasn't intended. You can preach against alcohol in light of drunkenness, but don't condemn.
Like I like to say, if you consider one beer drunkenness, than you have to consider that small order of fries gluttony.
Moderation is the key to everything.
© Emittravel 2014
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Stuff My Brain Says #71
In the course of three short conversation topics I found a common theme.
In one topic, the person I was speaking with mentioned only relaxing (in reference to vacations) during time at a pool or a massage. I told the person I can't relax in a massage, because I'm afraid that if I do I might pee myself (and now so will you!).
In the next topic, I mentioned I don't like going to movie theaters, because you can't pause the movie to go to the bathroom (we even pause TV shows on Netflix or DVD at least once - not necessarily to pee; sometimes we are putting in, not putting out ... ).
In the third topic, I told of riding my motorcycle home from work. I wear chaps when I'm not wearing jeans, so most rides to and from work I wear chaps over the dress pants. One day I'm riding and a large storm cloud comes across in front of me. I'm thinking, "Holy crap, I'm going to get soaked." Just as the storm cloud passes, and I breathe a sigh of relief for missing it, the rain comes down and I get soaked. Okay, not necessarily soaked: I'm wearing chaps. Now, chaps cover your legs well, but they do not cover your butt, nor the area that is not considered your butt (front). So, when I get home and take off my chaps, my legs are dry; my butt is dry; my crotch looks like I pissed me a river.
Maybe it's the fact that as we get older, we tend to focus on life's "basic functions". Maybe, and maybe not. Either way I've come to the conclusion that I may not be only mentally incompetent, but I'm also mentally incontinent.
© Emittravel 2014
In one topic, the person I was speaking with mentioned only relaxing (in reference to vacations) during time at a pool or a massage. I told the person I can't relax in a massage, because I'm afraid that if I do I might pee myself (and now so will you!).
In the next topic, I mentioned I don't like going to movie theaters, because you can't pause the movie to go to the bathroom (we even pause TV shows on Netflix or DVD at least once - not necessarily to pee; sometimes we are putting in, not putting out ... ).
In the third topic, I told of riding my motorcycle home from work. I wear chaps when I'm not wearing jeans, so most rides to and from work I wear chaps over the dress pants. One day I'm riding and a large storm cloud comes across in front of me. I'm thinking, "Holy crap, I'm going to get soaked." Just as the storm cloud passes, and I breathe a sigh of relief for missing it, the rain comes down and I get soaked. Okay, not necessarily soaked: I'm wearing chaps. Now, chaps cover your legs well, but they do not cover your butt, nor the area that is not considered your butt (front). So, when I get home and take off my chaps, my legs are dry; my butt is dry; my crotch looks like I pissed me a river.
Maybe it's the fact that as we get older, we tend to focus on life's "basic functions". Maybe, and maybe not. Either way I've come to the conclusion that I may not be only mentally incompetent, but I'm also mentally incontinent.
© Emittravel 2014
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
More Questions than Answers
What follows is a letter to the editor of my parents' local newspaper. My father asked me if I would write the letter, because for some reason he thinks that since I write a blog, I know how to express myself well. Apparently he doesn't READ my blog ...
I wrote the letter and sent it to him. He sent it to the paper (The News Leader) with hopes it would make it into the next edition. Unfortunately, we had missed the deadline for that edition. Instead of holding it until the next, my father told them not to print it.
Since it took some time for me to produce this, I thought I'd share it. The title and direction were provided by my wife, since, after reading the resource material, I had "More Questions Than Answers".
-------
This letter is in response to the article, "Village Council approves 2014 budget by county's extended deadline" by Eric Moriotta, and the opinion letter, "Councilman explains veto of budget" by Gary C. Vojtush; both appearing in the May 7, 2014 issue of this newspaper.
According to both, the council voted to approve/disapprove the budget at the April 23 meeting. This is seven days prior to the extended deadline of April 30, which was initially due by March 31. Mr. Vojtush pointed out that the 2014 budget was approved, even though the finance department had failed to provide accurate numbers, and that the full results of the special audit had not been received.
After reading both the article and letter I find that there are more questions than answers.
State law requires the annual appropriations be determined by March 31. What happens if that deadline passes and no budget has been finalized? What are the penalties, if any? Does the city in question resort to the previous year's budget, or does a temporary budget go into place? Was it possible to pass a temporary budget, say for the next quarter, until the audit information has been received, or did a full year's budget have to be passed?
According to Law Director Brad Bryan, as stated in the article, "the auditors had completed everything except official financial statements." Were those official statements required in order to bring the budget to a vote, or were the preliminary documents enough? How much time did the council have to review the preliminary documents? Did the council act with the understanding that they would not have enough information to pass the budget?
Some say that government is too slow of a process in today's "instant" culture. There are times when I have to agree. There are also times when I have to concede with our country's founding fathers, who designed government to be slow and deliberate, lest they rush and cause harm ("Patriot Act" and "ObamaCare" for example). Maybe, just maybe, the council acted in haste. Or, were they doing their duty?
© Emittravel 2014
I wrote the letter and sent it to him. He sent it to the paper (The News Leader) with hopes it would make it into the next edition. Unfortunately, we had missed the deadline for that edition. Instead of holding it until the next, my father told them not to print it.
Since it took some time for me to produce this, I thought I'd share it. The title and direction were provided by my wife, since, after reading the resource material, I had "More Questions Than Answers".
-------
This letter is in response to the article, "Village Council approves 2014 budget by county's extended deadline" by Eric Moriotta, and the opinion letter, "Councilman explains veto of budget" by Gary C. Vojtush; both appearing in the May 7, 2014 issue of this newspaper.
According to both, the council voted to approve/disapprove the budget at the April 23 meeting. This is seven days prior to the extended deadline of April 30, which was initially due by March 31. Mr. Vojtush pointed out that the 2014 budget was approved, even though the finance department had failed to provide accurate numbers, and that the full results of the special audit had not been received.
After reading both the article and letter I find that there are more questions than answers.
State law requires the annual appropriations be determined by March 31. What happens if that deadline passes and no budget has been finalized? What are the penalties, if any? Does the city in question resort to the previous year's budget, or does a temporary budget go into place? Was it possible to pass a temporary budget, say for the next quarter, until the audit information has been received, or did a full year's budget have to be passed?
According to Law Director Brad Bryan, as stated in the article, "the auditors had completed everything except official financial statements." Were those official statements required in order to bring the budget to a vote, or were the preliminary documents enough? How much time did the council have to review the preliminary documents? Did the council act with the understanding that they would not have enough information to pass the budget?
Some say that government is too slow of a process in today's "instant" culture. There are times when I have to agree. There are also times when I have to concede with our country's founding fathers, who designed government to be slow and deliberate, lest they rush and cause harm ("Patriot Act" and "ObamaCare" for example). Maybe, just maybe, the council acted in haste. Or, were they doing their duty?
© Emittravel 2014
Saturday, May 3, 2014
The Bible Paul Uses
Many years ago I held a part-time job at a Christian bookstore. Back then I would wear t-shirts with phrases best left to bible tracts people would hand out on busy streets. I had one that had a picture of Jesus on the cross with the words "If I'm okay, and you're okay, explain this" on the front. On the back it said "The righteousness that He requires is the righteousness His righteousness requires Him to require". Yeah. I know. But that was me back then.
Back to the bookstore. A common item looked for in this type of store, besides Precious Moments figurines, is the bible. One day a lady came in shopping for a bible and I took her over to where they were located. There was practically an entire wall of them, with many, many translations you could choose from. So I asked her what translation she was looking for and she replied, "The original. The King James Version (KJV), of course." So I reached over and grabbed the only copy of the 1611 KJV we had in the store, opened it randomly, and handed it to her:
"For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life." (John 3:16)
She took one look at that and said, "Maybe not THAT original." I said, "Oh, you want and updated translation," and handed her a modern KJV bible.
(And as a side note, the KJV has received updates periodically over the years. Unless it is the 1611 version, it is NOT the original KJV.)
I tell that story to make a point (outside of the fact that I like to "poke things" with a stick): Unless you can read, and comprehend, the original TEXT of the bible, EVERY bible you pick up will be an interpretation of the text. And, since all translations are the work of people, bias is included. That is why I keep switching the translation I'm reading.
My pastor makes the joke that he reads the KJV because that's the bible Paul used (the apostle Paul - who is credited with writing the majority of the New Testament epistles). A lot of people say the KJV is the only authorized translation and should be the only one used. Maybe because it says it's "the authorized translation" as part of the title page. But authorized by whom? It was authorized by King James. I don't think there was a burning bush moment here.
One thing I've noticed, after all the years of listening to sermons, is that the KJV is not the best translation to use. Here is an example:
"Suffer the little children to come unto me." vs. "Permit the little children to come to me." Every time I hear a minister read that verse he follows it with the "Permit" version. If the KJV was so perfect, why do we need the minister to re-interpret it into modern-day language? Once the minister starts to dissect a verse, he/she IS giving you a "new" translation. A translation based on his/her interpretation of the scripture - just by putting it into a language the listener would understand.
I use the above example because it is so blatantly obvious. When we hear the word "suffer" we don't think "allow or permit". So to have the word updated to use a term that is more in line with our language should be welcomed. Do we have the same issue with a bible translated into Spanish, or German, or Swahili? Of course not.
So, not only do Christians argue about what the bible says, and how it applies to the world around us, they argue about what version of bible they should use to beat one over the head with.
Me? I prefer to use a soft-bound edition - less damaging than a hard-bound.
© Emittravel 2014
Back to the bookstore. A common item looked for in this type of store, besides Precious Moments figurines, is the bible. One day a lady came in shopping for a bible and I took her over to where they were located. There was practically an entire wall of them, with many, many translations you could choose from. So I asked her what translation she was looking for and she replied, "The original. The King James Version (KJV), of course." So I reached over and grabbed the only copy of the 1611 KJV we had in the store, opened it randomly, and handed it to her:
"For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life." (John 3:16)
She took one look at that and said, "Maybe not THAT original." I said, "Oh, you want and updated translation," and handed her a modern KJV bible.
(And as a side note, the KJV has received updates periodically over the years. Unless it is the 1611 version, it is NOT the original KJV.)
I tell that story to make a point (outside of the fact that I like to "poke things" with a stick): Unless you can read, and comprehend, the original TEXT of the bible, EVERY bible you pick up will be an interpretation of the text. And, since all translations are the work of people, bias is included. That is why I keep switching the translation I'm reading.
My pastor makes the joke that he reads the KJV because that's the bible Paul used (the apostle Paul - who is credited with writing the majority of the New Testament epistles). A lot of people say the KJV is the only authorized translation and should be the only one used. Maybe because it says it's "the authorized translation" as part of the title page. But authorized by whom? It was authorized by King James. I don't think there was a burning bush moment here.
One thing I've noticed, after all the years of listening to sermons, is that the KJV is not the best translation to use. Here is an example:
"Suffer the little children to come unto me." vs. "Permit the little children to come to me." Every time I hear a minister read that verse he follows it with the "Permit" version. If the KJV was so perfect, why do we need the minister to re-interpret it into modern-day language? Once the minister starts to dissect a verse, he/she IS giving you a "new" translation. A translation based on his/her interpretation of the scripture - just by putting it into a language the listener would understand.
I use the above example because it is so blatantly obvious. When we hear the word "suffer" we don't think "allow or permit". So to have the word updated to use a term that is more in line with our language should be welcomed. Do we have the same issue with a bible translated into Spanish, or German, or Swahili? Of course not.
So, not only do Christians argue about what the bible says, and how it applies to the world around us, they argue about what version of bible they should use to beat one over the head with.
Me? I prefer to use a soft-bound edition - less damaging than a hard-bound.
© Emittravel 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)