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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Osmosis

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

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.

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.