« January 2003 | Main | March 2003 »
I try not to let my blogroll get too crowded, but these two simply must be linked:
Take note:
The Atlantic: Caring for Your Introvert
Read it. Learn it. Love it. This introvert thanks you in advance.
(Via Lynn Sislo.)
Ben Domenech believes so. I don't know if it's dead yet, but I don't think it can survive much longer in its present state -- something's got to give. Ben sums up the problem with the music industry very well:
The Music Industry...is not a free market at all. It's a back-scratching socialist economy. The radio stations play only select groups of songs, bought from labels, both of which simultaneously owned by companies that also happen to own concert venues and ticketselling groups. People don't hear the musical equivalent of indie films or low-budget flicks, because they can't. They can't drive into the city to see a different show. And music has a much more difficult time of gaining word-of-mouth momentum outside of local limits. It's called the socialist economy.
In the comments on Ben's post, Mark Byron described the music industry as an oligopoly, which is exactly what it is. When this current system finally does die, hopefully it will be replaced with a free market system and true competition. Then I'll be able to listen to music radio again.
This story is making the rounds on the blogs today:
Newsmax: Anti-War Activist Sheryl Crow Entertained Troops in Bosnia
I mentioned this in a post over a month ago.
Advantage: LilacRose.
(Always wanted to say that...)
In Maine, children of military personnel are being harassed...by their teachers and principals. These elementary school children, along with facing the hardship of having one of their parents away on a dangerous mission in Iraq, are also being told by school authority figures that their parents are evil people. Yet another example of peace-loving tolerance from the NEA-driven public government schools.
(Via On the Third Hand.)
I am infinity You may worship me, but from afar _ |
(Via lots of folks.)
I never watch the Grammys and I forgot they were even on tonight. Andrea Harris has some color commentary on the show, which is much better than actually watching it.
Instead of the Grammys, I ended up watching a good, soapy film-noir called Nora Prentiss on TCM. Usually, I just have the TV on as background noise while doing other things, but that movie actually drew me in.
I noticed some over at Andrea's are asking who Norah Jones is. I haven't heard any of her music yet, but Joshua Claybourn seems to like her a lot.
Susanna Cornett has no use for those who use the name of Jesus to promote an anti-war position in regards to Iraq. Many of those who do this also imply that you're a bad Christian if you disagree with them on this issue. However, Susanna is not saying that Jesus is pro-war, either:
I just get physically sick about these people, most especially those like the pope and Talbert. They do more to torture and damage the word of God than any atheist could hope to do. I will tell you this: They do not have support for their opposition from anything Jesus says, or the apostles, or the Old Testament. And you know what? I don't have support for my position either, in the sense of an explicit guidance about the rightness of any war. It is an extrapolation. They can extrapolate all they want, but to claim that their reading is supported by Scripture, implicitly or explicitly, is just wrong and, in my view, using God to further earthly goals that have nothing to do with God's plan for earth. [...]Those of us who are Christians have a responsibility to search God's word and live our lives in harmony with it. There are many shades of gray that leave us room to make our own decisions, with nothing explicit to guide us more in one way or the other. I will say this again, and bluntly: Religious leaders who use the Bible to condemn or support the war in Iraq are overstepping the bounds of the Bible's teaching, and run the risk of using God to support their earthly ambitions. And that is a great sin.
The main point of Susanna's post is that Jesus is neither a pacifist nor a warmonger, just as He is neither liberal nor conservative. Please take the time to read her whole post...lots of thought-provoking stuff there.
The Pope says sarcasm is wrong. I don't agree, of course. I don't understand this reasoning at all:
Pope John Paul II described sarcasm as a modern form of martyrdom, suggesting a sarcastic person delights in "isolating the righteous with mockery and irony".
So? Sarcasm can be used in all kinds of ways, not just to mock the righteous. I remember Jesus using sarcasm several times. Also, the prophet Elijah got very sarcastic with some Baal worshippers.
Now, can sarcasm be used in a bad or hurtful way? Sure, but that doesn't mean it should never be used, or that it's evil.
(Found via Lynn Sislo.)
A lot of blogs have been linking to this story today. Anne Wilson has the best take on this:
The article should have been titled, "Girls encouraged to sexually service boys in return for humiliation and no sexual pleasure themselves. Free STDs included."
Anne also points out another health risk at issue here.
You can vote on the proposed designs here.
I voted for the middle design, "Gateway to Discovery." (The one with the ship and the space shuttle.) I thought it sort of nicely encapsulated the history of the state. That design is the frontrunner so far.
I posted on this back in August. It looks like this law is going to be stricken from the books soon. Good.
(Via E-Pression.)
What can I say, I'm in a snickering mood tonight...
Check out these protester signs on Croooow Blog and King's Kid. (Scroll down a few posts; Blogger permalinks not working.)
London Daily Telegraph: 'Human shields' limp into Baghdad (Via LGF.)
"There were lots of group squabbles," said Benjamin Joffe-Walt, 23, an American paramedic. "Very few people knew each other. I did not know any of them, and it was difficult to organize it. There were lots of different ideas on when to go to bed, how long to spend on the bus."
Reuters: Bono named for Nobel Peace Prize (Via Dean's World.)
No comment.
Andrea's right...this quiz is SO rigged...
How Republican Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Now that Google has purchased Blogger, I have a humble suggestion that would add value to their service. Perhaps they could add a built-in commenting system that works. If they can't do it for everyone on Blogger, at least they could do it for the Blogger Pro users.
This one is called "Roses Are Blue." All the skins can be found in the sidebar. Enjoy!
The other day, Mark Shea posted about Purgatory. He included a link to an article that he wrote on the subject and a quote from C.S. Lewis, who also believed in Purgatory (although he wasn't Catholic).
I was raised to believe that Purgatory is a false teaching that promotes the idea that we need something else besides Christ's death on the cross to make us right in the eyes of God. I grew up going to a charismatic Pentecostal church and I now go to a conservative (Missouri Synod) Lutheran church. So you could say that I'm a pretty solid Protestant.
I have read several books by C.S. Lewis and respect him greatly as a thinker and a Christian. It is because of Lewis that I've actually considered that maybe the Catholics are right about Purgatory. Mark Shea also makes some very good arguments in his article. He backs up his arguments with Scripture, which makes them all the more compelling.
But I just can't quite shake the Protestant objections to the idea of Purgatory. When Christ said on the cross, "It is finished," why isn't it indeed finished? If He died on the cross for our sins, taking all of our sins and ugliness upon Himself and paying the price, why do we need Purgatory to cleanse us? Didn't Christ's blood wash us clean?
This whole Purgatory question is one that I've struggled with for some time. In some ways, it makes sense to me, but then I feel that it somehow diminishes what Christ did for us.
I invite anyone, whatever your views on this subject, to share them if you'd like. I'm pretty undecided (and therefore open-minded) on this issue.
Many people in the "anti-war" side of blogdom have paid lip-service to acknowledging the oppression of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein. However, they're against the U.S. overthrowing Saddam because somebody might get hurt. What they fail to realize is that if Saddam stays in power, many more will get hurt in Iraq and, eventually, elsewhere.
Dean Esmay has a new online campaign aimed at bringing attention to some brave Iraqis who want to take their country back. I'm honored to participate in Dean's campaign and place the following graphic and link on my sidebar.
(Found via Cold Fury.)
You know, I'm not pro-war. Actually, I don't know anybody who is pro-war. Only a nut would be pro-war. I would say Osama bin Laden and his ilk are pro-war.
I'm not a pacifist either. Sure, I can respect honest pacifists, although I don't agree with them. Pacifism is one of those philosophies like socialism, anarchism, libertarianism or laissez-faire capitalism. It sounds good in theory, but simply doesn't work in a fallen, real world with imperfect, sinful people.
If you could put a label on what I believe, that would be pro-defense (a term that Lynn Sislo coined a few months ago). I believe in the right to self-defense and the right to defend others (your family, friends, strangers or your country). If someone wants to be a pacifist for themselves, that's fine. But don't try to impose your pacifism on me. I won't stand for it, any more than I'd stand for someone trying to force me to live by their pro-war philosophy.
If you can stand one more of these site-related posts, I assure you I'll get back to some real blogging again soon...
I upgraded to Movable Type 2.6 without incident last night. I like the new feature that lets you close the comments on a post, but yet still allows previous comments to be viewed. I've enabled HTML in the comments now that there's a feature that only allows certain tags.
I also made some changes to the blogroll -- adding some blogs and deleting a few (only so I could make room for others).
I finally got it implemented, using the method on empty pages. It doesn't seem to be working on Netscape 6, though. I don't know why, but I suspect it's because Netscape sucks.
Update: The Netscape problem is fixed now. The problem was that Netscape would not make the cookies. A solution can be found here.
Update 2: Hah! Who says you can't skin the comments and trackback boxes with PHP? On the aforementioned empty pages tutorial, I found a link to this clever method for skinning the popup boxes. I had to figure out a couple of things to get it working, but I finally did it! Go me!
Update 3: If you switch to another skin and the change isn't showing up, try refreshing your browser. My work computer uses IE 5.5 and I found this to be an issue with that browser.
Sorry I haven't posted much; I've been feeling even more introverted than usual lately. I've been doing some things behind the scenes, though. If you had trouble accessing the archives for a while this evening...oops, sorry about that.
Just wanted to mention a couple of things...First of all, it seems that Amy Welborn hasn't left the blogging scene completely. On Mondays, she will be offering weekly updates on her columns and other writings.
And the second thing: Dodd for President!
I was wondering if there was a way to have previous/next category links on the category archive pages. After poking around in the MT Forum I found this: Brad Choate: Supplemental Category Tags. It was very easy to set up and works great!
I've created a new style (or skin...whatever) called "Red Velvet Swing." It's similar to the other two Gibson-themed skins. It has a red/pink color scheme and features the famous Gibson illustration of Evelyn Nesbit, hence the name.
I would still like to use PHP instead of the current javascript switcher. Maybe I'll work on that next. There are a couple of bad things about using PHP, though. One, I can't skin the comments and trackback boxes. Also, I'll have to change the file extensions from HTML to PHP. I think you can change the .htaccess file to substitute HTML for PHP, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, I hope you like this new alternate style. I have lots of ideas for more skins.
I think this is pretty accurate. Here's more about Type 4.
(Via Bene Diction and LivingRoom.)
Susanna Cornett uses the the brayings of another Hollywood idiot as a springboard for examining what true evil really is.
This Clennon person (who I've never even heard of) brings to mind this quote that has been attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I think it ties in nicely with the point of Susanna's post:
Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. One can protest against evil; it can be unmasked and, if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction... Against folly we have no such defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it; reasoning is no use...So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied; in fact, he can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make him aggressive. A fool must therefore be treated more cautiously than a scoundrel. . .
The power of some needs the folly of others . . . One feels in fact, when talking [to the fool] that one is dealing, not with a man himself, but with slogans, catch words, and alike, which are taken hold him. He is under a spell, he is blinded, his very nature is being misused in exploited. Having thus become a passive instrument, the fool is capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. Here lies the danger of a diabolical exploitation that can do irreparable damage to human beings.
The Two Towers, that is. I saw it Sunday afternoon and I thought it was just awesome. It didn't seem like a three hour movie and at the end I wished it was longer. I can't wait for the third LOTR movie.
It's been a long time since I read the books (the late-eighties) and I'm not even sure if I finished the series or not. Even if I did, I don't remember the books that well, anyway. Now, I want to get the books and read them again.
Of course, during the movie, I got a bit distracted a couple of times. I had to keep shoving the lame, anti-defense statements by Viggo Mortensen out of my mind during the more bellicose Aragorn scenes. I always try to separate the art from the artist, although some artists will cross a line of obnoxiousness that makes any enjoyment of their art impossible.
Other thoughts (you may or may not consider these spoilers, so beware)...Gollum just about stole the whole show. I liked where the Ents, after saying they were going to stay out of the war, wrecked havoc in defense of their own. The part where the Orcs were pounding the ground before battle at Helms Deep was eerie. And I like the way Sam looks out for Frodo, especially since Frodo's personality is becoming darker due to the ring.
If you haven't seen this yet, go see it in the theater while you still can.
Amy Welborn is shutting down her blog. Although well-known as a Catholic blogger, you didn't have to be Catholic to enjoy her blog; In Between Naps was a daily stop for this Lutheran. I understand her reasons, but she will be greatly missed.
"High Flight"
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or even eagle flew -
And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.
