Now, this particular blog (which has an alarmingly large reading audience, from what I could gather last weekend while I was on a Caribbean cruise) normally has a bit of a biting edge. However, I would like to use today's entry to show some appreciation to bloggers for freedom in totalitarian societies. Those of us who, like myself, grew up in free societies may often take for granted that we have the right in this country to spout off about just about anything we want to without fear of official persecution. People may not like what we have to say, but beyond harassment and verbal abuse, and the occasional lawsuit (none of those yet, *crosses fingers*) there is little they can do about it thanks to the First Amendment.
Most societies around the world, including those who have the most to hide (more on that later) are not so free. While there are many people who wish to take their leaders to task and hold them accountable for their actions (a noble, God-ordained task), some people must suffer more for their bravery and pluck than others. Some people risk death, torture, exile, and imprisonment and impovershment in order to speak the truth. These brave bloggers can be found in such corrupt societies as China, Iran, and Syria, among others. These people deserve our most profound thanks, as they live up to the high standards of morality for a free people without themselves being free. They shine a candle in the darkness in defiance against tyranny, and are worthy of our support for their attempts to bring the dark deeds of their wicked rulers into the harsh light of day. We who live in much more just socities often forget that the reason we have freedoms is for moral ends--even if those who are the most stringent in defending those freedoms are often themselves highly immoral and have rather ulterior motives for thier stands.
Technology is neither good nor evil. The same advances that allow these brave activists for democracy in benighted areas of the globe to reach a world audience (this would be termed a moral use of technology) also allow for greater immorality, such as the recent actions by google in allowing the Chinese government to block sites considered unfriendly to their wicked government, and in their allowing for US federal serveilence over certain web searches, a major breach of the privacy rights of American citizens. We must be ever vigilent on guard against the siren call of paternalistic and over-intrusive government seeking to make slaves of the people. After all, the people are supposed to be the masters of their leaders, not the other way around, according to the clear Word of God (see Matthew 20:26-28, Deuteronomy 17:6-14, Ezekiel 31, among other places).
Indeed, those societies (whether they be organizational or governmental or what) which seek to most stringently restrict the freedom of speech have the most to hide themselves. Those whose works are corrupt do not wish to have their works open to the scrutiny of other people. Those who have nothing to hide have no fear of their words and actions being open to the eyes of a candid world. Therefore, even without evidence, a heavy presumption of guilt of some kind must go to those who wish to avoid accountability. After all, if people are discharging their leadership duties effectively and in accordance with the laws of God and man, then they should welcome the investigation of others, because it would vindicate their good deeds. It is only those whose actions are corrupt and evil that would wish to prevent others from making a full discovery and disclosure of those deeds. We are all sinners, to be sure, so any investigation of our deeds will uncover some matters we would rather not admit. However, those who are righteous will admit their faults candidly. Those administrations which close off records of their deeds are the worst of hypocrites, being aware of their sin but refusing to admit it or repent of it.
So, for these reasons we must salute those who expose the wicked deeds of leaders who deny the truth and live a lie. We must have no corrupt communication in our behavior, realizing that the truth sets us free from the shakles of slavery to personalities and sin. It is selom popular to speak the truth, but in some countries it is extremely dangerous. So, for those who face official persecution for their truthtelling deeds, I offer my sincere praise and any support such that my words and deeds can provide to those who struggle valiently against the darkness.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 16, 2006
Reflections on the Death of an Old Tyrant, 20 Years Later
In my play "None Dare Call It Treason," the action begins with the death of the "Old Man," a tyrant whose death ushers a great deal of chaos and misrule into the land of Cog. In real life, this particular man, by the name of Herbert W. Armstrong, died on January 16, 1986, when I was (to the day) four and a half years of age. As such, at the outset I must say that I did not know the man myself at all, but rather my view of him reflects a second hand understanding of those virtues of his that many vociferously claim as well as those faults of his that others just as loudly proclaim.
Regardless of whether one idolizes or abhors HWA, there is no denying that he was a person of great importance, especially for those of us who were either converted or who through accident of birth were involved with the Worldwide Church of God. Unfortunately, the main source of information about his life is through his two-volume autobiography, which is the genre of literature where one is the least likely to find truth (this is because of all the things people lie about, they are most likely to lie about themselves, and then after that to lie about their enemies).
The claims made for HWA by his friends and supporters border on (if not cross the line of) the idolatrous. Some people behave as is every word he wrote was in red letter and was canonical (which is frankly ridiculous). Some people behave as if he were an apostle (which is against the qualifications in the Bible in Acts 1, among other places, which states that an apostle must have a direct apostolic calling from Jesus Christ and must have been instructed personally by him, qualifications which HWA did not meet). Others behave as if he had no sins of all to speak of, and that that only flaw he had was to be a poor judge of character (this seems to be quite true, but it would hardly be his only flaw).
There are others though, who just as vehemently claim the most outlandish and severe sins for HWA. While the allegations of his plagarism of certain literature from other British Israelite sources seems quite true, and negates any sort of idea one must have about his intellectual honesty, this is merely the least of the comments people have against him. There are bizarre allegations of him keeping a log of certain autosexual activities and allegations of incestuous relations with his daughter, which at this date can only be classified as hearsay. Given the length of time after the supposed events, any sort of evidence for or against seems somewhat difficult to fathom beyond savage accusations. As far as certain allegations to the reasons for his about face on the issue of divorce, I have my own opinions about it, but they must remain my personal opinions. It is obvious that both the pre-1974 and post-1974 decisions were lacking a certain moral sense. In such contentious issues, though, one can have excellent theory and woeful practice. I have commented earlier on my own rather tangled and complicated thoughts about divorce, so I will not repeat them here.
It seems a bit unfortunate to dwell on the negative, but the legacy of HWA has been quite negative. Those who hold him in the highest regard reflect poorly on his memory by their behavior as rigid and narrow minded people unwilling to see the tiniest human flaw in him or in his atrocious understanding of political theory (indeed, it is his views on government that have proven to be his most lasting legacy, and his most bitter). That said, the good parts of his legacy (including, but not limited, to the injunction to look at the Bible rather than to him) have been ignored as his successors have in many cases built up cults of authority around individuals or classes within the various orginizations of the Church of God. Thus while honoring HWA in words, they have not taken his advice seriously. Perhaps that is our fault and not his, but it reflects poorly on him.
HWA was in his age a maverick, a person of limited education but boundless zeal for the truth of God who sought (sincerely, from all I have been able to judge) to restore the truth of God and rid it of the pagan traditions that had been built around the Bible. He sought reasonable and straightforward interpretations of the Bible rather than tortured fictions. That his views were somewhat limited and flawed is inevetible, but he plowed a lot of ground and left a blueprint for how further eradications of the taint of paganism and wicked human tradition can be done. So let us remember him for that. He never saw the promised land, but at least he pointed the way for us to follow. We cannot be content merely to do what he did--we must go beyond, further and deeper, into the truth of God. But we have a lot to appreciate him for, even if he was, like all of us, merely a human being whose human nature held him down to the ground even as he reached up towards the heavens.
Regardless of whether one idolizes or abhors HWA, there is no denying that he was a person of great importance, especially for those of us who were either converted or who through accident of birth were involved with the Worldwide Church of God. Unfortunately, the main source of information about his life is through his two-volume autobiography, which is the genre of literature where one is the least likely to find truth (this is because of all the things people lie about, they are most likely to lie about themselves, and then after that to lie about their enemies).
The claims made for HWA by his friends and supporters border on (if not cross the line of) the idolatrous. Some people behave as is every word he wrote was in red letter and was canonical (which is frankly ridiculous). Some people behave as if he were an apostle (which is against the qualifications in the Bible in Acts 1, among other places, which states that an apostle must have a direct apostolic calling from Jesus Christ and must have been instructed personally by him, qualifications which HWA did not meet). Others behave as if he had no sins of all to speak of, and that that only flaw he had was to be a poor judge of character (this seems to be quite true, but it would hardly be his only flaw).
There are others though, who just as vehemently claim the most outlandish and severe sins for HWA. While the allegations of his plagarism of certain literature from other British Israelite sources seems quite true, and negates any sort of idea one must have about his intellectual honesty, this is merely the least of the comments people have against him. There are bizarre allegations of him keeping a log of certain autosexual activities and allegations of incestuous relations with his daughter, which at this date can only be classified as hearsay. Given the length of time after the supposed events, any sort of evidence for or against seems somewhat difficult to fathom beyond savage accusations. As far as certain allegations to the reasons for his about face on the issue of divorce, I have my own opinions about it, but they must remain my personal opinions. It is obvious that both the pre-1974 and post-1974 decisions were lacking a certain moral sense. In such contentious issues, though, one can have excellent theory and woeful practice. I have commented earlier on my own rather tangled and complicated thoughts about divorce, so I will not repeat them here.
It seems a bit unfortunate to dwell on the negative, but the legacy of HWA has been quite negative. Those who hold him in the highest regard reflect poorly on his memory by their behavior as rigid and narrow minded people unwilling to see the tiniest human flaw in him or in his atrocious understanding of political theory (indeed, it is his views on government that have proven to be his most lasting legacy, and his most bitter). That said, the good parts of his legacy (including, but not limited, to the injunction to look at the Bible rather than to him) have been ignored as his successors have in many cases built up cults of authority around individuals or classes within the various orginizations of the Church of God. Thus while honoring HWA in words, they have not taken his advice seriously. Perhaps that is our fault and not his, but it reflects poorly on him.
HWA was in his age a maverick, a person of limited education but boundless zeal for the truth of God who sought (sincerely, from all I have been able to judge) to restore the truth of God and rid it of the pagan traditions that had been built around the Bible. He sought reasonable and straightforward interpretations of the Bible rather than tortured fictions. That his views were somewhat limited and flawed is inevetible, but he plowed a lot of ground and left a blueprint for how further eradications of the taint of paganism and wicked human tradition can be done. So let us remember him for that. He never saw the promised land, but at least he pointed the way for us to follow. We cannot be content merely to do what he did--we must go beyond, further and deeper, into the truth of God. But we have a lot to appreciate him for, even if he was, like all of us, merely a human being whose human nature held him down to the ground even as he reached up towards the heavens.
Our Nation's Favorite Plagiarist Day
This is the first of two rants of the day. Consider it a 2 for 1 special. Today is MLK, a day in honor of a man whose work was nearly completely fraudulent, whose personal life was an insult to Christian morals, whose political behavior was (to put it mildly) highly shady, and who nonetheless commands a ridiculous degree of near-total adulation. In my role as the unpleasant truth teller (not because I am unpleasant, but because I deal in unpleasant truths), it is my responsibility to, in a small way at least, look at some of the reasons why MLK should not be the celebrated person he is, even for those of us who (like myself) are against the evils of racism in whatever form they appear. After that we will discuss some personal views of mine about MLK and how he has appeared in my own personal literature.
Thou Shalt Not Steal
MLK was a fraud. There is no way to deal with the truth about his flagrant disregard for standards of academic honesty or for his concern about giving credit to the work of others that he so shamefully stole without any credit or attribution being given. It is quite possible that MLK never had any original thought in his entire body of work. At any rate, it is somewhat certain that his doctorate degree is about as worthwhile as Charmin double-ply toilet paper (I think that's an original simile).
But let this not rest as a matter of opinion. The following site (http://www.martinlutherking.org/plagiarism.html) contains much useful information (and some dead links unfortunately) about the serious nature of MLK's plagiarism problem. A substantial portion, perhaps a majority, of the words of MLK's doctoral thesis were lifted from various authors without any attribution. This is theft on a grand scale. His stolen student essays, for example, are used as textbook lessons in plagiarism at some universities (such as the University of British Columbia). Even his most famous speech (the "I Have A Dream" speech) was stolen from a *nearly identical* speech by a man named Archibald Carey to the 1952 Republican National Convention. A side-by-side comparison of the speeches can be found at (http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/whose_dream.html). The site is currently down, but I don't know how long that will last.
Stealing the ideas and words of other people is wrong. While some plagiarism is inadvertent, the wholesale thievery from MLK is evidence of someone who did not respect the intellectual property of ideas from other people. By appropriating the thoughts and exact phrases of other people who were much more profound and original thinkers (but, sadly, less famous), MLK has acquired a reputation for eloquence and intelligence he did not deserve. He was the Milli Vanilli of divinity studies, and his doctorate degree was not earned. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter the fame or political importance of the people involved. No one is above the law, or above accountability for their actions.
No Reverend At All
MLK had a problem with sex. He was far from alone in that, of course. Like many religious leaders (without naming names), he utilized his position as a supposed man of God in order to fulfull his many adulterous desires. Supposedly, of the 13 FBI tapes on MLK, 12 of them deal with his sexual escapades. Who knows what his widow thinks of all of that, but it reflects poorly on his character. Some of the tapes apparently involve his party-boy behavior before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Stockholm and involve his pleasure at being able to sleep with a white woman. I will withold comment on that.
What his behavior, which was apparently used by some in attempts to blackmail him for ulterior political motives (itself wrong), tells us is that MLK was not a person to take God and his religious beliefs very seriously. Just as he did not respect God's command not to seal, he did not respect God's concern for the sanctity of marriage. He was careless and arrogant, and thought himself above the standards that he as a minister sought to hold everyone else to. That reeks of the most disgusting hypocrisy. No human beings are perfect, but we should demand that heroic figures at least be good, not dispicable presumptuous sinners. They must at least struggle against their baser natures, rather than revel in them.
Political Machinations
MLK was a political opportunist. His personality is of the type that is valued in our society (which reflects poorly on us), and that is someone of no original or deep thoughts or moral convictions but merely someone who is skilled at marketing and manipulation of emotional sentiment. Think of Bill Clinton, for example. Same situation is there. Our society is sucker for anyone who can play on emotions, and those who can appear to be sympathetic will gain attention and become legends even without character or depth. That this is largely due to the emotionalism and lack of intellectual depth among the Baby Boomer generation is itself a big part of the problem.
The political machinations of MLK can be shown by his shallow flirtation with Communists. After all, despite the ulterior motives of the Communists, they were early defenders of the rights of blacks (as was, we must not forget, the Party of Lincoln, with less ulterior motives). Jewish leftist intellectuals were among the key figures in anticipating and leading the movement against segregation that eventually led to the destruction of Jim Crow laws. So, regardless of his convictions (if he had any), MLK demonstrated at least a shallow interest in their ideology.
Then, in the mid-1960's, when black radicals became more influential, MLK toed a more black nationalistic line. This included demands for reparations for slavery, a craven attempt to despoil the hard earned wealth of white America, and a completely unacceptable demand. The debt of slavery was paid in full by the deaths of the civil war. If anyone should pay reparations, it is those nations and peoples that sold their brethren and neighbors across the Atlantic Ocean. Then again, they already have enough debts of their own. At any rate, it appears MLK was not that serious about reparations, but was merely trying to earn his bona fides as a black nationalist. He did not live long enough to demonstrate any true moral or political convictions.
MLK in the literature of Nathan Albright
I live just off of MLK, or SR-574 (or Buffalo Avenue), as I prefer to call it. To the extent possible, I generally prefer not to even mention the name. However, there is one way in which the name of MLK has appeared in my literature, in several of my plays. For my high school plays (which include "A Quiet Springtime Love" and "The Rape of Nicholas"), I renamed my school Martin Luther King High School in order to mock both the school and MLK. The school was not that great of a place (and its real name is not MLKHS, but rather C. Leon King High School), but just like MLK streets are in the worst neighborhoods, MLKHS was not that good of a school in fiction. It all makes sense. I once wrote, before finding out the truth about MLK, a rather nice essay about the Letters from a Birmingham Jail, but I suppose I had better write glowing praise for those who were responsible for the thoughts therein, rather than for the thief who stole the beautiful and weighty words and passed them off as his own. So should you.
Thou Shalt Not Steal
MLK was a fraud. There is no way to deal with the truth about his flagrant disregard for standards of academic honesty or for his concern about giving credit to the work of others that he so shamefully stole without any credit or attribution being given. It is quite possible that MLK never had any original thought in his entire body of work. At any rate, it is somewhat certain that his doctorate degree is about as worthwhile as Charmin double-ply toilet paper (I think that's an original simile).
But let this not rest as a matter of opinion. The following site (http://www.martinlutherking.org/plagiarism.html) contains much useful information (and some dead links unfortunately) about the serious nature of MLK's plagiarism problem. A substantial portion, perhaps a majority, of the words of MLK's doctoral thesis were lifted from various authors without any attribution. This is theft on a grand scale. His stolen student essays, for example, are used as textbook lessons in plagiarism at some universities (such as the University of British Columbia). Even his most famous speech (the "I Have A Dream" speech) was stolen from a *nearly identical* speech by a man named Archibald Carey to the 1952 Republican National Convention. A side-by-side comparison of the speeches can be found at (http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/whose_dream.html). The site is currently down, but I don't know how long that will last.
Stealing the ideas and words of other people is wrong. While some plagiarism is inadvertent, the wholesale thievery from MLK is evidence of someone who did not respect the intellectual property of ideas from other people. By appropriating the thoughts and exact phrases of other people who were much more profound and original thinkers (but, sadly, less famous), MLK has acquired a reputation for eloquence and intelligence he did not deserve. He was the Milli Vanilli of divinity studies, and his doctorate degree was not earned. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter the fame or political importance of the people involved. No one is above the law, or above accountability for their actions.
No Reverend At All
MLK had a problem with sex. He was far from alone in that, of course. Like many religious leaders (without naming names), he utilized his position as a supposed man of God in order to fulfull his many adulterous desires. Supposedly, of the 13 FBI tapes on MLK, 12 of them deal with his sexual escapades. Who knows what his widow thinks of all of that, but it reflects poorly on his character. Some of the tapes apparently involve his party-boy behavior before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Stockholm and involve his pleasure at being able to sleep with a white woman. I will withold comment on that.
What his behavior, which was apparently used by some in attempts to blackmail him for ulterior political motives (itself wrong), tells us is that MLK was not a person to take God and his religious beliefs very seriously. Just as he did not respect God's command not to seal, he did not respect God's concern for the sanctity of marriage. He was careless and arrogant, and thought himself above the standards that he as a minister sought to hold everyone else to. That reeks of the most disgusting hypocrisy. No human beings are perfect, but we should demand that heroic figures at least be good, not dispicable presumptuous sinners. They must at least struggle against their baser natures, rather than revel in them.
Political Machinations
MLK was a political opportunist. His personality is of the type that is valued in our society (which reflects poorly on us), and that is someone of no original or deep thoughts or moral convictions but merely someone who is skilled at marketing and manipulation of emotional sentiment. Think of Bill Clinton, for example. Same situation is there. Our society is sucker for anyone who can play on emotions, and those who can appear to be sympathetic will gain attention and become legends even without character or depth. That this is largely due to the emotionalism and lack of intellectual depth among the Baby Boomer generation is itself a big part of the problem.
The political machinations of MLK can be shown by his shallow flirtation with Communists. After all, despite the ulterior motives of the Communists, they were early defenders of the rights of blacks (as was, we must not forget, the Party of Lincoln, with less ulterior motives). Jewish leftist intellectuals were among the key figures in anticipating and leading the movement against segregation that eventually led to the destruction of Jim Crow laws. So, regardless of his convictions (if he had any), MLK demonstrated at least a shallow interest in their ideology.
Then, in the mid-1960's, when black radicals became more influential, MLK toed a more black nationalistic line. This included demands for reparations for slavery, a craven attempt to despoil the hard earned wealth of white America, and a completely unacceptable demand. The debt of slavery was paid in full by the deaths of the civil war. If anyone should pay reparations, it is those nations and peoples that sold their brethren and neighbors across the Atlantic Ocean. Then again, they already have enough debts of their own. At any rate, it appears MLK was not that serious about reparations, but was merely trying to earn his bona fides as a black nationalist. He did not live long enough to demonstrate any true moral or political convictions.
MLK in the literature of Nathan Albright
I live just off of MLK, or SR-574 (or Buffalo Avenue), as I prefer to call it. To the extent possible, I generally prefer not to even mention the name. However, there is one way in which the name of MLK has appeared in my literature, in several of my plays. For my high school plays (which include "A Quiet Springtime Love" and "The Rape of Nicholas"), I renamed my school Martin Luther King High School in order to mock both the school and MLK. The school was not that great of a place (and its real name is not MLKHS, but rather C. Leon King High School), but just like MLK streets are in the worst neighborhoods, MLKHS was not that good of a school in fiction. It all makes sense. I once wrote, before finding out the truth about MLK, a rather nice essay about the Letters from a Birmingham Jail, but I suppose I had better write glowing praise for those who were responsible for the thoughts therein, rather than for the thief who stole the beautiful and weighty words and passed them off as his own. So should you.
Friday, January 13, 2006
A Case of Mistaken Identity
As I rest this Sabbath day, I am pondering two cases of mistaken identity. In order to protect the innocent (or guilty) I will only use first and last initials. These stories have been relatively amusing, but are quite intriguing and both relate to spiritual issues, and people in the United Church of God, ironically enough (both of them, as well as myself, have ABC connections, to make things even more coincidental). So, without any (further) ado, here are the cases of humorous and occasionally frustrating mistaken identity.
Case #1: Dissing The Wrong Albright Brother
A certain young lady lived in the Tampa Bay area for a time, and my younger brother had a crush on her for a long time. She wanted nothing of it, as she is a couple of weeks older. She even insulted my younger brother by saying he was not a member of the Pittsburgh Posse, something that mattered (maybe matters) a lot to him. While visiting Tampa for the summer (I was in college at the time) I met her a little, but did not know her all that well. So, when she went off to ABC, and whenever someone else brought up my name to her, she dissed me to all comers about how much of a rotten scoundrel I am. Such calumny is rather irksome to me, and it was not until a few months ago that the truth was discovered: all these years she mistook me for my younger brother. *Glares*. Look, if you want to want to diss me for what I have said and done, that is fine (I certainly have said and done enough). But don't even think of saddling me with someone else's reputation, unless it's a good one. Then it's okay.
Case #2: An Unintentional Prophecy
Some of my friends (jokingly, I hope) call me Nathan the Prophet. Once, however, I made a tragic and unfortuante, and entirely unintentional, prophecy, involving a young woman I barely knew who also has a close ABC connection. It all started in 1998, when I began writing a trilogy of plays called the "Church Kids Trilogy" of church kids gone bad (and I am putting that rather politely). I finished the trilogy in 2003. Now, I gave the beautiful (and somewhat hypocritical) heroine of the trilogy a very beautiful name, because I did not know anyone by that name at the time (and I still don't know that many people with the name, it is somewhat unusual in these parts, except among the mafia princesses of Tampa I suppose, whom I do not tend to know). Anyways, it turns out that the name I picked (which was the same name as the acquaintance of mine) ended up describing the person somewhat well (not perfectly, but too close for comfort at any rate). That said, perhaps it is irrelevant. If she has mended or mends her ways, whatever she did in the past (and all of us have a past) is irrelevant. God forgives us all, which we can be quite thankful for. As that is the case, it would not be right to comment too much about her deeds, especially if they are covered with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
And with that, I bid adieu.
Case #1: Dissing The Wrong Albright Brother
A certain young lady lived in the Tampa Bay area for a time, and my younger brother had a crush on her for a long time. She wanted nothing of it, as she is a couple of weeks older. She even insulted my younger brother by saying he was not a member of the Pittsburgh Posse, something that mattered (maybe matters) a lot to him. While visiting Tampa for the summer (I was in college at the time) I met her a little, but did not know her all that well. So, when she went off to ABC, and whenever someone else brought up my name to her, she dissed me to all comers about how much of a rotten scoundrel I am. Such calumny is rather irksome to me, and it was not until a few months ago that the truth was discovered: all these years she mistook me for my younger brother. *Glares*. Look, if you want to want to diss me for what I have said and done, that is fine (I certainly have said and done enough). But don't even think of saddling me with someone else's reputation, unless it's a good one. Then it's okay.
Case #2: An Unintentional Prophecy
Some of my friends (jokingly, I hope) call me Nathan the Prophet. Once, however, I made a tragic and unfortuante, and entirely unintentional, prophecy, involving a young woman I barely knew who also has a close ABC connection. It all started in 1998, when I began writing a trilogy of plays called the "Church Kids Trilogy" of church kids gone bad (and I am putting that rather politely). I finished the trilogy in 2003. Now, I gave the beautiful (and somewhat hypocritical) heroine of the trilogy a very beautiful name, because I did not know anyone by that name at the time (and I still don't know that many people with the name, it is somewhat unusual in these parts, except among the mafia princesses of Tampa I suppose, whom I do not tend to know). Anyways, it turns out that the name I picked (which was the same name as the acquaintance of mine) ended up describing the person somewhat well (not perfectly, but too close for comfort at any rate). That said, perhaps it is irrelevant. If she has mended or mends her ways, whatever she did in the past (and all of us have a past) is irrelevant. God forgives us all, which we can be quite thankful for. As that is the case, it would not be right to comment too much about her deeds, especially if they are covered with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
And with that, I bid adieu.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
We Are The Normal
I don't know how many people are enthusiastic about the New Horizons mission, which is supposed to arrive at Pluto in about nine years to begin exploring the Kuiper belt, where Pluto resides. Of the nine major planets (and scientists differ strongly whether Pluto should be considered a planet or not, though I firmly support its status), Pluto is the only one that has not been explored yet.
Pluto is a quirky little planet, which would largely explain why it is my favorite of the planets. I mean, it doesn't really fit in but it tries really hard anyway (it occasionally can be found closer to the sun than Neptune, has 3 moons, has an atmosphere of Methane, and has a somewhat askew orbit of the sun). It is sad when one can identify with a really cold rock covered in N2 and CH4 (and trace amounts of CO2), but so be it. In fact, I have been a fan of Pluto's for a long time, since I was a small child. Once, our pastor in Worldwide in Lakeland, FL (a man by the name of Guy Ames), gave a sermon about planets in the Kingdom of God. I responded to him (as I am wont to do) that Pluto was my favorite planet, and I gave the reasons why. Even as a very small one I was attracted to what was neglected, obscure, and disputed. Some things never change.
Pluto itself was only discovered in 1930 by a young research assistant named Clyde Tombaugh. He was only 24 at the age he discovered Pluto, and he had been hired by Dr. Vesto Slipher, the director of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Observatory (in Arizona). The observatory was named after Percival Lowell, who funded the observatory (and named it after himself, duh) and speculated on the existence of a supposed "Planet X" that had caused certain shifts that forced Neptune to deviate from its theoretical orbit. Similar calculations had been used to discover Uranus and Neptune. Pluto, of course, was far too small to be responsible for the deviations in Neptune's orbit, and the discovery of Pluto is considered to be serindipitous (or, in other words, lucky). In 1975, a moon was discovered for Pluto and was named Charon. Charon was found to be half the mass of Pluto.
Ever since then, there has been a great deal of skepticism about the status of Pluto. While some of us (fans of the underdog, if you will) consistently defend the planetary status of Pluto, others have long considered Pluto a planetary freak. It turns out, though, that Pluto was merely the first of many similar objects in the Kuiper Belt. There are a great deal of small, very very cold, binary objects (a planetoid with a relatively large moon orbiting each other closely) as well as comets in the area beyond Neptune. Therefore, many astronomers consider the solar system to consist of three zones: the rocky inner planetary region, which ends at the asteroid belt, the gas giant region, between Jupiter and Neptune, and the frigid Kuiper belt region of small and eccentric planetary objects extending from Pluto the points far beyond.
So, if you (like me) are a fan of the obscure and underdog planet of Pluto, here is hoping that the New Horizons project ends up uncovering more information about that most misfit of planets. While astronomers continue (thus far unsuccessfully) to seek after a large Planet X, the rest of us can rejoice in a small planet that continues to fight agianst the odds and the naysayers. Here's to Pluto, which turns out to be a lot more normal than most astronomers ever figured it to be until very recently.
Pluto is a quirky little planet, which would largely explain why it is my favorite of the planets. I mean, it doesn't really fit in but it tries really hard anyway (it occasionally can be found closer to the sun than Neptune, has 3 moons, has an atmosphere of Methane, and has a somewhat askew orbit of the sun). It is sad when one can identify with a really cold rock covered in N2 and CH4 (and trace amounts of CO2), but so be it. In fact, I have been a fan of Pluto's for a long time, since I was a small child. Once, our pastor in Worldwide in Lakeland, FL (a man by the name of Guy Ames), gave a sermon about planets in the Kingdom of God. I responded to him (as I am wont to do) that Pluto was my favorite planet, and I gave the reasons why. Even as a very small one I was attracted to what was neglected, obscure, and disputed. Some things never change.
Pluto itself was only discovered in 1930 by a young research assistant named Clyde Tombaugh. He was only 24 at the age he discovered Pluto, and he had been hired by Dr. Vesto Slipher, the director of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Observatory (in Arizona). The observatory was named after Percival Lowell, who funded the observatory (and named it after himself, duh) and speculated on the existence of a supposed "Planet X" that had caused certain shifts that forced Neptune to deviate from its theoretical orbit. Similar calculations had been used to discover Uranus and Neptune. Pluto, of course, was far too small to be responsible for the deviations in Neptune's orbit, and the discovery of Pluto is considered to be serindipitous (or, in other words, lucky). In 1975, a moon was discovered for Pluto and was named Charon. Charon was found to be half the mass of Pluto.
Ever since then, there has been a great deal of skepticism about the status of Pluto. While some of us (fans of the underdog, if you will) consistently defend the planetary status of Pluto, others have long considered Pluto a planetary freak. It turns out, though, that Pluto was merely the first of many similar objects in the Kuiper Belt. There are a great deal of small, very very cold, binary objects (a planetoid with a relatively large moon orbiting each other closely) as well as comets in the area beyond Neptune. Therefore, many astronomers consider the solar system to consist of three zones: the rocky inner planetary region, which ends at the asteroid belt, the gas giant region, between Jupiter and Neptune, and the frigid Kuiper belt region of small and eccentric planetary objects extending from Pluto the points far beyond.
So, if you (like me) are a fan of the obscure and underdog planet of Pluto, here is hoping that the New Horizons project ends up uncovering more information about that most misfit of planets. While astronomers continue (thus far unsuccessfully) to seek after a large Planet X, the rest of us can rejoice in a small planet that continues to fight agianst the odds and the naysayers. Here's to Pluto, which turns out to be a lot more normal than most astronomers ever figured it to be until very recently.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Some Guys Have All The Luck
As bad as my end of 2005 was (for reasons of family health problems), I cannot imagine someone who ended 2005 and began 2006 with as many self-inflicted problems as a certain Marcus Vick, former quarterback for the Virginia Tech Hokies, and younger brother of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. How bad has the last month gone? Let's see:
December 17th--stopped and arrested for driving with a suspended license and gets a speeding ticket to boot
January 2nd--Leads Virginia Tech to victory over Louisville in the Gator Bowl. Video of the game shows him stomping on Elvis Dumervil after a tackle. He is soon kicked off the team, because he violated the school's no-tolerance policy after a previous guilty plea to 3 counts of contributing to the dilinquency of a minor, as well as sexual activity with a minor. Those charges had gotten him suspended for the entire 2004 season.
January 9th--arrested for three counts of brandishing a firearm
Marcus Vick is a talented football player, and his skills in running and passing are unquestioned. He may not be as good a football player as his brother is, but he's pretty close. His head is not in the right place, though. He is planning on playing in the NFL next year, if he avoids jail time, but whichever team drafts him is going to have to keep him out of trouble and find him some sensible role model. If he wasn't a football player, this guy would probably be in jail for a long time over his past indiscretions. He's lucky he's free to take his constitutional somewhere outside of the state penitentiary.
So, where does he go from here? Hopefully he lays low for a few months, cools his heels, practices football with his brother, and tries to repair his reputation as a spoiled, arrogant hothead with a penchant for guns, alcohol, and underage girls (that is not a good combination). If he doesn't, well, his jail is going to have one great prison football team, that's for sure.
December 17th--stopped and arrested for driving with a suspended license and gets a speeding ticket to boot
January 2nd--Leads Virginia Tech to victory over Louisville in the Gator Bowl. Video of the game shows him stomping on Elvis Dumervil after a tackle. He is soon kicked off the team, because he violated the school's no-tolerance policy after a previous guilty plea to 3 counts of contributing to the dilinquency of a minor, as well as sexual activity with a minor. Those charges had gotten him suspended for the entire 2004 season.
January 9th--arrested for three counts of brandishing a firearm
Marcus Vick is a talented football player, and his skills in running and passing are unquestioned. He may not be as good a football player as his brother is, but he's pretty close. His head is not in the right place, though. He is planning on playing in the NFL next year, if he avoids jail time, but whichever team drafts him is going to have to keep him out of trouble and find him some sensible role model. If he wasn't a football player, this guy would probably be in jail for a long time over his past indiscretions. He's lucky he's free to take his constitutional somewhere outside of the state penitentiary.
So, where does he go from here? Hopefully he lays low for a few months, cools his heels, practices football with his brother, and tries to repair his reputation as a spoiled, arrogant hothead with a penchant for guns, alcohol, and underage girls (that is not a good combination). If he doesn't, well, his jail is going to have one great prison football team, that's for sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
