Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test
One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test
One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!
One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!
Monday, June 12, 2006
Maggie Gallagher on Mitt Romney and Gay Marriage on National Review Online
Maggie Gallagher on Mitt Romney and Gay Marriage on National Review Online
Mitt Romney has the argument I've been looking for and slowly developing for 3 years. Marriage is about the children, not the adults. Here it is! Ac lear argument about the real issue at stake. I don't need to say much. Mitt Romney says it all.
Mitt Romney has the argument I've been looking for and slowly developing for 3 years. Marriage is about the children, not the adults. Here it is! Ac lear argument about the real issue at stake. I don't need to say much. Mitt Romney says it all.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Responsibility?
BBC NEWS | Europe | Fears of Poland's gay community
"I want to live in a country which respects human rights."
Ever heard of human responsibility? The liberals in support of gay marriage go off about human rights, but they ignore the fact that along with these rights come responsiblities. Or they do not recognize which responsibilities are necessary to preserve any human society. I can understand the anger against those who threaten homosexuals. That's a righteous anger against those who simply hate. but there is a failure to recognize that there are those who hate the action because it does not promote the continuance of the human race. It promotes sheer self-indulgence, nothing else.
There is a lumping together of those who oppose homosexuals and those who oppose homosexuality. There is a difference it is an important one. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. It is a sickness. It causes to people to seek happiness in something that, ultimately, will not bring it to them. But this does not mean we need to hate them. They are making a mistake, but hating them will not save anything.
It's like alcoholism. I know someone who was an alcoholic. He struggled with it greatly. It was a deviant behavior that was ruining his chances of a happy life. But his family didn't give up on him. They recognized that there was a difference between the man and the problem. They knew that this man, after you got past the alcohol, was good. His family continued to love him and help him. This doesn't mean they accepted the problem. Loving him and rejecting the problem was possible and necessary. Eventually, he overcame the problem. He is no longer an alcoholic and today is a great man.
We need to look at homosexuality the same way. We can't just reject those who struggle with the problem. We can and need to love them. But this does not mean we accept the problem. It is still a problem. So, we love the person and do our best to help them overcome this challenge. This deviance is not a central part of their personality, their essence, their soul. it can be taken away and they will still be a whole person. In fact, they will be overcoming something that was holding them back.
The great crime of homosexuality is that it focuses a person on themself. It is all about fulfilling their own desires. That is why I believe the only time and place for sex is after marriage. At this point, it's no longer about the individuals involved. It's about the couple. Or, at the least, it is a great deal more likely. Many will point out that many get divorce, have affairs, or simply do not wait until marriage. But that's not the point. Giving up on loyal heterosexual marriage simply because not everyone met its requirements is stupid. The fualt isn't in the institution. It's in humankind. We fall short of the ideal. And destroying the ideal simply because not everyone can meet it doesn't solve the problem. it makes it worse. Now no one has anything to strive for. The rules and bounds that kept society in check, that limited teenage pregnancy, the spread of STDS. fatherless children, divorce, etc. have been abandoned beause they didn't work perfectly, because they were to restrictive. People ignored their true purpose and called it meaningless tradition based on the desire for rich men to gain power over others. And today we see the results. I can lay, with confidence, a great deal of the problems of today's world at the feet of liberals who sought greater freedom, ignoring consequences.
I want human rights, but let's remember that along with every right comes responsibility and consequence.
"I want to live in a country which respects human rights."
Ever heard of human responsibility? The liberals in support of gay marriage go off about human rights, but they ignore the fact that along with these rights come responsiblities. Or they do not recognize which responsibilities are necessary to preserve any human society. I can understand the anger against those who threaten homosexuals. That's a righteous anger against those who simply hate. but there is a failure to recognize that there are those who hate the action because it does not promote the continuance of the human race. It promotes sheer self-indulgence, nothing else.
There is a lumping together of those who oppose homosexuals and those who oppose homosexuality. There is a difference it is an important one. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. It is a sickness. It causes to people to seek happiness in something that, ultimately, will not bring it to them. But this does not mean we need to hate them. They are making a mistake, but hating them will not save anything.
It's like alcoholism. I know someone who was an alcoholic. He struggled with it greatly. It was a deviant behavior that was ruining his chances of a happy life. But his family didn't give up on him. They recognized that there was a difference between the man and the problem. They knew that this man, after you got past the alcohol, was good. His family continued to love him and help him. This doesn't mean they accepted the problem. Loving him and rejecting the problem was possible and necessary. Eventually, he overcame the problem. He is no longer an alcoholic and today is a great man.
We need to look at homosexuality the same way. We can't just reject those who struggle with the problem. We can and need to love them. But this does not mean we accept the problem. It is still a problem. So, we love the person and do our best to help them overcome this challenge. This deviance is not a central part of their personality, their essence, their soul. it can be taken away and they will still be a whole person. In fact, they will be overcoming something that was holding them back.
The great crime of homosexuality is that it focuses a person on themself. It is all about fulfilling their own desires. That is why I believe the only time and place for sex is after marriage. At this point, it's no longer about the individuals involved. It's about the couple. Or, at the least, it is a great deal more likely. Many will point out that many get divorce, have affairs, or simply do not wait until marriage. But that's not the point. Giving up on loyal heterosexual marriage simply because not everyone met its requirements is stupid. The fualt isn't in the institution. It's in humankind. We fall short of the ideal. And destroying the ideal simply because not everyone can meet it doesn't solve the problem. it makes it worse. Now no one has anything to strive for. The rules and bounds that kept society in check, that limited teenage pregnancy, the spread of STDS. fatherless children, divorce, etc. have been abandoned beause they didn't work perfectly, because they were to restrictive. People ignored their true purpose and called it meaningless tradition based on the desire for rich men to gain power over others. And today we see the results. I can lay, with confidence, a great deal of the problems of today's world at the feet of liberals who sought greater freedom, ignoring consequences.
I want human rights, but let's remember that along with every right comes responsibility and consequence.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Family
So, I was thinking about what we need to do to preserve this nation. Considering my audience, I probably don't have to explain what I mean. It's fairly clear that we're falling apart. So what's the solution? Well, I don't have one for many issues. Especially for things like Iraq, Iran, oil, nuclear weapons, Hugo Chavez, etc. Those are big questions that I don't know enough about, though I continually learn more about them and hope, someday, to have some ideas.
There is something more basic that needs to be done, though. All of those things, they're outside forces. They are all partially controlled or entirely controlled by other nations or forces that we can't control, no matter how hard we try. They present a danger and we need to do something, but we're limited in what we can do. And, most importantly, they are not the greatest threat.
The biggest threat, the most basic, is within our own society. It's the fabric that binds this nation together, that binds any nation together. It's the foundation upon which all communities, from the smallest neighborhood to the greatest nation, are built on. Once again, considering my audience, you know what I'm talking about. The family.
Our society is falling apart. I don't need to list what's happening. We all know it. We've seen it, we've experienced it. It's affected me deeply. Thankfully, I don't face any of the problems, but I've seen one of my closest friends struggle with the results of a shattered family. It's not easy and it's not pretty. He's in good shape now, but he will forever be changed by his experiences.
We don't want this. It causes too much pain. I hate it. I hate watching my friends struggle with divorced parents. I hate watching friends sleeping around. I hate watching friends lose brothers and sisters to drugs, alcohol, and whatever else is out there. I hate the excess of so much that is damaging this world. I hate the lack of everything this world needs.
What we need is a strong family for every person, for every child. Sure it's idealistic. So what? A 4.0 is idealistic. I bit more achievable, but idealistic. It's the ideal of every student. Those that don't strive for it, don't get it. Those who do, may not get it either. But are they worse off for trying? Usually, no, if they didn't sacrifice more important things for it. So, the ideal is a benefit. It is our goal and what we will strive for. Settling for anything less is failure.
So, the beginning? Strengthen marriage. You can't do much with any family without a good mother and father. That's right, mother and father. That's your only option. Mother and father. Anything else has nothing to do with the kids and is a selfish union for the sake of the ones entering into it. Anything else defies what is natural, good, and sacred. Here is the main reason that a Federal Marriage Amendment is a good idea. It strengthens marriage. Because of the wording of the amendment, some have expressed fears that any relationship between two people besides marriage will be discouraged. Ask any quality sociologist if this is a bad thing.
This is a great start. It is a reminder that marriage is about more than just two people being in love. Anybody can fall in love. That's easy. It's also easy to fall out of love. There really isn't a lot to it, alone. What makes it significant is when there is a commitment, a covenant between the two that fall in love. Then, there is something that will last. The commitment plus the love unite to create something that will last, in society, for all time and, in the church, for all eternity.
What this society has forgotten is the commitment part. They're all about falling in love. People fall in love left and right. And there's no discrimination in what they fall in love with. And as a result, we have millions of lonely, broken hearts, with painful ties that don't just affect the lives of the poor, disillusioned lovers, but also the children they conceived and the other lovers they betrayed and...well, you get the picture. It's not a desirable world.
So, this amendment can help remind the nation of the commitment. Define marriage officially. A lot of people complain, "well, there's not mention of marriage in the constitution." Well, duh. That's because up until the 1960's, people had enough common sense to know what marriage was. And then the experimenting started, walls that never should have been torn down were torn down, and the resulting flood washed away the firm definition of marriage that has existed for all of human history, with some notable exceptions (mostly notable because every society that allowed exceptions collapsed shortly after). So, with that public definition gone, we need to write it down more firmly than just in the public consensus. It needs to be in stone. Well, on paper and in computers. But, something tangible which cannot be violated. Namely, the Constitution.
Once we have this definition, we can move on. But, that's for another post. I hope you enjoyed my rambling. I just kind of laid out the thoughts as they came to me. Hope it makes sense.
There is something more basic that needs to be done, though. All of those things, they're outside forces. They are all partially controlled or entirely controlled by other nations or forces that we can't control, no matter how hard we try. They present a danger and we need to do something, but we're limited in what we can do. And, most importantly, they are not the greatest threat.
The biggest threat, the most basic, is within our own society. It's the fabric that binds this nation together, that binds any nation together. It's the foundation upon which all communities, from the smallest neighborhood to the greatest nation, are built on. Once again, considering my audience, you know what I'm talking about. The family.
Our society is falling apart. I don't need to list what's happening. We all know it. We've seen it, we've experienced it. It's affected me deeply. Thankfully, I don't face any of the problems, but I've seen one of my closest friends struggle with the results of a shattered family. It's not easy and it's not pretty. He's in good shape now, but he will forever be changed by his experiences.
We don't want this. It causes too much pain. I hate it. I hate watching my friends struggle with divorced parents. I hate watching friends sleeping around. I hate watching friends lose brothers and sisters to drugs, alcohol, and whatever else is out there. I hate the excess of so much that is damaging this world. I hate the lack of everything this world needs.
What we need is a strong family for every person, for every child. Sure it's idealistic. So what? A 4.0 is idealistic. I bit more achievable, but idealistic. It's the ideal of every student. Those that don't strive for it, don't get it. Those who do, may not get it either. But are they worse off for trying? Usually, no, if they didn't sacrifice more important things for it. So, the ideal is a benefit. It is our goal and what we will strive for. Settling for anything less is failure.
So, the beginning? Strengthen marriage. You can't do much with any family without a good mother and father. That's right, mother and father. That's your only option. Mother and father. Anything else has nothing to do with the kids and is a selfish union for the sake of the ones entering into it. Anything else defies what is natural, good, and sacred. Here is the main reason that a Federal Marriage Amendment is a good idea. It strengthens marriage. Because of the wording of the amendment, some have expressed fears that any relationship between two people besides marriage will be discouraged. Ask any quality sociologist if this is a bad thing.
This is a great start. It is a reminder that marriage is about more than just two people being in love. Anybody can fall in love. That's easy. It's also easy to fall out of love. There really isn't a lot to it, alone. What makes it significant is when there is a commitment, a covenant between the two that fall in love. Then, there is something that will last. The commitment plus the love unite to create something that will last, in society, for all time and, in the church, for all eternity.
What this society has forgotten is the commitment part. They're all about falling in love. People fall in love left and right. And there's no discrimination in what they fall in love with. And as a result, we have millions of lonely, broken hearts, with painful ties that don't just affect the lives of the poor, disillusioned lovers, but also the children they conceived and the other lovers they betrayed and...well, you get the picture. It's not a desirable world.
So, this amendment can help remind the nation of the commitment. Define marriage officially. A lot of people complain, "well, there's not mention of marriage in the constitution." Well, duh. That's because up until the 1960's, people had enough common sense to know what marriage was. And then the experimenting started, walls that never should have been torn down were torn down, and the resulting flood washed away the firm definition of marriage that has existed for all of human history, with some notable exceptions (mostly notable because every society that allowed exceptions collapsed shortly after). So, with that public definition gone, we need to write it down more firmly than just in the public consensus. It needs to be in stone. Well, on paper and in computers. But, something tangible which cannot be violated. Namely, the Constitution.
Once we have this definition, we can move on. But, that's for another post. I hope you enjoyed my rambling. I just kind of laid out the thoughts as they came to me. Hope it makes sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)