Tag Archives: The View

Grinch Award?

Last night, I turned the radio on to the Christian station I have listened to since childhood. I wanted some nice Christmas music and was looking forward to listening to a station I have always respected.

I was a bit surprised to hear “The Grinch” song being played and was about to change the station when the DJ started talking. Intrigued, I listened, for she mentioned it was time to give out “The Grinch Award”.

I couldn’t imagine a Grinch Award having anything but a negative connotation and puzzled over it. I was not left in suspense for long as she proceeded to explain the award and tell who had won it for the week.

She first apologized for the lateness of the award explaining that she did not watch the show, The View, and so had to read an article in the paper about the show later.

Apparently, Barbara Walters grumbled and complained over the Christmas card she received from President and Mrs. Bush because it contained a Bible verse. Barbara Walters was appalled that they sent out a “religious” card.

Because of Barbara’s complaint, this local Christian station gave her the “Grinch Award”.

I am not at all surprised by Barbara’s reaction to receiving such a Christmas card. What more can you expect from someone who does not know and believe the story of Jesus?

I am shocked and appalled at the action of the radio station. They should know better. Their action will only push more people away from Christians.

As believers we are called to reflect and share the love of Christ – and they did the exactly opposite of that.

If anyone here deserves to receive a “Grinch Award” it should be this radio station for their unkind, unloving, and unmerciful act.

More On Fighting Racism With Racism

Predictably, the newswire and blogosphere are awash with opinion on the Supreme Court decision commented on here.

There are several articles written on either side of the issue published in the last few days which give a perspective on the views surrounding this:

  1. BloggerNews.net writes a scathing rebuke of the ACLU and their responses to this debate.

    (T)he ACLU disagrees with the 14th (”equal protection”) Amendment — which requires equal treatment before the law for all. Nice to be able to pick and choose which amendment you support!

  2. Bowling Green News, in an opinion editorial contains a tortured and incoherent response to the ruling, spewing facts and figures I’d really like to see on paper, with proof.

    Chief Justice John Roberts said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Thanks, Justice Roberts, for that clarification. I never would have been able to figure that one out on my own, I see now why you were chosen as to be the highest judicial officer in the country. If it’s really that simple then why is it that more than one in six black children now attend schools that are 99 to 100 percent minority?

    Well, if we understood that and applied it, Roberts wouldn’t have needed to say it. Apparently we weren’t able to figure it out in application. And by minority does he realize this also means people of mexican and asian descent? And does he even pause to consider the social assumptions, the real root causes of such poverty among that particular demographic?

  3. The New Republic delves into Justice Kennedy’s “Controlling” opinion, which it turns out is less opinion and more the apparent fevered ramblings of a an old mind, great as it may once have been.
  4. Black America Web has a perspective from the NAACP perspective, American Black leadership, which appears to me to be more of the same standard liberal social perspective we see so prevalent today. Feel good fixes more than actual solutions. Style over substance.

Medical Theory Affected By Evolution Hypothesis

Reading this article I was struck by how different the views of medicine are now that so much of scientific theory is based on the evolutionary hypothesis. For any who don’t believe that how you understand the origins of life determines how you view the nature of life, let this be fact enough to convince you.

The entire concept of useless organs is based on the idea that we are the result of random evolutionary processes bereft of design or purpose. Besides the statistical and factual errors which are never addressed by the hypothesis of evolution, the ideological errors are just as glaring. The difference in perspective between one who believes that God designed man at once in a whole, complete unit versus one who believes that man is the result of natural selection regardless of whether or not it was divinely directer (theistic evolution) is nothing short of colossal in its effect on how we live.  If random chance defined our beginnings and our mortal lives, there is no right besides might (tyranny of the majority), and there is no purpose beyond personal pleasure (why deny when this is your only chance to satisfy?). Conversely, if we were designed and created on purpose by an intelligent being we live for Him and His purpose, or we live without reason in a world where reason is available.

It’s as though we choose to be apes when sentience has been offered to us.

It is true that there are times when organs are damaged or infected or in other ways causing more harm than good, but to the extent that we label organs useless we only underline our own ignorance of the body and its functions. In the same way a phone has a distinct and designed purpose, whether or not we know what it is or understand its purpose, an Appendix may be inflamed and must be removed but it does have a purpose, regardless of whether or not we know or understand it.

Today’s Interesting Stuff

It may be common knowledge, but in relationships and communication, we can never be reminded enough of the differences in communication that generally exist between the males and females of the species Homo Sapien.

A married couple was in a car when the wife turned to her husband and asked, “Would you like to stop for a coffee?”

“No, thanks,” he answered truthfully. So they didn’t stop.

The result? The wife, who had indeed wanted to stop, became annoyed because she felt her preference had not been considered. The husband, seeing his wife was angry, became frustrated. Why didn’t she just say what she wanted?

Unfortunately, he failed to see that his wife was asking the question not to get an instant decision, but to begin a negotiation. And the woman didn’t realize that when her husband said no, he was just expressing his preference, not making a ruling. When a man and woman interpret the same interchange in such conflicting ways, it’s no wonder they can find themselves leveling angry charges of selfishness and obstinacy at each other.

Enjoy your differences, and don’t forget them.

France Poised To Elect Conservative

In a development which surprises even me, France appears set to elect a conservative Prime Minister. The two opponents racing for the PM seat in France are as diametrically opposite as possible, and the communist-sympathizing far-left socialist is running a solid second. France is a liberals dream: guaranteed everything for everybody, and therefore nobody has anything. Maybe the French people, who have historically been strong on ideas and short on courage or persistence, are going to turn a new leaf, testing the more practical forms of personal responsibility.

Free Political Speech Gets Its Day In Court

The McCain-Feingold amendment is being reviewed by the Supreme Court, and it stands a major chance of sustaining significant changes. While its stated aim was to limit so called ‘soft money’ influencing elections, the amendment has had a more practical effect of causing regular law-abiding citizens to glance over their shoulders when speaking on political subjects too close to the elections. I do not believe McCain is presidential material, he has morals, but not ethics. He believes in many things strongly, but his stands are often far from right.

Rosie Is A <insert favorite epithet here>

Regardless of the official line from whoever gives out official lines at ABC, Rosie’s got to go. From the ‘Queen of nice’ to political-correctness-protected ‘shock-jock queen’, Rosie’s descent into debauchery of the mind and mouth has finally caught up with her, at least for now. Spouting things which would have gotten any male, regardless of race, sacked long ago with prejudice, Rosie disdained alternate views on the aptly singular “The View”. The modern liberal, sans compunction or any sense of personal shame or others inherent worth, her only purpose lay in denigrating ad hominem attacks and barbed and hateful name-calling. It’s about time she’s gone, and I hope, for all our sake, that no network will be crass enough to take her crass self on.

The Undesigned Designer

Following is an article by a Professor Stanislau Dundon, of California State University Sacramento. I took Business and Computer Ethics under him and found him to be thoughtful and thought-provoking. He held several principled and unpopular public opinions on campus and remained a respected and important member of that community of higher learning. I do not agree with everything he says or teaches, but his beliefs have merit if only to serve to cause us to look harder at our own beliefs. The article is long, beginning with a note specifically addressed to teachers using this article in their classrooms, and ending with quite an extensive list of endnotes and a bibliography. Professor Dundon, when I asked his permission in posting his article here, wished me to convey that he

“would be delighted to speak to any audience on why so many biologists think, without justification, that Darwin cancels God when all that evolution does is place incredible weight on the power of the non-living universe to form the background potential for biological evolution. Which is why so many prominent physicists, including Nobelists, are convinced theists.”

Read the article on the following pages. Continue reading The Undesigned Designer