Affliction: Banned
I purchased the Affliction: Banned MMA ppv. It had several fights that I was very interested in seeing and being a MMA fan who enjoyed Pride I hoped to see a resurrection of sort for non-UFC staged fights. What I got was a very mixed bag. While the top 4 fights on the card delivered the undercard was spotty and could have been cut to get the ppv down from a length of nearly 270 minutes to a more manageable 180. What was most disturbing was the production value. Considering Donald Trump poured some resources into this and the plethora of 'stars' and other interest this show received I really would have expected more. The average UFC show on Spike TV has much better, sound, video and announcing. The fighters walked out to awkward introductions and approaches to the ring and had to dodge a microphone set right at the top of the ramp. Why was there a microphone you ask? Great question... because it should not have been there. The microphone belonged to Megadeth. Who thought to themselves 'lets book a band no one has thought about in a decade to receive prime time exposure on our MMA event'?! They played 3 times and that only lengthened an already long show. If you are going to bring in outside entertainment (and I have never seen this work when tried in pro-wrestling or sports in general outside of the Super Bowl) at least bring someone in that people would be excited to see.
On the plus side, it is obvious that the strenght of the heavyweight MMA world lies in the Affliction camp. Fedor, Arlovski and Barnett each had impressive outings and make for some compelling matchups. With the possibility of Couture being thrown into the mix it is obvious that there is a good series of fights to be made.
I was particularly pleased to see Fedor come out and dominate in the manner he did. Of course watching Silva just destroy his competitor on the opposing UFC show will leave the pound for pound designation out there in limbo.
I hope Affliction succeeds. The competition is good for the sport and it is nice to see the ring as well as the octagon in play. They really need to up the production value though or it will simply appear to be a bush league side show to the mainstream UFC.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Layman's Theology
I fully admit to not being a theologian. However, it is a subject of interest to me. Over on the Vox Popli blog a gentleman who goes by the name Bearded Spock posed the following question...
I asked this before, but didn't get an answer. If the Bible contains errors as almost all biblical scholars admit, then how do you know which parts are divine revelation and which parts are not? How can it be the word of the perfect God if it is not perfect?
My reply is this:
I think this is a really good question. I would say that it can be the word of a perfect God in the same way as this can be the creation of a perfect God. Psalms 19:1 states that effectively this imperfect earth declares his glory. It seems logical that if His glory can be made manifest through a corrupted earth then His will could be known through an imperfect scripture.
2 Tim 4:16 indicates that all scripture is inspired from God and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It does not make a claim to inerrancy there. 2 Peter 1:21 discusses (though covering prophecy) how men spoke from God. The only thing specifically indicated as recorded from God's own hand was the 10 commandments (Exodus 32:16). It seems logical that in dealing through flawed men that degrees of error would be expected. In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter points out that distortions are occurring with Paul's epistles as they do with other scripture. I further point out that in Revelations 22:19 it is commented on regarding the penalty for adding or subtracting from the words of that book which indicates that while punishable, God would not himself intervene to prevent the action. And not everything in the Bible is directly the acts or express opinion of God. Some parts are simple recordings of what was done. In particular 1 Cor 7:6 where Paul speaks of marriage and in Matthew 19:8 Jesus talking of divorce.
The Bible is not the path to salvation. Jesus states that only he is the way. The Bible is certainly the best vehicle we have for this. This is akin in my mind to historical study; Thucydides is the best study of the Peloponnesian War but certainly has errors as being recorded by a man.
I think perhaps it would add something to have a scripture that contained no visible contradictions or issues. It would be evidence of a sort. I do not know why in this area as in others God did not choose to use it as such. My quick opinion on the subject.
As for how you know... I think the spirit in which you approach it and the desire to be led into greater knowledge is the important part. The parts of the scripture people seem to have the most trouble with involve portions that restrict behavior. If you are more interested in pursuing your own agenda, be it within a church, family or society then in maintaining fidelity with 1000s of years of tradition and Biblical commentary on the subject then you are likely on the wrong path. If your goal is to judge the scriptures through secular ideas than a spiritual heart I would say you risk the same error. Even those who walked with Jesus or who had direct relationships and contact with God never got it right. But if it ever becomes more about you then Him you are guaranteed to get it wrong.
I fully admit to not being a theologian. However, it is a subject of interest to me. Over on the Vox Popli blog a gentleman who goes by the name Bearded Spock posed the following question...
I asked this before, but didn't get an answer. If the Bible contains errors as almost all biblical scholars admit, then how do you know which parts are divine revelation and which parts are not? How can it be the word of the perfect God if it is not perfect?
My reply is this:
I think this is a really good question. I would say that it can be the word of a perfect God in the same way as this can be the creation of a perfect God. Psalms 19:1 states that effectively this imperfect earth declares his glory. It seems logical that if His glory can be made manifest through a corrupted earth then His will could be known through an imperfect scripture.
2 Tim 4:16 indicates that all scripture is inspired from God and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It does not make a claim to inerrancy there. 2 Peter 1:21 discusses (though covering prophecy) how men spoke from God. The only thing specifically indicated as recorded from God's own hand was the 10 commandments (Exodus 32:16). It seems logical that in dealing through flawed men that degrees of error would be expected. In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter points out that distortions are occurring with Paul's epistles as they do with other scripture. I further point out that in Revelations 22:19 it is commented on regarding the penalty for adding or subtracting from the words of that book which indicates that while punishable, God would not himself intervene to prevent the action. And not everything in the Bible is directly the acts or express opinion of God. Some parts are simple recordings of what was done. In particular 1 Cor 7:6 where Paul speaks of marriage and in Matthew 19:8 Jesus talking of divorce.
The Bible is not the path to salvation. Jesus states that only he is the way. The Bible is certainly the best vehicle we have for this. This is akin in my mind to historical study; Thucydides is the best study of the Peloponnesian War but certainly has errors as being recorded by a man.
I think perhaps it would add something to have a scripture that contained no visible contradictions or issues. It would be evidence of a sort. I do not know why in this area as in others God did not choose to use it as such. My quick opinion on the subject.
As for how you know... I think the spirit in which you approach it and the desire to be led into greater knowledge is the important part. The parts of the scripture people seem to have the most trouble with involve portions that restrict behavior. If you are more interested in pursuing your own agenda, be it within a church, family or society then in maintaining fidelity with 1000s of years of tradition and Biblical commentary on the subject then you are likely on the wrong path. If your goal is to judge the scriptures through secular ideas than a spiritual heart I would say you risk the same error. Even those who walked with Jesus or who had direct relationships and contact with God never got it right. But if it ever becomes more about you then Him you are guaranteed to get it wrong.
The Insuring of the 47 Million
I like the Kiplinger Letter. It provides nice concise information. In the letter dated 20 June 2008 they provide a breakdown of the oft cited 47 Million uninsured. I often wonder how you arrive at that number. It seems a little large to go out and talk to each one. Was there a phone number to call? Some statistical study? That rarely seems to be talked about if at all. However, assume the 47M is correct and then we can try to break it down.
- 70% are in families with at least one full time worker
- 10% are in families with at least one part time worker
- The rest retired or unemployed
-8.4M are already eligible for government programs
-10.2M are non-citizens
-9.2M have household incomes > $75k
-7.5M are between ages 19-24
I realize that health insurance generates some strong opinions in people, but looking at the above, what group should I feel terribly bad about? If you are going to use a number like 47M then you are dealing with groups.
We have 8.4M who are already eligible for programs... yet they choose not to insure or cannot manage to figure out the application?
10.2M non-citizens... while granting that some of these people are certainly contributors to the economy, I doubt their would be much clamoring for them from the greater part of the citizenry.
9.2M who earn greater than $75k. Can this really be an issue of cannot afford?
7.5M between the ages of 19-24. This hardly represents the highest risk group. And having talked to this group I can assure you that health insurance does not top their lists of interests.
Without a doubt you have cases of people with preexisting conditions and other dilemmas that give them more unique problems with obtaining insurance. But this number is significantly less than 47M. And handing the reigns over even more fully to the entity that created so much of the problem to begin with seems foolish in an attempt to deal with the margins.
I like the Kiplinger Letter. It provides nice concise information. In the letter dated 20 June 2008 they provide a breakdown of the oft cited 47 Million uninsured. I often wonder how you arrive at that number. It seems a little large to go out and talk to each one. Was there a phone number to call? Some statistical study? That rarely seems to be talked about if at all. However, assume the 47M is correct and then we can try to break it down.
- 70% are in families with at least one full time worker
- 10% are in families with at least one part time worker
- The rest retired or unemployed
-8.4M are already eligible for government programs
-10.2M are non-citizens
-9.2M have household incomes > $75k
-7.5M are between ages 19-24
I realize that health insurance generates some strong opinions in people, but looking at the above, what group should I feel terribly bad about? If you are going to use a number like 47M then you are dealing with groups.
We have 8.4M who are already eligible for programs... yet they choose not to insure or cannot manage to figure out the application?
10.2M non-citizens... while granting that some of these people are certainly contributors to the economy, I doubt their would be much clamoring for them from the greater part of the citizenry.
9.2M who earn greater than $75k. Can this really be an issue of cannot afford?
7.5M between the ages of 19-24. This hardly represents the highest risk group. And having talked to this group I can assure you that health insurance does not top their lists of interests.
Without a doubt you have cases of people with preexisting conditions and other dilemmas that give them more unique problems with obtaining insurance. But this number is significantly less than 47M. And handing the reigns over even more fully to the entity that created so much of the problem to begin with seems foolish in an attempt to deal with the margins.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Us vs. Them
In which whatif makes a succinct case for why nothing ever changes and who 'they' are anyway.
"Them" government bureaucrats. The three branches of government in our Constitution control nothing. It is the federal and state bureaucrats who control most everything. They must protect and perpetuate government because that is what they do. Government pensions will ALWAYS be funded. The bureaucrat has no incentive at all to cut anything back or his own neck. This is why writing a congressman is a futile exercise by and large. The simplest and safest thing for a bureaucrat to do is to say NO to everyone, to every request for action. Once someone has been dragged into the judicial system, found guilty (whether he is or not) and put away, the government has no interest in determining if they indeed have the right man. The government has NO interest in its citizens, only in the survival of the government. The government will take away any liberties and create any new rules for its own well being. THEY ARE THEM.
In which whatif makes a succinct case for why nothing ever changes and who 'they' are anyway.
"Them" government bureaucrats. The three branches of government in our Constitution control nothing. It is the federal and state bureaucrats who control most everything. They must protect and perpetuate government because that is what they do. Government pensions will ALWAYS be funded. The bureaucrat has no incentive at all to cut anything back or his own neck. This is why writing a congressman is a futile exercise by and large. The simplest and safest thing for a bureaucrat to do is to say NO to everyone, to every request for action. Once someone has been dragged into the judicial system, found guilty (whether he is or not) and put away, the government has no interest in determining if they indeed have the right man. The government has NO interest in its citizens, only in the survival of the government. The government will take away any liberties and create any new rules for its own well being. THEY ARE THEM.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
We Don't Need No Education
In which I involve myself in a Vox Popoli debate on the efficacy of schools and civilization...
Simply put many people do not reason well. Emotionalism and mindless support for an ideological position is no more attractive from the people I have a philosophical kinship with than from those whose philosophy I abhor.
In which I involve myself in a Vox Popoli debate on the efficacy of schools and civilization...
Simply put many people do not reason well. Emotionalism and mindless support for an ideological position is no more attractive from the people I have a philosophical kinship with than from those whose philosophy I abhor.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Practical Libertarianism
I admit to having strong libertarian leanings. Simply meaning that I feel that the general philosophy of the country should be one of minimal government and individual liberty. However, I do like to descend from the mountains of ideology and attempt to apply the principles to the world in which I live. I find that is rarely something libertarians like to do. As a movement it seems to lack the ability to paint a picture of what life would be like, how certain issues would be handled or even any historical examples of its success. Ron Paul makes some headway in this area, but he is obviously more intelligent than many of the ilk.
I recently posted the following query at Vox Popli, the blog of WorldNetDaily columnist Vox Day.
This might be as appropriate a place as any to query the libertarian minded... Gary North posits that the Big 3 will soon be bankrupt and even further rushing to shed their retirement liabilities. Certainly North has been wrong in times past (Y2K), but he does put forth some good evidence... here is the question. What is the obligation of the Big 3 to the people with whom they had the contract with for those retirement benefits? How does that contract square with their obligation to their current contracted employees and the contracts (if they are viewed as such) with their stock holders? Should the companies be dismantled to provide payouts to prior workers in spite of the effect that would have on the economy? Should the prior contract workers be forced to eat the loss? It seems obvious a libertarian would not believe that the government should intervene. This is the type of bread and butter non theoretical issue that I imagine people would want addressed by those with a libertarian philosophy before turning over the keys to the kingdom.
I had hoped that someone would at least take a stab at the issue. I was not surprised when there were no takers. Certainly it may have simply been that no one was interested or that they felt it was a poor question. I tend to think it was more that people do not like to take on a challenging issue when they can employ hyperbole and ideology in big rant fests and flame wars.
I did attempt another angle in engaging an ongoing discussion that involved the trade philosophy of Pat Buchanan. I will confess to having free trade leanings, but that I find Mr. Buchanan's trade thoughts compelling and worthy of inspection. The free trade true believer of course showed up with the following tactics... a) claim that I do not know what free trade is b) link articles that are strictly repetitious theory c) avoid answering any questions about real world evidence. Intellectual giants are some of these ideologues.
I am interested in people making solid attempts to answer cultural and economic questions from the libertarian point of view with a little more depth then I commonly encounter. If there is no depth to the people... perhaps there is no depth to the movement.
I admit to having strong libertarian leanings. Simply meaning that I feel that the general philosophy of the country should be one of minimal government and individual liberty. However, I do like to descend from the mountains of ideology and attempt to apply the principles to the world in which I live. I find that is rarely something libertarians like to do. As a movement it seems to lack the ability to paint a picture of what life would be like, how certain issues would be handled or even any historical examples of its success. Ron Paul makes some headway in this area, but he is obviously more intelligent than many of the ilk.
I recently posted the following query at Vox Popli, the blog of WorldNetDaily columnist Vox Day.
This might be as appropriate a place as any to query the libertarian minded... Gary North posits that the Big 3 will soon be bankrupt and even further rushing to shed their retirement liabilities. Certainly North has been wrong in times past (Y2K), but he does put forth some good evidence... here is the question. What is the obligation of the Big 3 to the people with whom they had the contract with for those retirement benefits? How does that contract square with their obligation to their current contracted employees and the contracts (if they are viewed as such) with their stock holders? Should the companies be dismantled to provide payouts to prior workers in spite of the effect that would have on the economy? Should the prior contract workers be forced to eat the loss? It seems obvious a libertarian would not believe that the government should intervene. This is the type of bread and butter non theoretical issue that I imagine people would want addressed by those with a libertarian philosophy before turning over the keys to the kingdom.
I had hoped that someone would at least take a stab at the issue. I was not surprised when there were no takers. Certainly it may have simply been that no one was interested or that they felt it was a poor question. I tend to think it was more that people do not like to take on a challenging issue when they can employ hyperbole and ideology in big rant fests and flame wars.
I did attempt another angle in engaging an ongoing discussion that involved the trade philosophy of Pat Buchanan. I will confess to having free trade leanings, but that I find Mr. Buchanan's trade thoughts compelling and worthy of inspection. The free trade true believer of course showed up with the following tactics... a) claim that I do not know what free trade is b) link articles that are strictly repetitious theory c) avoid answering any questions about real world evidence. Intellectual giants are some of these ideologues.
I am interested in people making solid attempts to answer cultural and economic questions from the libertarian point of view with a little more depth then I commonly encounter. If there is no depth to the people... perhaps there is no depth to the movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)