Of course, by this logic, none of us could afford to go to seminary.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
I Might Pay Money
I might pay money to have Tom Cruise attempt to "give me a beatdown." Then again, I'm not a lapsed Scientologist.
Emphasis on attempt.
Emphasis on attempt.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Has Chris Matthews Been Calling al-Qaeda?
Last night on Twitter, a bunch of folks RT'd a clip of Chris Matthews asking if it was a crime to call al-Qaeda.
The first thought that came across my mind was "Chris Matthews is asking that question because he's been calling al-Qaeda. And now he's worried that he might be in trouble." lol
But he probably never actually talked to them because al-Qaeda wouldn't accept the charges for his collect calls.
The first thought that came across my mind was "Chris Matthews is asking that question because he's been calling al-Qaeda. And now he's worried that he might be in trouble." lol
But he probably never actually talked to them because al-Qaeda wouldn't accept the charges for his collect calls.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Crucify him! Crucify him!
A lot of people are angry and upset at Congressman Cao because he voted for the House version of socialized medicine (HR 3962). I'm not saying they shouldn't be angry, but...
I just don't see the point in crucifying him. What does it accomplish? I'd argue that it's counter-productive.
And think about it a little bit. Look at his district. He occupies the seat formerly held by William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, who is now a convicted felon. In other words, Cao was not elected with a conservative mandate. Cao was elected because his opponent was a corrupt crook, and the constitutents actually had the guts to throw the bum out of office. They didn't vote for Cao so much as they voted against Jefferson.
Also, this bill would have passed anyway. I don't think Cao is a RINO. He's simply a conservative in a liberal district. Maybe I'm wrong - I'm not sure. But when you're in his position (also keep in mind that this is only Cao's first term in office - he hasn't earned the political capital within his district or the staying power of incumbency), you don't always have the luxury to vote your conscience on an issue when your distrect sees it differently.
Think about it this way: what happens to Cao if he votes against this bill? The bill passes anyway and his district votes him out of office by electing a Democrat in 2010. This bill needs to die in the Senate, not the House. It doesn't do any good for Cao to vote against it, other than the fact that the Democrats can claim it had bi-partisan support because there was one (and only one) Republican who voted for the bill.
I watched the vote live on C-SPAN. If I remember correctly, the one Republican vote for the bill did not show up until after 218 Democrats cast their "yes" votes to pass the bill. Cao waited for the Democrats to get there all by themselves before casting his vote.
If you want to be fired up about Cao's vote, channel that passion into getting conservatives elected where you live. For the next year, conservatives should spend their money and their time electing conservatives at the federal, state, and local levels WHERE THEY LIVE.
Do you live in Cao's district? If you do, then you have a right to work against him in the next general election. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the people bent out of shape about Cao's vote are represented by Democrats who voted for the bill. Why should Cao committ political suicide on a bill he can't do anything to stop? It makes absolutely no sense for him to die on that hill.
The Cao vote is unsettling, but people need to take care of the planks in their own eyes first. And we need to know better than to call Cao a RINO and have him burned at the stake. There are such things as RINOs, but we do the conservative movement much harm by using the term loosely.
(And for the people who bring up "What about NY-23?" Should concerned citizens have stayed out of it given this logic? Then answer is no for three reasons - it was a SPECIAL election, there were obvious extenuating circumstances, and national forces including parties and Organizing for America were involved.)
I just don't see the point in crucifying him. What does it accomplish? I'd argue that it's counter-productive.
And think about it a little bit. Look at his district. He occupies the seat formerly held by William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, who is now a convicted felon. In other words, Cao was not elected with a conservative mandate. Cao was elected because his opponent was a corrupt crook, and the constitutents actually had the guts to throw the bum out of office. They didn't vote for Cao so much as they voted against Jefferson.
Also, this bill would have passed anyway. I don't think Cao is a RINO. He's simply a conservative in a liberal district. Maybe I'm wrong - I'm not sure. But when you're in his position (also keep in mind that this is only Cao's first term in office - he hasn't earned the political capital within his district or the staying power of incumbency), you don't always have the luxury to vote your conscience on an issue when your distrect sees it differently.
Think about it this way: what happens to Cao if he votes against this bill? The bill passes anyway and his district votes him out of office by electing a Democrat in 2010. This bill needs to die in the Senate, not the House. It doesn't do any good for Cao to vote against it, other than the fact that the Democrats can claim it had bi-partisan support because there was one (and only one) Republican who voted for the bill.
I watched the vote live on C-SPAN. If I remember correctly, the one Republican vote for the bill did not show up until after 218 Democrats cast their "yes" votes to pass the bill. Cao waited for the Democrats to get there all by themselves before casting his vote.
If you want to be fired up about Cao's vote, channel that passion into getting conservatives elected where you live. For the next year, conservatives should spend their money and their time electing conservatives at the federal, state, and local levels WHERE THEY LIVE.
Do you live in Cao's district? If you do, then you have a right to work against him in the next general election. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the people bent out of shape about Cao's vote are represented by Democrats who voted for the bill. Why should Cao committ political suicide on a bill he can't do anything to stop? It makes absolutely no sense for him to die on that hill.
The Cao vote is unsettling, but people need to take care of the planks in their own eyes first. And we need to know better than to call Cao a RINO and have him burned at the stake. There are such things as RINOs, but we do the conservative movement much harm by using the term loosely.
(And for the people who bring up "What about NY-23?" Should concerned citizens have stayed out of it given this logic? Then answer is no for three reasons - it was a SPECIAL election, there were obvious extenuating circumstances, and national forces including parties and Organizing for America were involved.)
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Friday, November 06, 2009
Saved or Created
We've heard in the media that Obama "saved or created 600,000 jobs" give or take.
I want to divide up "saved" and "created." How many of these 600,000 jobs were "saved"? How many of these 6000,000 jobs were created?
And of these 600,000 alleged jobs, how many of them are in the private sector, or asked another way, how many of these "saved or created" jobs are NOT government jobs?
Just wondering.
I want to divide up "saved" and "created." How many of these 600,000 jobs were "saved"? How many of these 6000,000 jobs were created?
And of these 600,000 alleged jobs, how many of them are in the private sector, or asked another way, how many of these "saved or created" jobs are NOT government jobs?
Just wondering.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Brett Who?
At 1:00pm today, Green Bay Packer fans will gather at Lambeau Field attempting to set a new Guinness Record for longest sustained boo by a stadium crowd.
We'll never forget you, Brent.
We'll never forget you, Brent.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Barbara Lawton Not Running for WI Governor?
I did not see that one coming. Wow. Wisconsin's Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton isn't running for Governor.
So... Mayor Barrett? Unless the people who already said they won't run will now change their minds.
I'm almost speechless. It's about one year from Election Day and the Democrats don't have a declared candidate. Is this supposed to be some kind of Reverse-Operation Chaos to put the focus on the Republican primary between Walker vs. Neumann?
As Owen Robinson points out from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story, the Obama White House really wants Barrett to run. That got me thinking (especially since Chicago is so close to Wisconsin) that this drove Lawton's decision.
Jim Doyle endorsed Barack Obama for President in the Democrat Primary in January of 2008.
Tom Barrett endorsed Barack Obama back in April of 2007.
Who did Barbara Lawton endorse? Hillary Clinton.
Even if polling shows Barrett to be a stronger candidate than Lawton, you can't help but wonder if this is an example of Team Obama doing things the Chicago way in Wisconsin.
Interesting.
So... Mayor Barrett? Unless the people who already said they won't run will now change their minds.
I'm almost speechless. It's about one year from Election Day and the Democrats don't have a declared candidate. Is this supposed to be some kind of Reverse-Operation Chaos to put the focus on the Republican primary between Walker vs. Neumann?
As Owen Robinson points out from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story, the Obama White House really wants Barrett to run. That got me thinking (especially since Chicago is so close to Wisconsin) that this drove Lawton's decision.
Jim Doyle endorsed Barack Obama for President in the Democrat Primary in January of 2008.
Tom Barrett endorsed Barack Obama back in April of 2007.
Who did Barbara Lawton endorse? Hillary Clinton.
Even if polling shows Barrett to be a stronger candidate than Lawton, you can't help but wonder if this is an example of Team Obama doing things the Chicago way in Wisconsin.
Interesting.
Override?
What is the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod? Rather, who is the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod? I define it this way: the Synod is nothing more than the congregations that belong to it. Major League Baseball does not exist if no teams belong to it, to use a very limited analogy. My point is that the Synod should not be an entity unto itself.
In terms of decision making, I would argue that the truest expression of the Synod is when it gathers for convention - this is where two delegates from every circuit (If Synod is national, district is state, think of circuit like a county) come together to pass resolutions, etc. following Robert's Rules and such. But since this only happens one week every three years, you have to elect representatives in the meantime to make decisions between conventions. Thus we have things like Boards of Directors over the whole Synod as well as other things (schools, publishing houses, etc). But if such a board (or other elected official) makes a bad decision, does the Synod have to wait until the next convention to take any kind of action to fix the problem?
When I was the president of the congregation, the congregation reserved the right to overrule the leadership. I don't remember the specifics if it required a majority of the communicant membership or two-thirds of voters who showed up or what, but the point was that if the congregation disagreed with elected leadership (on non-doctrinal matters), spelled out in the constitution and bylaws was a mechanism for the body as a whole to override the leadership. If I made a bad decision, the congregation had the right to overrule it.
I've been doing some research to find if any such mechanism exists in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, such that if the leadership does something that a majority of Synod members disagree with, they can override it.
For example, let's say that the LCMS owns two radio stations, and the LCMS Board of Directors decides to sell one of the two stations. The Synod in convention never expressed any desire to sell the radio station, and in fact there may even have been resolutions in past Synodical conventions or District conventions expressing the desire NOT to sell the stations. Nevertheless, the elected leadership of the Synod, the Board of Directors, as the elected officials charged with stewardship of Synodical properties, decided to sell one of the stations. Remember, this is just a hypothetical.
What if there are a lot of LCMS congregations and people who either don't want to sell the station or oppose the way in which the sale was handled? Does the Synod have any means by which to tell the Board of Directors that "We disapprove of your decision and are overruling you" or something to that effect?
In this purely hypothetical example, if a majority of members of the Synod are against the sale, it would be inaccurate to say that the LCMS sold the radio station. It would be more accurate to say that the LCMS Board of Directors did this on behalf of the Synod. What's the difference? The latter statement does not imply that the Synod wanted this action taken on its behalf. The LCMS Board of Directors may have done this against the will of the Synod.
In the business world, you throw out the directors and appoint new ones. The problem is that even if the LCMS were to take such action, doing so would not "unsell" the radio station. You would think that there would be in writing somewhere that the real owners (the Synod) has the final say on a big decision made by stewards (the Board of Directors). Owners trust stewards to care for things and tend to affairs, but ultimately the stewards are only servants who answer to their master. And even if the Synod does not have it spelled out anywhere in black and white, one would think that common sense would dictate to stewards that such a big item of business as selling a radio station merits consulting the master. Should not big deals be voted upon by the Synod itself?
One may argue that because of their election, we must passively abide with whatever they decide because they always know best. But again, common sense and simple Christian behavior guidelines speak against the example of the pompous Mayor or Congressman who says "You don't like my decision? Too bad. It's over. If you don't like it, fire me on election day." Bear in mind that one bad decision does not merit impeachment and expulsion; such people should serve out their terms and even be re-elected, but at the very least the bad decision needs be revisited.
The Synod needs alternative means of recourse, hypothetically speaking.
In terms of decision making, I would argue that the truest expression of the Synod is when it gathers for convention - this is where two delegates from every circuit (If Synod is national, district is state, think of circuit like a county) come together to pass resolutions, etc. following Robert's Rules and such. But since this only happens one week every three years, you have to elect representatives in the meantime to make decisions between conventions. Thus we have things like Boards of Directors over the whole Synod as well as other things (schools, publishing houses, etc). But if such a board (or other elected official) makes a bad decision, does the Synod have to wait until the next convention to take any kind of action to fix the problem?
When I was the president of the congregation, the congregation reserved the right to overrule the leadership. I don't remember the specifics if it required a majority of the communicant membership or two-thirds of voters who showed up or what, but the point was that if the congregation disagreed with elected leadership (on non-doctrinal matters), spelled out in the constitution and bylaws was a mechanism for the body as a whole to override the leadership. If I made a bad decision, the congregation had the right to overrule it.
I've been doing some research to find if any such mechanism exists in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, such that if the leadership does something that a majority of Synod members disagree with, they can override it.
For example, let's say that the LCMS owns two radio stations, and the LCMS Board of Directors decides to sell one of the two stations. The Synod in convention never expressed any desire to sell the radio station, and in fact there may even have been resolutions in past Synodical conventions or District conventions expressing the desire NOT to sell the stations. Nevertheless, the elected leadership of the Synod, the Board of Directors, as the elected officials charged with stewardship of Synodical properties, decided to sell one of the stations. Remember, this is just a hypothetical.
What if there are a lot of LCMS congregations and people who either don't want to sell the station or oppose the way in which the sale was handled? Does the Synod have any means by which to tell the Board of Directors that "We disapprove of your decision and are overruling you" or something to that effect?
In this purely hypothetical example, if a majority of members of the Synod are against the sale, it would be inaccurate to say that the LCMS sold the radio station. It would be more accurate to say that the LCMS Board of Directors did this on behalf of the Synod. What's the difference? The latter statement does not imply that the Synod wanted this action taken on its behalf. The LCMS Board of Directors may have done this against the will of the Synod.
In the business world, you throw out the directors and appoint new ones. The problem is that even if the LCMS were to take such action, doing so would not "unsell" the radio station. You would think that there would be in writing somewhere that the real owners (the Synod) has the final say on a big decision made by stewards (the Board of Directors). Owners trust stewards to care for things and tend to affairs, but ultimately the stewards are only servants who answer to their master. And even if the Synod does not have it spelled out anywhere in black and white, one would think that common sense would dictate to stewards that such a big item of business as selling a radio station merits consulting the master. Should not big deals be voted upon by the Synod itself?
One may argue that because of their election, we must passively abide with whatever they decide because they always know best. But again, common sense and simple Christian behavior guidelines speak against the example of the pompous Mayor or Congressman who says "You don't like my decision? Too bad. It's over. If you don't like it, fire me on election day." Bear in mind that one bad decision does not merit impeachment and expulsion; such people should serve out their terms and even be re-elected, but at the very least the bad decision needs be revisited.
The Synod needs alternative means of recourse, hypothetically speaking.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Wow! P-D Culture Club Sure Didn't Fact Check This Article
The Saint Louis Post Dispatch website has an article by Sarah Bryan Miller about the Brothers of John the Steadfast blog as it relates to the sale of KFUO-FM.
She claims that the BJS website is run by Rev. Todd Wilken, the host of radio talk show Issues, Etc. and his producer Jeff Schwarz, both former employees of KFUO-AM. I'm 99.99999999999999999% certain that neither one of them runs that website.
Here's a quote from the article: "Wilken is entitled (as he does in a reply to the original post) to damn “the decidedly secular monied interests in the St. Louis arts community” as 'the devil,' although that seems a bit extreme." It seems a bit extreme because it's extremely FALSE. Pastor Wilken is taking issue with the management of KFUO, not the Saint Louis arts community. The management has been two-faced for some time. Understand this: KFUO FM is owned and operated by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, even though the station plays Classical music which is not always Christian in origin. Thus, Classic 99 has two core constituencies: Missouri Synod Lutherans and the Saint Louis arts community. KFUO management appealed to the Lutherans saying "Oh yeah! Classic 99 is so great! It's a music ministry! We're witnessing to the community! Help support this Christian outreach!" KFUO management also appealed to the Saint Louis arts community at the same time saying "Isn't classical music great? Yeah! Classical music! Nothing to do with God, Jesus, or the Church at all! Ministry? What Ministry? This isn't a ministry!" I'm being a little hyperbolic, but you get the idea.
When Rev. Wilken says KFUO management made a deal with the devil, that is NOT a reference to the Saint Louis arts community, it refers to the fact that KFUO "made a deal with the devil" to try to have things both ways. They wanted to have their cake (raise money as if Classic 99 was a ministry) and eat it too (raise money as if it was a completely secular station). The Saint Louis arts community is no more the devil than the Missouri Synod Lutherans who supported the station - the devil is the devil.
And Pastor Wilken has evidence that supports his claims that the FM side was not financially sustaining the AM side, in fact it was quite the opposite - money was reported in the books in such a way as to make the FM station look in better financial shape than the AM side. Again, management was playing both sides for their own advantage.
As an interested Missouri Synod Lutheran, I can't help but see this whole situation as a failure of management at many levels in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. You can't blame this on the economy - this is bad management all the way around: the FM station should not have tried to serve two masters, the books between the two stations should either be completely separate or completely unified. In short, things should never have gotten to this point in the first place. But since they did, the sale of the FM station should have been handled much better. The secrecy, the unwillingness to receive other bids, and the complete disregard of both the people of the LCMS who did not want the station sold as well as the Saint Louis arts community which had a vested interest in the station, all point to bad management from the Synod leadership.
This is failed management and the absence of leadership in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
Something that continues to grind my gears about the sale of KFUO-FM is that this was done not by the Synod in convention (which meets every three years) but by the board of directors. My guess is that the issue of selling either station would have gone down in flames on the convention floor. In fact, I'm pretty sure that over the last few years, district conventions (if the synod is federal, think of districts as states) passed resolutions directing synod to retain ownership of both stations. It seems to me that the LCMS Board of Directors (and others) are taking action against the will of the Synod.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Let The State of Michigan Water Your Plants
Have you seen those ads by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation inviting companies to move to their state? You've probably seen or heard their ads with Jeff Daniels as their spokesman, like this one:
This campaign, whether my assessment is fair or not, reminds me of the Herlihy Boy House Sitting Service sketch on Saturday Night Live:
Please bring your company to Michigan. We won't put you in Detroit if you don't want to. You can have an LLC. Please, please bring your company to Michigan.
I'm just waiting for Farley to come crashing in - C'mon, let the state of Michigan be the home of your business.
This campaign, whether my assessment is fair or not, reminds me of the Herlihy Boy House Sitting Service sketch on Saturday Night Live:
Please bring your company to Michigan. We won't put you in Detroit if you don't want to. You can have an LLC. Please, please bring your company to Michigan.
I'm just waiting for Farley to come crashing in - C'mon, let the state of Michigan be the home of your business.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Wish I Had IFC
Sunday, October 11, 2009
If You Thought The EKD was Lutheran...
If you thought the EKD (Evangelical Church in Germany) was Lutheran, you would be wrong.
They've rejected the Augsburg Confession. Just an FYI
And for reference, here is the Augsburg Confession.
They've rejected the Augsburg Confession. Just an FYI
And for reference, here is the Augsburg Confession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Google Search
Disclaimer
Posts
