Saturday, October 04, 2003

Recently, you said something in one of your columns about us living in a "fallen world." What exactly do you mean by that? I grew up believing the world is gradually evolving upward and getting better and better. Am I wrong? -- P.K.

Dear P.K.:
Have you ever thought about the fact that the century which brought us the most scientific and technical advances in history was also the century that saw the most people die from violence and war? And is there any reason to believe this new century will be any better? I doubt it.

You see, there is something wrong with the world -- and with our hearts. The Bible says that "something" is sin -- and it goes back almost to the beginning of the human race. You see, originally the world was perfect -- so perfect that the Bible says "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good" (Genesis 1:31). Adam and Eve walked with God, and there was no barrier between them.

But then sin intervened -- the sin of rebellion against God. Satan tempted Adam and Eve, and they believed his lies and turned against God. And when they did, the whole universe was affected. Death invaded the human race, and the world was no longer perfect. It had fallen away from God's original plan.

Yes, we live in a fallen world -- a world that is imperfect and sick. But God has provided the cure, and that cure is Christ. He came to forgive our sins and change our hearts, and some day He will come again to make all things new. Have you given your life to Him?
-Billy Graham

Ugh. It's been a while since Billy Graham had said anything so remarkably stupid and relevant (to important policies of mine), but thankfully, he'll never stop, and I'll never run out of reasons to hate him.

I wonder how much thought the man actually puts into his responses. I also wonder whether his shortsightedness might just be deliberate. He argues that the era that brought prosperity and happiness to so many is also the worst. He doesn't explicitly state that, but it's quite obviously implicit in his statement. I agree with him that death and violence are terrible, and in fact really brought the century down. I don't agree that the death in question was a direct result of humans' general worldviews, as well as their motivation to prosper. There IS an inordinately greater amount of people in the world today than there was so long, long ago. Wars have been around forever, but now there are many more people involved in them, which most likely has to do with incredible population increases.

I find it amusing and ironic that Billy Graham's view are so Platonist. He believes that there once was a perfect world, and that the great evil of change sprang up, ruining everything. Now the world's in a perpetual decline. Change is to be resisted, unless it's change that allows us to regress to our "original world." This philosophy is most commonly referred to as fascism. The ironic part is that it's often the underlying philosophical premise behind totalitarian dictatorships and the like - you know, the kind that just happen to be the cause of almost all of the past century's brutal wars. And not just wars, but oppression and suffering.

Funny that Billy Graham considers examples of death to be such a condemnation. I mean, after all, his religion is based on a guy's death.

According to The Weekly World News, which is, in my opinion, quite possibly the greatest news publication in the history of the universe, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden are gay lovers, and recently got married. Apparently Yasser Arafat showed up at the wedding in a tank. I kid you not! It's all in the article. In the article!

I'll try to scan some of the pictures.

Thursday, October 02, 2003

"Together, we represent the only ten jobs in the United States that George Bush has created."
-Senator John Kerry

Just this one statement was far too rich to pass up. First of all, Kerry clearly classifies running for president as a job. Running for president qua running for president doesn't actually produce a profit, but instead costs an amount of money which is most adequately quantified as "a whole damn lot." It makes you wonder why something can't be a job if you're paid a relatively low amount of money for it. Those "sweatshop" workers are making a whole lot more money with that than Kerry is running.

Notice though that Kerry obviously recognizes something very important; that jobs are created. Wealth doesn't exist in static quantities, and neither do jobs. Through hard work and ingenuity, more can always be made. He knows that jobs are created, which is completely antithetical to socialistic belief. In fact, a virtually unlimited supply of job and wealth potential refutes socialism and communism - they both depend on the idea that someone is getting rich, and that causes someone else to be poor. So I'd really like to see how contradictory Kerry's economic policies are.

Lastly, even though it's true that jobs are created, it's not the responsibility of the president to do so. Bush can't just make a need for jobs, only the market can. The best thing Bush could do is loosen some of the government's control over the economy, thereby freeing the market from artificially-imposed problems and restrictions.

So yeah - I don't like John Kerry, either.

Wednesday, October 01, 2003

Perhaps relatively late, I've realized that it's inordinately difficult to get a car. I need a vehicle to get places, and more specifically, I need my own vehicle to get places. Something that "just gets me from point A to point B" won't do. That's terrible logic. My feet can get me from point A to point B, it's just that they're the sucker's primary instrumentality of gettin' things done. Damn you, motor vehicle industry!

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

I'm honestly not sure if it was the lack of sleep, but looking at Dick Gephart the other day made me realize that good God he looks like a dinosaur. Something about his facial structure just screams (Or roars! Ho ho!) "dinosaur!" I don't mean literally, of course, but he has the look. He's old enough for it, too. And honestly, the Gephart = dinosaur idea came to me before I realized how long he's been vying for office, so don't hassle me about lame jokes.

In other random observations, which I seem to always be so full of when I have no important topic, apparently the Founding Fathers are no longer referred to as such. Why, you ask? Apparently, it's not politically correct. Taken directly from the supplemental reading for history:

...Two and a quarter centuries later, we have a new appreciation for the courage and vision of the Founders (no longer called the Founding Fathers, for reasons of political correctness)...
-Evan Thomas

Delightful! And by delightful I mean disgusting. I fail to see how Founding Fathers is in any way politically correct. The only thing I can conclude from it is that perhaps gender recognition is now politically incorrect, period. After all, the Founding Fathers were all men. In the context of the situation, father is defined by as:

A man who creates, originates, or founds something

So... politically incorrect? I fail to see how. Well, that's it for ton- this morning. I sincerely hope I have some really interesting things to write soon, because I'm really in the mood for it.

Monday, September 29, 2003

Moderately-awesome argument time! It's about gun control - you know how it goes.