Saturday, December 26, 2009

*Fin + Lewis = Awesome

The other day I was returning from a workout while listening to C.S. Lewis' book: Mere Christianity. The chapter was The Reality of the Law. As I drove home, I was unprepared for the emotional experience that occurs when God drops some revelatory truth on you. In other words, I teared up as I began to realize some things. Now, the chapter's words by themselves did not cause my tears to well up; rather, it was a combination of the concepts presented in the book and the song that followed. You see, my iphone plays the audio files randomly and after selecting a single chapter of Mere Christianity it moved onto the song *Fin by Anberlin. If you are unfamiliar with the song and the lyrics in it, only one word describes it: epic.

Here is a youtube video with the song and lyrics.


The song's message is a series of verses that describe the author's experiences with Christianity. He struggles with God because of the suffering, lying and manipulation perpetrated by Christians. Why does this strike me so strongly? Well, in Mere Christianity, Lewis makes the statement that we look at Christians to find Christ instead of going directly to the source. In other words, we always blame Jesus Christ for the behavior of His followers because we expect them to be like Him. Normally, I do not have a problem with this, but we often take it too far in that we do not acknowledge they are all imperfect people following a perfect being. What is normal is the struggle. What is abnormal is cohesiveness. What I mean by this is that we should expect to see Christians failing consistently the standard that is perfection (Christ), but what separates them from the non-believer is that they are still striving for perfection despite the mistakes and shortcomings. And it is there, in the midst of the pain that we find forgiveness and grace. Christianity and salvation through Jesus is for the weak and broken. Bandages exist for the cut and damaged. Life vests do not save those who are not drowning. Similarly, salvation is for those who need saving.

The author of the lyrics in *Fin is communicating his story of unrealistic expectations of others, but in the end he rediscovers his faith in Jesus. This is evident with his frail and humble words describing his exposure and weaknesses.

"And then take full weight of me
Guard my dreams, figure this out,
It's me on my own. Helpless, hurting, hell.
Will you stay strong as you promised?
Cause I'm stranded and bare.
Meanness is washed up and all that I have
is God. Take this and all"

I get the impression that the reality of christianity has finally hit the lead singer of the Anberlin. It is about a direct relationship with the creator and to judge Him based upon the actions of an imperfect human is about as valuable as having a 3 year old draw the intricate details of the morning sun cresting over the snow capped mountains of Lake Tahoe. The child's picture contains it's own type of beauty in a way, but to compare the depths of colors, details, and magnificence to the being there...well, the source is always better than the drawing of a 3 year old.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Cruel Logic

I love this video. Ideas have consequences.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Why do governments exist?

A friend recently began a discussion on this topic with me and I thought others might benefit from my response. I did not tell my friend that I would be posting my response on my blog, so to protect my friend's privacy I will not include the original question.

What is God's purpose for government?

It was his idea, so how did He design it to work? What was His purpose behind creating the concept of government? Essentially, I am asking what is the role of government from a Christian point of view?

Well, I also believe in what Romans 13 teaches and I believe that we can find God's position on the matter from that text and a few others. Please read: 1 Kings 21, Daniel 4, and 1 Samuel 8 because I will be referencing them as well.

In Romans 13 we read that God says He establishes all governments and to rebel against them is to rebel against God. Initially, it is easy to see why many Christians feel that to oppose a sitting leader is wrong. However, I do not believe that this is the proper interpretation of the text. If it were, than all women would need to submit to their abusive husbands regardless of their abuse of authority as the head of the family. No, we know that God is not expecting a woman to turn the cheek and take another beating because she is to "submit" to authority. The same is true for the governments that God has established.

If you read 12:19 in Romans it begins to talk about vengeance and taking the authority of wrath into your own hands. Instead, Paul says that we are to "repay evil for good" and to submit to the governing authority because this authority is established by God. As you continue to read it now makes sense when Paul writes "he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves" (13:2). Paul is telling us that we are to leave room for God's wrath (12:19) because He provides it through a government that has a purpose for "punishing evil" (13:4).

Verse 4 is fascinating because we see the explicit purpose of governments: "To condone good and punish evil." Governments should condone (passive) good and punish (active) evil. Meaning, governments bear the sword (God's wrath) as a servant to permit Godly behaviors and punish persons who commit evil acts. Simply put, God's desire of government is a limited one.

Are there other scriptural texts to support a limited government and why should it be limited in nature?

Simply put, gGovernments are one of many social spheres that God has created an order to. Other social spheres are: the family, the church, and the economic. All of these social spheres are based upon the model of the trinity, his very nature. In the government sphere we have: God, the government, and the people. God creates the government and the people and sits the citizens underneath the authority of the government. However, the governing entity is subject to God and the people have direct access to the Lord should the government abuse its power. This is how it should work. Now, let's look at some scriptural support.

Daniel 4
lays out a story of Nebuchadnezzar and his dream. As you progress down chapter 4 we get to the portion in verse 30, which the king says, "Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?" God immediately punishes King Nebuchadnezzar for his arrogance until he repents (4:34). The lesson of course being that God establishes all authorities and no man should ever boast for himself what God has done for him.

In 1 Kings 21 we read about King Ahab and Naboth's vineyard. The story tells us that Jezebel murdered Naboth because Ahab whined about wanting his vineyard. King Ahab had no right to even buy the vineyard in the Lord's eyes, but he wanted it anyway. In the end, he stole a murdered man's land and used his governmental authority to do it. God then sends Elijah to proclaim His punishment for the sin he committed and causing the nation to sin (21:22).

2 Chronicles 26
tells us the story of King Uzziah and how he abused his authority. He thought that his Kingly authority allowed him to perform the duties of a priest. That sphere is independent from the governmental sphere and Uzziah overstepped his bounds. God gave him leprosy for it.

These last two paragraphs establish that God expects governments, who bear the sword (Romans 13:4), are expected to act within their authorities only. And when they do not, He punishes them for it. Sometimes He punishes them directly, or sometimes He raises up other men to depose them. Either way, God remains sovereign.

The last scripture is 1 Samuel 8. In this section we read about the sinful nature of man that does not trust God as a leader. The sin wasn't because they asked Samuel to replace his sons; rather, it was because they wanted a system of government that resembled the other nations (8:5). This displeased the Lord because their motive was really rejecting Him as king. So, the Lord graciously warns them about what will come from a government in which all governmental authority resides with one man. This section is also fascinating:(11) He will draft an army, (12-13) forced civil service and labor, (14-17) taxes and redistribution of wealth, and (18) slavery.

I don't know if you noticed in verses 14-17 state he will take your "best" and "a tenth" when he taxes you. This is tithing language. The king/government will steal from God what is rightfully His and you will be unable to fulfill your obligations to me. Think about your paychecks when you worked in your past jobs. Who took the first fruits? It grieves me that I am unable to give God my first fruits when I work for another company. The only modern solution today is to repeal the current tax system or become self-employed so that you can give to God first before the government takes its taxes. Now, I'm not opposed to all taxation because we need it to pay for the services that "condone good and punish evil." However, the first step to change is awareness of the problem. We have a major problem in our nation. We are a socialist nation hiding behind a mostly capitalistic economy. We have to come to terms with that before and permanent change can be effected. Christians, most of all, need to understand the purpose of government as God intended.

So, in the end, how do I reconcile my positions against Obama, the left, and democrats? I believe it is my duty as a citizen, a Christian and a human being to legally oppose all governments that function contrary to scriptural parameters as long as the government does not require me to violate scripture. This does not give me the right to call the man (Obama) an absolute moron and idiot. I sometimes stumble in this. However, I don't believe him to be either, especially since he has proved his intelligence and charisma as a lawyer and politician. Nevertheless, I do believe he is a deceiver, or perhaps blind. He should know better because he possesses the ability to reason and all of human history points to the abuse of governmental powers and the atrocities they bring. Why on earth would he and others like him try and gather more power in a centralized government? Simply put, because it is power.

The gospel teaches us that every person has a sinful desire to oppose God in everything (Galations 5:17). The government was God's design. It was His idea. Let's follow His plan.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

I had an interesting day yesterday

Yesterday was Vacaville's Merriment on Main
and I had a pretty good time serving up some hot chocolate (with marshmellows) to the public. Our church does it every year, amongst many other organizations that offer free snacks and drinks during the tree lighting. It's a fun time of meeting new people, serving the community and reconnecting with old acquaintances.

Anyhow, why am I writing about this little memory in a blog where I normally keep the topics to economics, politics and religion? Well, to be honest, the blogging became more of an obligation towards the end of summer. I did it because I made a goal of 3 blogs a week for 2009. The first quarter was fun and exciting as most new things are. However, somewhere during the summertime I lost my desire to write about things I am passionate about and it became a burden.

Additionally, I started this blog to express my thoughts about life and many of my friends starting commenting about how they enjoyed the banters, sarcasm and the like. I felt like I was contributing to my little portion of the world. It was fun and I was stirring up so much conversation about topics I love.

I think things started to change when I found myself pissing off people who normally don't talk to me. It was a little weird at first to hear an old high school acquaintance on Facebook come out of the abyss to rant on a post. I thought, well, at least I know them a little better than I did before. Who cares that the only reason I know them better now was because they felt they had to correct me on a position they knew nothing about in the first place. Se la vi right?

Then, all of a sudden, I think it became about drawing people out of the private places they hide their political affiliations and religious bigotry to find out what they really did believe. I am convinced that this is where I may have gone wrong. You see, I became burnt out because I began to believe the purpose of my writing was to stimulate debate and discussion. I realize now that this is only a byproduct of my writing. Add to this that I believed my friends were enjoying my writing and finding it of value, but I had not heard anyone comment or even refute some of what I wrote during the summer. We all enjoy the feedback concerning the things we invest ourselves in.

Recently, I had two friends I haven't seen in a long while tell me they appreciated what I wrote and asked me if I was still blogging. Although my face never showed it, I was deeply touched that in the little time we spoke on Parker Street they asked me about the very writing I abandoned because I thought no one was reading it and I was writing for the wrong reasons. Then it dawned on me...Go back to the basics of doing it because you enjoy it. Address the controversial because that is who you are.

I stir the pot not because that is who I am. I don't need to worry about making sure that I do it. I just need to write my thoughts and let the chips fall as they may. All you clean freaks will understand this: Have you ever walked into a room that was not yours and picked up an article of clothing to place it neatly in an appropriate place? Or maybe leveled that friend's picture frame because it was off even though no one seemed to notice? You like order and cleanliness; so much so, that you do it naturally everywhere you go.

We should all find out what we love and get good at it. How can I get better at communicating how I feel about life if I don't do it? Likewise, you should do the same. Find that thing that makes you tick and do it. And not just do it, but do it well

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Neighborhood Watch

Barats and Baretta doing the mallcop.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

What is my week been like?

Yep, this little booger (pun intended) has become this week's arch nemesis. Here's a little breakdown from emedtv.com of the Rhino virus, aka the Common Cold.

What Is Rhinovirus?
The common cold is caused by a virus. More than 200 different viruses are known to cause the common cold. One such type of virus is the rhinovirus.

Facts About Rhinovirus
Rhinoviruses (from the Greek word rhin, meaning "nose") are the cause of the common cold in an estimated 30 to 35 percent of all adults. More than 110 distinct rhinovirus types have been identified. This virus belongs to the Picornaviridae family of viruses. A rhinovirus is a very small RNA virus.

Rhinovirus types are most active in early fall, spring, and summer. They can live up to 3 hours on your skin. They also can survive up to 3 hours on objects such as telephones and doorknobs.

These viruses grow best at temperatures of about 91 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature inside the human nose.


Yep, these guys are notorious for being nosey (cheezy, I know). Anyhow, I hope you learned a little more about this little jerk of a parasite.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Arnold's solution to the the budget deficit is 38 7/8"

Anyone interested in seeing Conan slice up his enemies on the Assembly and Senate floor? Anyone...? Bueler...




Apparently, our Governator still keeps his Atlantian Sword from Conan in case of emergencies.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Leftist on Leftist action when it comes to Nazi Poster


I was recently on youtube because a video of Barney Frank belittling a woman at a Town Hall Meeting is getting a lot of hits. I normally don't like to respond to youtube commentary because intelligence avoids that environment as much as a cat loves a bath. I couldn't resist this time because of the pure garbage being spewed today about people who don't want universal healthcare, so I posted some comments. This ultimately led me to investigate where the Nazi poster originally came from. I find it dubious when a democrat says we are a bunch of Nazis. BTW, are you aware that Nazi stands for the National Socialist Party? Just a little context.




Here's the video of Barney Frank and the lady:


Originally, I felt bad for her, but then my natural BS meter went off. She lobbed Barney Frank such and easy pitch that he couldn't help but hit it out of the park with his rehearsed speech. Anyhow, I eventually came across this video talking about an organization called La Rouche. If you click that link and head to the right of the page you will see their banner link for the single payer healthcare position.

I would add more commentary to this situation, but I'll just link to this video:


So, it seems that Dems are fighting Dems. "A house divided shall fall." Thanks Obama.

Update: Jer mentioned it would be prudent to provide additional information on who started La Rouche PAC. The gentleman's name is Lyndon LaRouch and his wikipedia entry is here. You will find his history and political stances there. Good luck.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Hey Alan,Alan, Alan, Alan,Alan,Alan...

A little diversion for you. Daaaa duh, daaa duh, da duh da duh...

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

If they were wrong before, could they be wrong now?

According to the BBC News, "The Federal Reserve has suggested that the worst of the US recession is over." I know that prices across the board for homes have risen on average a little bit, but that only means the foreclosed homes are finally being removed from the inventory list. I still have much concern about inflation since the Fed has printed so much money this year.

Peter Schiff, owner of Euro Pacific Capital, is running against Chris Dodd in Connecticut. I'd vote for him if I lived there. He writes in an article entitled "Experts" Never Learn,

"There is an inexplicable, but somehow widely held, belief that stock market movements are predictive of economic conditions. As such, the current rally in U.S. stock prices has caused many people to conclude that the recession is nearing an end. The widespread optimism is not confined to Wall Street, as even Barack Obama has pointed to the bubbly markets to vindicate his economic policies. However, reality is clearly at odds with these optimistic assumptions.

In the first place, stock markets have been taken by surprise throughout history. In the current cycle, neither the market nor its cheerleaders saw this recession coming, so why should anyone believe that these fonts of wisdom have suddenly become clairvoyant?"

In an earlier article he responds to the "positive" news that recession is showing signs of ending with "Since we have learned nothing from past mistakes, we are condemned to repeat them. As if we have not already suffered enough as a consequence of the Bush/Greenspan stimulus, Obama/Bernanke are giving ever larger doses, which will prove lethal to any recovery. The recession is over; long live the depression!"

Keep in mind that this is the gentleman that was laughed at and mocked as a doomsayer in 2007 when he predicted our current economic crash. Should we laugh at him again? I don't like reporting bad news, but in order to fix problems, we must not only acknowledge there is one, but understand why it is so. The economic problems are caused by government policies that artificial stimulate the economy and never face the reality of bad monetary policies.

Alcoholics must not only admit they have a problem, but have to face the fact that they are responsible for it. And when they go through withdraws for the booz, do we give them a drink to ease their pain? Absolutely not! Funny how the government disagrees with your common sense.

Another side thought, although I enjoy drinking, did you know that alcohol is a poison and that is why you get inebreated? Well, if you drink alcohol enough you develop a tolerance to it's negative effects. In all actuality, the poison is still there, but you don't feel it anymore. Perhaps, our country has been drinking the cool-aid long enough to not feel the pain anymore. The poisonous monetary policies are still there, but we don't feel it anymore. And when the pain emerges of our bad habits, we just drink more to dull it away for a later date.

It's time to toss the cool-aid and return to a healthy economy.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Chuck DeVore on nuclear energy for California

Jeremy and I took a trip to see Chuck DeVore speak at the Capitol last Wednesday and here is his speech. The topic was nuclear energy.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Not all worship is the same in all places

I was arranging this Sunday's worship song list and came across a video that stopped me in my tracks. Most of you know that I have deficiency when it comes to recalling hymns, so I tend to research their arrangements to help me better perform them more accurately. Well, this week's new hymn is "Great is Thy Faithfulness." You may already know this song well, but I don't. I can sing the chorus, but the verses had me stumped for a little bit. I decided to rectify that by researching the song on songza.com which led me to this video:

Suggestion for viewing: Pick your jaw off the floor.

Chinedu Nwadike - Great Is Thy Faithfulness (Worship Medley)

I don't really know much about the guy, except that he's in Nigeria and his name sometimes has "Prince" in front of it.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Key Bank in Seattle fires a teller for stopping a robbery

Hey guys, as you have noticed, I've been really busy this past two weeks. If I don't post much on this blog, usually it's because life has been hectic and full. With the mother-in-law visiting, school papers, and other time consuming activities, I've had very little time to devote to one of my favorite pastimes, writing this blog. I came across a story today that sparked some personal relevance and I thought I'd share it with you to see what you think.

Many of you already know that I used to be a teller at Travis Credit Union and a pizza delivery guy for Round Table Pizza. I know all about the "training" that tellers go through to avoid conflict with a person who is robbing you. Essentially, you just give them the money and smile as they steal your member's money hoping that the cameras and police work will be enough to find and convict them later. I also am very familiar with what it is like to be fired for breaching policy because a company wants to distance itself from a potentially messy situation. I say all this to point out that Jim Nicholson, a Key Bank teller, is a man I admire and respect.

"Jim Nicholson knew he should have just handed over the cash.

But when the thin man in a beanie cap, dark clothing and sunglasses pushed a black backpack across the bank counter and demanded money, Nicholson says his instincts took over.

After more than two years working as a teller at the Key Bank branch in Lower Queen Anne, Nicholson clearly understood the bank's strict policy of quickly complying with robbers' demands and avoiding confrontation.

Instead, Nicholson threw the bag to the floor, lunged toward the robber and demanded to see a weapon. Surprised, the would-be bank robber backed up and then bolted for the door, with Nicholson on his heels.

Nicholson, 30, chased the man for several blocks before knocking him to the ground with the help of a passer-by. Nicholson then held him until police arrived.

That was Tuesday.

On Thursday, Nicholson was fired." Story by Jennifer Sullivan, Seattle Times


If you read the rest of the story you will find that Jim is not upset with the bank for firing him, in fact he understands why they did it. I don't agree this is best for for financial institutions though. The truth that most commentators and policy setters do not understand is that humans, like water, follow the path of least resistance. And in the world of crime, financial institutions practice pacifism, hereby, leading to their frequent robberies.

I remember being trained how to spot a potential bank robber in line. I remember how they tend to appear nervous, step in-and-out of the teller line, and the types of clothing that is statistically used to hide their identity. All of this, Mr. Nicholson knew, but as all financial institutions train us to spot a potential threat, they then quickly tell us to do nothing about it. We are supposed to just let it happen.

I personally applaud his actions because unlike the financial institutions we worked for, I do not believe the world is safer when you pass the moral responsibility of preventing crimes to the state alone. We have to realize that in the end, these guys rob banks and credit unions because they know we will do nothing about it. Weapons are unnecessary since all that is required to walk out of a bank with money is a threatening note. Once this is accomplished, the perpetrators success is determined by their ability to keep from getting caught.

I say all this to state: Humans are creatures of habit; habits created by incentives. In other words, everything thing we do in life we do because we believe it is worth it at the time. This includes people who rob banks. If policies are created that make it easy to steal money from a bank, criminals will continue to do it and it will become habitual. In effect, we are playing a small role in training bank robbers by having a no retaliation policies.

If you agree or disagree, I'm interested to know what you think.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Tahoe Trip in One Pic


More pics to come and hopefully I can finish the video of highlights soon.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Work is not another four-letter word.

Sup guys! I just finished my first oral presentation in class. I have to say it wasn't too difficult, but I figured I would post my promo video and paper here for you to read. If you work for a company I want you to rethink your role there. Maybe undo all that negative thought processes linked to work. If you are an employer, I want you to properly understand your role and not abuse the authority God has given you. Hopefully, this may enlighten you to His design of the workplace.

Keep in mind that I had to present this information in a secular class, so I'll let you in on a little secret. In the sphere of labor, God is the one who provides the overarching standards of ethics and values for a company. Enjoy!


Business Ethics Provide the Foundation for Employee and Employer Relations

Peter Cooper once stated, “I have always recognized that the object of business is to make money in an honorable manner. I have endeavored to remember that the object of life is to do good” (1874). A common belief in our culture today is that profits may only be realized at the expense or abuse of another. While it is true that every company has fiduciary responsibility to its stakeholders to earn profits, Cooper would tell us to that these profits exist for the ultimate purpose of doing good. Therefore, profits and good are not anathema; rather, they are collaborative. However, recent corporate scandals and abuse during the past decade have contributed to a mindset that has pitted employee against employer (BBC, 2002). Inversely, we have seen a rise in demand in Corporate Social Responsibility for the treatment of employees by their employers. This has raised the question; to what extent is a company responsible for the welfare of its labor force when it eats into profit margins? Before one can analyze if a relationship exists between profit and CSR, we must define and understand both concepts. Once proper definitions are established, the ideal ethical social structure of a business may emerge. In order for a company to earn maximum profits through satisfied employees, both parties must be accountable to a higher authority of ethics. Furthermore, a proper mechanism to address violations of the mutually agreed ethical code of conduct must exist. It is only with this structure that we can find a harmonious relationship between employer and employee.

What is Profit?

Profit is the quantitative measurement of the success of a company in a given year. In Lapin’s words, “Profit is a way to measure how useful a business is” (2002). It is a recordable rule of thumb for the financial health of a company and sometimes an indication of future growth in the next fiscal year. The business community has a moral obligation to be profitable both by law and ethics because of the amount of usefulness it may contribute. Ultimately, one can describe profit as an aggregate indication of good (Lapin, 2002). This is aggregate good is due to the principle that no exchange of products or services can be made unless both parties believe it to be an equitable exchange. This is the invisible hand that Adam Smith refers to in his book The Wealth of Nations (1776). Unless the company continually provides a product or service to the community over time, no profits may be earned. Furthermore, many companies fail because of their inability to meet the needs of its consumers to the point of unsustainable levels leading to the closure of the business. In addition, there are a small percentage of companies that perform illegal or unethical actions that lead to their closure, like Maddoff’s prosecution in 2009 for creating a Ponzi scheme in the financial market for example (LA Times).

Employer and Employee Responsibilities

Corporations and employers have a moral obligation to be aware of the trust placed within them by employees to perform the best of their ability. This trust by employees should not be abused or taken advantage of. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide the highest quality of work experience in a combination of benefits that may include: higher wages than the market average, affordable healthcare, excellent training, discounts on company services or products, and empowering each worker to personal growth. According to The Great Place to Work Institute, companies that create this type of culture making their employees a priority will find increased retention rates, overall increases in productivity, and new opportunities leading to company innovation and growth (2007).

Employees, likewise, have ethical responsibilities to their employers that are necessary for a successful workplace environment. The first responsibility is hard work regardless of supervision and the second is mutual respect to coworkers. Furthermore, the employee has a responsibility to know intimately his talents, personality strengths, and the skill sets, so that he may choose a compatible job that he will be perform excellently in. The combination of knowledge and loyalty will allow the employee to create the best product or service in his industry. This will increase the success of his business, thus ensuring his own security in the process. Conversely, it is important for the worker to realize his employment is not an entitlement, but voluntary so as to promote appreciation within the individual.

The Sphere of Labor

The social sphere of labor (see Figure 1) is just one of many social systems in the world. The sphere of labor is composed of the employer, the employee and the business ethical standards they submit to (Tackett, 2009). This mutual agreement of ethics and values is essential in order for a positive relational environment to exist between employer and employees. If at any point either party ceases to recognize the standards that exist outside of self, the standard becomes relative to the individual party. That is to say, what may be right for the employee may not be right to the employer leading to conflict. For example, if an employer has sales figures prioritized first, whereas, the employee values service we can see the potential for dissension. Essentially this pits the employer against the employee because whenever a situation arises where the two values compete; the employer prefers that the employee sacrifice his service in exchange for additional sales. The employee may follow his request but then resents his boss for violating his ethical principles. If the worker refuses to make the sale, the employer begins to lose confidence in his labor force. Both parties are motivated by different standards resulting in the degradation of their relationship.

Figure 1. Labor Sphere

Leadership Accountability and Transparency

Great companies tend to rely on the input and feedback of its personnel on the front lines. Sam Walton used to visit his employees at his stores spontaneously and each employee that wrote a letter to him with a complaint or grievance received a personal letter signed by Walton (Gross, 1996). This increased the trust between him and his employees because they were treated as valuable contributors to his company. To replicate his success, a mechanism needs to exist in which employees can communicate their grievances without fear of reprieve. Additionally, should these complaints be valid, it is the employer’s duty to fix them. All problems should be viewed as positive opportunities for relational reinforcement rather than trite dissatisfaction. To avoid conflict altogether is impossible; management of conflict to resolution is not.
Part of the mechanism to hear violations of ethical operation includes a broad awareness of what is expected of each employee. The company’s values need to be communicated regularly to its staff in an engaging and pragmatic way. This may begin with a leader who is a vision caster in his company; meaning, this person has an ability to inspire others to follow him after the company’s goals. While these regular infusions of values are being presented, it should be mentioned that the success of the company ultimately rests upon the shoulders of the individual. This will result in an increase of initiative and personal responsibility as the leadership of the corporation passes authority down the corporate ladder to every individual worker.

Conclusion

Corporate Social Responsibility to the employee need not be complicated. As the employer services the employee’s needs, the workers will reciprocate benefits back to his company through loyalty, personal responsibility and creativity. This is the positive cycle of corporate collaboration that can only exist if extensive trust has been established through mutually agreed ethical standards of operation. In this environment the employee must seek the highest good for his employer and likewise, the employer has a responsibility to seek the highest good for his workers. This combination of mutual respect and service in the workplace environment has a tendency to produce the maximum profit and production in an industry. This model should be become the standard structure of every corporate business.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Ethics. Can you define it?

For those of you who know, I'm currently back in school taking a General Communications class. There is a portion of our grade that is based upon team assignments; one of these assignments is a paper that involves the broad subject of business ethics and values. Now, for those who have undergone the mind blowing series of The Truth Project, we are told by RC Sproll that there has been a subtle shift in our linguistics when we define ethics and morality. He teaches his students that ethics used to be about the study of ethos, the transcendent universals that govern all men. The study of morality, from latin mores, was "how people behaved in a given society" (Sproll, 2008). To simplify, historically there was distinction between how we used philosophy to answer the question, "What are the ethical standards that apply to everyone?" Also, "What was considered right and wrong behavior for a specific culture or people group." Example, it is unethical for all societies to murder. However, one culture may advocate killing another human being in self-defense only, whereas, another culture may not permit violence in any way.

The subtle shift that Sproll is referring to is that the two words are no longer distinct and related, but synonymous. Much like the words sphere and ball may be interchangeable in most conversations, ethics and morality are treated similarly. I have found this to be true recently when I have reviewed the academic journals and works written on this subject. Along with other theologian commentators, he believes that this is due to the postmodernist movement of philosophy. In layman's terms, when you hear someone state something like "All religions are equal. It doesn't matter what you believe. All that matters is that you believe." This is a common example of postmodernism in our culture.

I'm not totally convinced right now of our Christian brother's point of view on this shift, at least not yet. All my independent research has left me frustrated because I have only uncovered evidence that points to ethics and morality as having the same interchangeable meaning. If there is a difference, it only comes from specified fields of ethics. For example, there are business ethics, medical ethics, law ethics, religious ethics, etc. The word ethics can be compartmentalized into specified professional fields, whereas, morality applies to the individual. However, both are still relative. Each people group has their own ethics that can be different and independent of another field, and each person has a moral compass independent of one another.

This is how it is defined today, and there is not much evidence pointing to the contrary in the secular world. I can see why theologians point to the infiltration of postmodernism in our culture. I think I would like to reserve my final conclusions on the matter until I have exposed myself to more of the historical development of ethics and morality. I would like to go all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps that would be a great start in this journey.

Even so, whether or not I discover Sproll and others are accurate about their teachings, I still have to analyze the concept of today's ethical and moral definitions in the light of philosophy. Philosophy is a science that goes after the big questions: Why are we here? Who is man? Is there a God? If there is, who is he? What is my purpose? What is truth? Ethics and morality are subcategories of philosophy. They use the words right and wrong, so I have to ask how does a postmodern definition of right and wrong (ethics/morality) work? It still boils down to the age old question of who determines right and wrong for a people group or a person.

The secularist would make a statement like, "It's not personal, it's just business" (Thanks Jer). But everyone knows that this is wrong. Essentially, this person is saying, "I am wearing the business hat right now, so please don't judge me personally." They are saying that according to my business ethic, I am going to conduct myself in a way that would make you cringe if I wore my personal ethic hat, but that should be acceptable. Wait a minute! We all know this is hogwash. You can't screw me in a business deal and expect that somehow we can still be friends personally. The real world does not work this way. If postmodernism were true, we could screw someone in business and then go out for a beer later that night as if it never happened. But it doesn't happen, because humans are not wired that way. It's not possible to live in a postmodern world. It's completely unrealistic.

On the foundation of applied philosophy, one would have to consider the modern definitions of ethics and morality unrealistic. I can conclude this based upon philosophy, but I would also like to know if the modern definition has been constant throughout history. I will keep you posted on this as I uncover more.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Can Christians drink alcohol?

At my church, the elders just finished approving a paper that defines out position on alcohol. I find that this issue is hotly debated amongst Christians but is a poorly understood topic. Scripture is very plain when it comes to disputable matters like alcohol, but we felt it necessary to provide a concise document outlining where we stand, and the explanation behind it. Many have found this to be an interesting read. I hope you do as well.


Providence’s Position on Disputable Matters

Conversion to Christianity is a supernatural and wondrous event, but it happens in a moment, whereas, sanctification requires the rest of the believer’s life.
C.S. Lewis once stated, “One of the reasons why it needs no special education to be a Christian is that Christianity is an education itself.” The Christian is required to interpret every experience within the proper context of biblical ethics and morality. This requires knowledge, critical thinking, intrapersonal skills and the Holy Spirit to guide the child of God in becoming a mature and fully developed adult in the faith. The process of sanctification, encountered daily with the help of the Lord, is why Lewis says Christianity is an education. For what other subject requires at least some measure of knowledge in anthropology, pneumatology, Christology, history, literature, psychology, and sociology to name a few. The educational requirements for sanctification are vast but be encouraged because the Lord is faithful to finish His work in those that believe.

There exist subjects on which the Lord speaks directly to the individual Christian and not the leadership governing the church body. One of these subjects, the Christian position on consumption of alcohol, resides in an area that Paul calls "disputable matters." For the purposes of this paper and future reference, we shall define disputable matters as: Subjects or arguments concerning Christian conduct that are not explicitly addressed in the Bible or reasonably inferred by scripture. Other topics such as smoking, holy days, food consumption, etc. may be substituted for alcohol in this discussion, but we will limit this address to alcohol, since it is often the most discussed of disputable matters.

Consumption of alcohol is an emotionally charged issue, mainly due to the negative experiences that are tied to it (i.e. alcoholism, regrets, and debauchery). While reading, it is important to recognize that there exist social influences that subtly insert themselves into our reasoning, and affect our opinions, regarding the drinking of alcohol. That is to say, Americans may have treated this subject with more emotional fervor than other societies, as indicated by our culture and history. Additionally, even within the American church we are still divided for it still remains hotly debated. It is important to acknowledge that many times we come to our conclusions based upon life experience, rather than the writings of scripture. When we do this, we tend to elevate the opinions of man to a height that is equal with scripture. This is something that should never be done.

There are three viewpoints regarding the issue of alcohol: For, against, and "it depends." We could evaluate the pros and cons of each viewpoint, but I believe our time would be better spent in scripture, for we can lose proper perspective analyzing the numerous tangents. Scripture is the final authority in all matters at Providence Community Church, so we must look there before we can properly address alcoholic consumption. Romans 14-15 provide us with the context and direction on this subject. We would encourage the reader to have a Bible available as we continue.

After reading Romans, the elders have concluded that the official position of our church is to not have an official position. As Paul says, “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” When it comes to the issue of alcohol, we believe that the decision to drink, or not, is a personal conviction between the believer and the Lord. This personal conviction comes from the Holy Spirit and may change, as the Christian’s understanding and maturity changes, but it must be emphasized that the Christian should only do that which he possesses the faith to do. In other words, no Christian should consume alcohol unless his faith (given by God) allows him to do so, otherwise it is sin.

Here are some excerpts of our text with the subject of alcohol substituted in italics for the disputable matter:

Romans 14:5-6 “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards alcohol as acceptable, does so to the Lord. He who drinks alcohol, drinks to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.”

Romans 14:22-23 “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he drinks alcohol, because his drinking is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.”

Therefore, if the Christian's conviction is to abstain from alcohol, we say, “GREAT! Blessed be the name of the Lord.” If your conviction is that alcohol is acceptable, we say, ”GREAT! Blessed be the name of the Lord.” The important thing is not whether alcohol is consumed, but the attitude of the believer's heart. Paul is teaching us that sin cannot be found in food or drink; rather, sin is birthed in the heart of man, and the Christian is held accountable for the condition of his heart. God “sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance , but the LORD looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

Knowing this, Paul reinforces God’s perspective on the matter by emphasizing His word that is written on our hearts (2 Corinthians 3:3). This means that we are to rely on the Holy Spirit for direction and faith, before we are moved to action on our convictions. As we proceed to action that is motivated by love, Paul leaves us with behavioral instructions that are to be followed. Because no Christian lives in a vacuum, those “whose faith is weak,” and those who “are not condemned,” will have to interact harmoniously. So, how is this accomplished?
Fundamentally, Paul commands us not to judge each other’s opinion on the matter as right or wrong. He says, "Each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.” Love needs to be the calling card of our decision making, but this sentence referring to a “stumbling block” is sometimes abused and taken out of context. Sometimes, one Christian will tell another that he should not drink because it may become a stumbling block. However, the Christian who drinks is not accountable to the one who doesn’t; rather, the Lord will judge him for his motives.

It is worth mentioning that the context of “destroying your brother” (14:15) is referring to a Christian who, knowing his brother's contrary conviction, drinks despite this knowledge. There is an intentional disregard for the life of his brother and a selfish preference of his own liberties. What does this mean for the one who drinks? If he is aware that someone in his presence does not possess the faith to drink, he should not drink (14:21). It is as simple as that.

However, do not take this too far; Paul is not saying that a Christian is responsible for scenarios that he is unaware of. For example, if a believer goes into a liquor store to pick up some wine and another Christian, who chooses not to drink, sees this, it is not a sin. If someone is aware that his friend, who struggles with this issue, is there it is better to not enter the building. This is an inconvenience, but we are told to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (14:19). This may be the reason a mature Christian chooses to abstain from alcohol altogether in order to avoid any stumbling block situations. However, this does not make him holier or closer to Christ, nor does scripture state that this is a behavioral standard that we all must meet. Rather, he does this out of love for the benefit of the weaker Christian.

For those whose faith allows him to drink, alcohol should not be considered evil since Paul says, “I am fully convinced no drink is unclean in itself” (14:14). Furthermore, abstaining for the benefit of a fellow Christian, “Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil” (14:16). This means that we, who have a stronger faith, are expected by God to help the weaker Christian through our abstinence, but also through education. Paul is saying that we need to encourage those in the family of God to seek a greater faith in this area. Those more mature in the faith have an obligation to present truth objectively, yet filled with love, gentleness and respect. Never at any time, should the more mature believer teach with condescension. Be on guard, because in 1 Corinthians 8 we read “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.”

Now, for those who struggle with accepting another believer who drinks, please note that the word used in Romans 14 to describe a “weak” Christian is asqueno, which is translated "weak" 12 times, but is also translated "sick" 18 times. This shows that Paul expects the “weak” Christian’s opinion to improve on the matter, much in the same way that when a person gets sick, we expect that it be a temporary state from which he will eventually recover. This good state of health is how we are intended to view our spiritual sanctification. From the first day of our rebirth in the Lord, we are constantly being purified and refined into a holy people. Paul recognizes that we all have struggles that are carried from our unbelieving lives into our new ones, but as the Holy Spirit sanctifies us, we work out our salvation in these areas to realize ultimately that the “Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (14:17).

If the Christian, who is convinced that he should not drink, and is being led by the unconditional love of Christ, he will not judge another member in the family if that person chooses to drink. We are all under the same banner of love and remember what Paul says, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” However, when one is convinced in his own mind to abstain, we say, “Blessed be the name of the Lord.” Each of us is accountable to God; therefore, we at Providence encourage all believers to continue according to their faith in the same way.

We can plainly see what Paul has done here in Romans 14-15. He has leveled the playing field and made us all equal and accountable to Lord in this area. The issue for the early church was food sacrificed to idols; whereas, today the controversy is the consumption of alcohol. Paul’s primary concern was the unity of the church. We should always vigorously defend the essentials of the gospel (i.e. deity of Christ, the atonement, man's need for salvation). However, the non-essentials, or disputable matters can be discussed; but we should never make them more important than they need to be. Too many churches split over non-essentials and the Holy Spirit is grieved tremendously when this occurs. Providence will always be a church that defends the essentials passionately, but we will not allow the non-essentials to interfere with the unity of the body.

In conclusion, the elders of Providence Community Church, regarding the disputable matter of the consumption of alcohol, maintain the biblical position of having no official position. However, we would encourage every believer to prayerfully consider their own convictions on this matter with the Lord, while respecting the convictions of others, even if they differ. May our words and actions at Providence be sweet with the incense of love and grace for one another. In all things, blessed be the name of the Lord.

Rusty Pang, Elder at Providence Community Church

Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007

I remember being asked the question, "Where were the dissenters during the economic boom? Where were all the naysayers during the economic free-for-all?" To this I would always respond, I was there saying there was no way we could sustain our buying habits. There was no way that houses could keep doubling in price every 6 months. It is impossible to continue as we have and many didn't listen then as they are not listening now.

I will continue to state that we cannot continue spending money as we have putting everything on credit and expect life to continue forever in this way. Social Security is a ponzi scheme that is unsustainable, health care cannot be reformed with a public option, government spending is not the solution to stopping a recession, and you cannot borrow your way out of debt.

I know that I catch a lot of flack for refusing to state things in a more diplomatic way, but if being diplomatic means that I cannot state the reality of our society's condition, then I refuse to be diplomatic. I am willing to be a Churchill while Chamberlain is in office. I don't mind being in the minority as long as America understands that I hold to no party line, but to principles that supersede them, like limited government.

This blog is a small effort to legitimize what Peter Schiff has been saying all along and his day of redemption is coming. Many are finally starting to realize that he knew exactly what he was talking about when the world was laughing at his predictions.


**Raises a glass**

Here's to you Peter, for not following the crowds off the cliff.

Friday, July 10, 2009

What I learned at the Monterrey Bay Aquarium


There are times when a young man wonders and questions God's design for procreation. Every thousand years a free thinking male is born that wishes he could experience the beauty of birthing a child. Junior, the film starring our Governator, attempted such a feat on film and failed miserably. But there is a new way to view the beauty of male pregnancy and birth when we look into the little wet world of seahorse procreation. Let's peer in and see just what the wet stallions can teach us.

From web search, to email, to maps, to cell phones, to browser, to OS?


Have you heard that google is consolidating its global empire to a new operating system called Chrome? If not, you may wish to check it out in this article.

CNET Review of Google Chrome OS

I think I'll have to check it out when it comes out. The fact of the matter is, i spend most of my time on a web browser instead of on the desktop. If you are like me, then you will realize the implications of cloud computing. I hope you enjoyed the article.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

What is ANIMOTO?

Simply put, it is the next evolution of media production for photo slideshows. This video, I put together in less than 10 minutes. It's an awesome site, very user friendly. I highly recommend it. Check out the video below and then click the link to go check it out yourself. I love technology.


Animoto - Your Images, Your Music, Never The Same

Monday, July 6, 2009

Osmosis

Osmosis cat

Some say their cats are intelligent. This one is genius. He communicates intelligence through his slothfulness.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Left wing on left wing bashing? Did I get sucked into another dimension?

It's amazing to me what happens to a liberal news reporter when they are treated exactly how socialist administration would. In case you are not familiar with what I am referring to, I am talking about how Helen Thomas, a left wing journalist, bashed Obama and Gibbs in a press release back on July 1st. Below is the video of the exchange between CBS' Chip Reid, Helen Thomas of Hearst News, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Essentially, the press is upset that Obama's "Town Hall" was not truly an open forum for the public. They make the case that since the questions are screened and the people are invited, it is not transparent and therefore, not a town hall forum.

I've got to give kudos to Helen and Chip for their hard questions, but I wish they had the same fervor for transparency and accountability during the presidential elections, TARP, the Omnibus Bill, and bailouts. Maybe, the honeymoon phase is ending for the press and Obama. One can only hope. Enjoy!



Gibbs: (Talking to Chip Reid) “… But, again, let’s–How about we do this? I promise we will interrupt the AP’s tradition of asking the first question. I will let you (Reid) ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted in Annandale…“

Chip Reid: “I’m perfectly happy to…”

Helen Thomas: “That’s not his point. The point is the control…

Reid: “Exactly.

Thomas: “We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some, but not… This White House.”

Gibbs: “Yes, I was going to say, I’ll let you amend her question.”

Thomas: “I’m amazed. I’m amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and…”

Gibbs: “Helen, you haven’t even heard the questions.”

Reid: “It doesn’t matter. It’s the process.”

Thomas: “You have left open…”

Reid: “Even if there’s a tough question, it’s a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened.”

Thomas: “It’s shocking. It’s really shocking.”

Gibbs: “Chip, let’s have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting. How about that?”

Reid: “Okay.”

Gibbs: “I think…“

Thomas: “No, no, no, we’re having it now…”

Gibbs: “Well, I’d be happy to have it now.”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern.”

Gibbs: “Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern. It isn’t the question…”

Gibbs: “What’s a pattern?”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern of controlling the press.”

Gibbs: “How so? Is there any evidence currently going on that I’m controlling the press…poorly, I might add.”

Thomas: “Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.”

Gibbs: “How so?”

Reid: “Well, and controlling the public…”

Thomas: “How so? By calling reporters the night before to tell them they’re going to be called on. That is shocking.”

Gibbs: “We had this discussion ad-nauseam and…”

Thomas: “Of course you would, because you don’t have any answers.”

Gibbs: “Well, because I didn’t know you were going to ask a question, Helen.
Go ahead.”

Thomas: “Well, you should have.”

Reporter: Thank you for your support.

Gibbs: “That’s good. Have you e-mailed your question today?”

Thomas: “I don’t have to e-mail it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask.”

Gibbs: “I don’t doubt that at all, Helen. I don’t doubt that at all.”

Washington's First Video Blog

I love parody and complete foolery.

North Korea fires 7 missiles into the Pacific

I don't know if you caught this news amidst the festivities across the country, but North Korea has not stepped down it's hostility. Kim Jong Il is still going forward with his nuclear missile program. I know that Iran has taken front and center on most international headlines, but N. Korea should not be ignored. He, Kim Jong Il may be getting desperate as he gets older because as everyone approaches old age they reflect on their mortality. This tends to cause some chaos in one's life if he reviews it, and wishes he had done things differently. It's kind of like a second mid-life crisis.

Anyway, here is a news video from the AP reporting on the events this morning. Hit your knees and pray people. A nuclear Kim Jong is scarier than many realize.

Friday, July 3, 2009

This is for all my true geek friends

This photo is for those who:
  1. Play Left 4 Dead more than Halo 3
  2. Understand how to overcome a DR/5 slashing for a zombie.
  3. Have compared George Romero's zombies to the ones from 28 Days.
  4. Have actually devised a plan of action in case zombies did really begin to infect the earth.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Cap and Trade passed? More California Taxes? Bubbles, the Chimp?

It's been a busy week so I haven't been able to blog much or put together a vidcast. I've started school and worship practice for the church is on Thursdays now. It seems that I have a lot more to learn about time management. But there is no rest for those interested in politics, economics and religion. It seems the world goes on it's way with or without you. This past week is no different.

Please allow me to summarize the week for you in case you have lived in a card board box in someone's closet without any natural light or outside communication.

Ed McMahon died. So did Farrah Fawcett. So did Michael Jackson. So did Billy Mays. It makes me wonder who is next, but the factors that determine which celebrity you cried over depended on age, sex, race, or insomnia. I personally wept for Bubbles, the Chimp.

On the Federal level, we were told another crisis could ONLY be averted if we pass a bill in Congress that no one read, even though it would fundamentally impact us for generations. You may have heard of it, it was called the Stimulus Bill...ooops, I mean, Cap and Trade. Basically, the bill means that energy businesses will be capped the amount of CO2 gas they can produce in a fiscal year, and only exceed those rates if they buy carbon credits traded on the stock market. It's like saying to a vegetarian, you may only have raunchy veggie farts once a day, and if you ever want to release more methane, you will have to pay for those methane credits. Oh, BTW, sharding still qualifies as releasing methane gas, and you'll actually have to pay double the credit rate because you are wasting perfectly good underwear made in sweat shops, and those sweatshops aren't producing all that carbon just so you can make skid marks.

That's right, I just made a joke about sweat shop skid marks.

In other news, if local politics is your style, I have some special quotes for you that will absolutely make you think politicians in Sacramento live in crazy land. California Democrats are trying to pass more taxes for an already overtaxed state because they can't bear the thought of cutting more entitlement programs. Apparently, they did not get the hint since we unanimously turned down ALL tax increases in the last election. But here is Norren Evans (D), representing the good old town of Santa Rosa.

Transcript:

Well, there is this mantra out there ‘live within our means’, and while that sounds really nice, it sounds really simple, and it sounds really responsible, its meaningless. Our means are completely within our control. And, as has been pointed out by numerous people, we have just recently given away huge corporate subsidies in February, we have given away other tax reductions over many many years we’ve created new tax loopholes, in good times we routinely give away taxes, and then in lean times we never replace those tax deductions or close those loopholes. We continuously borrow, which is an enormous cost that we shift on into future years, and we find ourselves now with a deficit that — an ongoing structural deficit that we simply can’t close. So, ‘live within our means’ doesn’t mean anything. The fact is, we have a state that has a population that have needs, that we have a moral obligation to provide.


Video:


So ladies and gentlemen, today I am announcing my candidacy for Supreme Ruler of California. Apparently, the only faculty you need to possess when running for political office in California is intellectual dishonesty, aka Big Bold and Bad LIES and his cousin INCOMPETENCE. Therefore, with this new found knowledge, I will pwn all those who oppose me with deep truths like 1+1=2 and usher in the new era of surplus with "spending less than you make." In fact, since my wife and I do a balanced budget every month on paper, she is also qualified to come with me to the Capitol as Supreme Ruler #2, should I die of the spreading of Awesome Asian mathematics.

Does Ms. Evans even understand the implications of her statements, or is she living in governmental lala land where statesmen have no spending limits and no consequences? How can anyone state that living within your means, means nothing? Is it any wonder why our budget is so screwed up when people like this are in control? Keep in mind, if a Republican said this, they would be crucified. Perhaps, they should be crucified with the 8 Republicans who voted for Cap & Trade. I don't know about you, but if a Republican votes for Cap & Trade, they are no more republican than a dung beetle is clean. It's like saying, "I'm a Christian who does not believe in Jesus Christ." What?!

Anyway, it has been a busy week and I don't have enough time to comment on it all. Also, I am still trying to figure out Yellow University and what instructional information and vidcasts I am going to do. I believe the first series will be answering the question, "What is a Classical Liberal? Is that even possible?" I look forward to that and the all yellow glory it will be.

On a side note, for those of you who follow celebrity gossip and are familiar with Perez Hilton, he was punched in the face last week and flipped out. His solution, put it on twitter and youtube. The result wasn't exactly what he was expecting as many people began to spoof his ridiculous ranting. I was particularly fond of the, "God is watching" and "F**K YOU!" in the same paragraph. I might of been offended if I wasn't laughing at him so much. Anyway, a photo surfaced from someone who actually had a still shot of Perez getting punched. I included it below for your personal enjoyment. I'll end with this:

If you make a living being being an A**hole, don't be surprised that people will mistake your face for one and attack it accordingly.

Have a great day everyone!

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Rhwanda Missions Trip Update

Hey guys,

Darren (Our Pastor), is in Rhwanda doing some mission's work educating pastors in their country with Valley Church.

Rhwanda Blog

Monday, June 22, 2009

This is the first sermon I've heard from John Piper

Hey guys, I came across this sermon while I was perusing John Piper's website DeriringGod.com.

I highly recommend to listen to the whole thing. John is preaching on the section in the Gospel of John where Jesus meets the Samartan woman at the well. Thanks John for this.

Friday, June 19, 2009

100 POSTS AND STILL COUNTING!!!

Thanks guys for checking out my blog regularly. I appreciate you all and especially the comments. I think I'm going to set a goal of 300 posts by the end of the year with 1 vcast per week. Thanks for all of your support and I hope that I can keep bringing interesting and fun content for your cranium.

Enjoy today's edition of Yellow University.


HIV Breakout: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-porn-hiv11-2009jun11,0,2783528.story

Chron's Disease Teen: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/11/teen.self.diagnosis/index.html

Teen Tattoo: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8104519.stm

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Invisible children without legs

Johnny always knew he was different from his legless siblings. He was the normal one without the invisibility gene.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

See, chicks always dig gay males...


Links for Penguine Story
MSNBC Article
The Local.de Article
Gay outrage over penguin sex test
Queers United Blogger
Other Gay penguin story

Links for Governator story:
Wikipedia entry: The Flat Tax
MSNBC Article from 5/22/09
L.A. Now Article from today referencing flat tax

The phrase "monkey on my back" now applies to dogs.

I had to look twice because it seemed like the monkey was part of the dog. The author posted this at Sloshdot.com. He writes,

"One of my good friends encountered this precious relationship while out at a bar in Bocas del Toro, Panama. I guess these guys cruise around town together regularly, and when someone tries to mess with the monkey, the dog flips shit. In this cruel world, you've got to stick together."

I would call him a Mog, part monkey/part dog, but it was already taken. So, I think I will settle on Donkey. CRAP! That's taken to. I give up. You find a something that works.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

It's official, we won in Iraq because Colbert said so. I wanna be Colbert

I came across this vid today and thought you all might enjoy it. It seems he did his show in front of a live military audience. You can here them as Colbert cracks his jokes and there are some shots of the crowd.

Colbert, you are a white man after my yellow heart. Enjoy folks as he brings The Word.

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Why Are You Here?
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorStephen Colbert in Iraq