One by one, the teams I was rooting for were plucked off, and now I'm left with my two least favorite teams of the original twelve playoff teams: the Eagles and the Patriots. I really don't care about either of them, but it's the Superbowl, so I have to root for someone. But who?
My initial response is the Eagles. They're an NFC team, where most of my favorite teams are, including teams from two cities in which I've lived for several years. And I hate the Patriots. They've already won two Superbowls in the last three years---it's somebody else's turn, don't you think? They broke records for consecutive win streaks. Tom Brady's undefeated in the playoffs. They're just too good! Besides, they beat one of my teams, the Rams! Why root for them?
But the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward rooting for the Patriots, much to the chagrin of some of my friends. First, the Patriots play as a team. There's no superstars, and you don't hear much about cocky players and controversy or any of that stuff (see "Sports: More Honorable Quarterbacks" for more). They're a good solid team both on offense and defense. They are a team.
On the other hand, you have the Eagles. I already don't like Terrell Owens because of his haughtiness and cockiness. Then he got injured. But he's not the only hot shot on the team, apparently. Another wide receiver, Freddie Mitchell, recently made fun of the Patriots secondary, saying he only knew their numbers and not their names. Now that's just kinda playful banter or whatnot. But he also said, "I'm a special player. I'd like to thank my hands for being so good."
What? Where's the character in that? T.O. hasn't been able to show off lately, so Freddie fills in for him. I just can't like players who show off and are prideful and selfish about their talents. I can't. Look how dichotomous these two teams are! The Eagles, with two cocky wide receivers, and the Patriots, a good solid team.
I still have a week to make my decision, but I'm leaning toward New England. And there's not really any reason not to root for them---except the emotional ones---"oh, they beat the Rams" "oh, they're too good." But those aren't real reasons. Those are just excuses. I may actually root for the Patriots this Superbowl. And I never thought I'd be saying that.
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Friday, January 28, 2005
Palestine Politics: Hamas Wins Most Council Seats
The radical Islamist terrorist group Hamas won a majority of political offices in a recent election in the Gaza Strip. So much for Abbas' moderate terrorist-ending plans. He's apparently been negotiating with Hamas, but with this much political power, I simply cannot believe from their history that they have any ulterior motive besides Israel's destruction, or the death of every single Jew. What is Hamas going to do? Are they going to pretend to accept a cease-fire, so they'll have a better position to attack Jews later? Or are they not going to bother keeping their motives secret and keep attacking Israel, since most of them would rather die than make peace with Israel.
It sounds like I'm being stereotyping and close-minded about these guys here, but it's simple historical facts: They're a terrorist groups who has vowed to get rid of Israel and has consistently shown that they want to do so. Why should that change now? We'll have to wait and see how this political power will affect their terrorism against Israel.
(Source: www.latimes.com)
Edmond the Hun
It sounds like I'm being stereotyping and close-minded about these guys here, but it's simple historical facts: They're a terrorist groups who has vowed to get rid of Israel and has consistently shown that they want to do so. Why should that change now? We'll have to wait and see how this political power will affect their terrorism against Israel.
(Source: www.latimes.com)
Edmond the Hun
Current Events: Victory Against Frivolous Lawsuits
Every now and then you hear a crazy story about someone suing somebody over something stupid. Well, it happened again, but fortunately, it came to no avail.
Peer Larson, a junior in Wisconsin, filed a lawsuit (with his dad) against his school for giving him too much math homework over the summer for an honors pre-calculus class. He claimed it gave him an "unfair workload and unnecessary stress." He was also a camp counselor during the summer, and somehow this meant that he had no time to do homework.
Please! He signed up for the course; he knew what he was getting into.
Thankfully, the complaint was declared "unmeritorious." Not only will they not get any money; they may be ordered to pay the lawyers' fees for all the unmeritorious mess they've caused.
Thank you very much, attorney general, whatever your name is! Let this decision ring from the rooftops all across the nation! If people realize that they might not only receive no money for a frivolous lawsuit, but that there's a possibility that they could lose money for a frivolous lawsuit, then perhaps people will stop pretending to be stupid just to make some money. And the world will be a safer place.
(Sources: www.wlbt.com; www.freep.com)
Edmond the Hun
Peer Larson, a junior in Wisconsin, filed a lawsuit (with his dad) against his school for giving him too much math homework over the summer for an honors pre-calculus class. He claimed it gave him an "unfair workload and unnecessary stress." He was also a camp counselor during the summer, and somehow this meant that he had no time to do homework.
Please! He signed up for the course; he knew what he was getting into.
Thankfully, the complaint was declared "unmeritorious." Not only will they not get any money; they may be ordered to pay the lawyers' fees for all the unmeritorious mess they've caused.
Thank you very much, attorney general, whatever your name is! Let this decision ring from the rooftops all across the nation! If people realize that they might not only receive no money for a frivolous lawsuit, but that there's a possibility that they could lose money for a frivolous lawsuit, then perhaps people will stop pretending to be stupid just to make some money. And the world will be a safer place.
(Sources: www.wlbt.com; www.freep.com)
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Defending the Teaching of Intelligent Design
A Pennsylvania school is in an uproar because a couple paragraphs of a textbook said that evolution was not the only theory out there, that there are others including intelligent design, which says that the universe is too complex for chance and implies an intelligent designer. It didn't promote Christianity or creationism; it didn't even teach the finer points of ID. It merely said that other such theories exist, and made the students aware of one of them. But several parents have filed complaints with civil-liberties unions (of course) saying they don't want their kids exposed to it and all that rubbish. Somebody set a trial date for September 26, which I think is ludicrously late---what's going to happen during the rest of this school year?
Anyway, why all the fuss? While many scientists believe that evolution is strongly backed by scientific facts, experiments, and discoveries, it has 1) never been proven, and there are 2) other credible theories out there, including Intelligent Design. But I'm not going to argue the validity of Intelligent Design, although I certainly could. What's a bigger issue is the mere fact that people don't even want it to be taught.
They base their argument on the constitutionality of separation of church and state. Once again, they show their ignorance of the important document. What the consitution really says is that Congress can't make any laws respecting a religion or prohibiting the exercise of one. Congress making laws isn't even remotely related to things being taught in public schools. So the separation of church and state is invalid here.
Why are these people so afraid of Intelligent Design being taught---not even taught, but being merely alluded to!---in a public school? Is there something wrong with telling students to have open minds, to realize that evolution is not the only theory out there? Someone, anyone---give me one good reason why only one theory regarding something should be extensively taught in textbooks, with no mention at all to any other theories, despite their existence? It's completely irrational. It's the liberal double standard of crying out for tolerance while being intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.
But most of all, it's the fear of God. The only reason they're being irrational about teaching alternate theories is because there's an indirect implication of God in Intelligent Design, and these people want to take God out of everything and anything that he is still in. That is their only agenda. Disagree? Then give me a logical reason why one should be close-minded and not look at more than one side of an issue! There is none. Their irrationality exposes their secular agenda.
And don't give me the rubbish that evolution has never been disproven and is strongly supported by science and all that. That's merely what evolutionists say. Scientists who believe in Intelligent Design believe that there are problems that evolution cannot and does not explain, and that their theory is strongly supported by science. They both believe they're right. So why let one side be the only voice that's heard in public schools? If this irrationality continues, it will be the death of America.
Edmond the Hun
Anyway, why all the fuss? While many scientists believe that evolution is strongly backed by scientific facts, experiments, and discoveries, it has 1) never been proven, and there are 2) other credible theories out there, including Intelligent Design. But I'm not going to argue the validity of Intelligent Design, although I certainly could. What's a bigger issue is the mere fact that people don't even want it to be taught.
They base their argument on the constitutionality of separation of church and state. Once again, they show their ignorance of the important document. What the consitution really says is that Congress can't make any laws respecting a religion or prohibiting the exercise of one. Congress making laws isn't even remotely related to things being taught in public schools. So the separation of church and state is invalid here.
Why are these people so afraid of Intelligent Design being taught---not even taught, but being merely alluded to!---in a public school? Is there something wrong with telling students to have open minds, to realize that evolution is not the only theory out there? Someone, anyone---give me one good reason why only one theory regarding something should be extensively taught in textbooks, with no mention at all to any other theories, despite their existence? It's completely irrational. It's the liberal double standard of crying out for tolerance while being intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.
But most of all, it's the fear of God. The only reason they're being irrational about teaching alternate theories is because there's an indirect implication of God in Intelligent Design, and these people want to take God out of everything and anything that he is still in. That is their only agenda. Disagree? Then give me a logical reason why one should be close-minded and not look at more than one side of an issue! There is none. Their irrationality exposes their secular agenda.
And don't give me the rubbish that evolution has never been disproven and is strongly supported by science and all that. That's merely what evolutionists say. Scientists who believe in Intelligent Design believe that there are problems that evolution cannot and does not explain, and that their theory is strongly supported by science. They both believe they're right. So why let one side be the only voice that's heard in public schools? If this irrationality continues, it will be the death of America.
Edmond the Hun
Sports: More Honorable Quarterbacks
Well, guess what? Peyton Manning isn't the only humble AFC quarterback. And since the Colts got shot down and kicked out of the playoffs, let's look at Doors number 2 and 3.
First, door number 2: The Patriot's Tom Brady. He's famous. After all, he's won two Super Bowls. But he doesn't seem to be haughty about it. Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi says "Tom is a guy that wants to work. Tom knows that he can't win a game all by himself. Tom says, "You go out, you put the work in like everybody else. You hold yourself accountable. You gain respect from your teammates by working hard, and preparing, and not asking anything more of them than you would ask of yourself." Kudos for humble Tom, even if I'm sick of the Patriots winning.
And door number 3: The Steeler's Ben Roethlisberger. I was already impressed with his external accomplishments---while his numbers aren't spectacular, he was undefeated in all 13 games he played in the regular season, including two against the stellar teams of Philadelphia and New England. And he's a rookie. No rookie quarterback has ever led their team to the Super Bowl. And compared to teams like the Patriots, who have already won two in recent years, or the Eagles, going to their fourth straight championship game, along with their cocky receiver Terrell Owens... well, Ben's a likable guy. You want to root for the underdog rookie who's doing pretty good.
But besides all that, he's apparently a cool humble guy, too. Dolphins coach Nick Saban recently released a book which includes an anecdote about Roethlisberger that is very revealing about his character. Saban used to coach the college football team at LSU, and when they beat Ben's team in 2002, Ben e-mailed Saban, saying that LSU was the best team that he had ever played. He also said that LSU "had the most class of any team that I have ever played against in high school or college, and I commend you for that. Many of the players, including your big-name players, came up to me after the game and congratulated me and told us good luck and have a safe trip home." Isn't that nice? Ben's not a sore loser.
I don't know if Ben and Brady's off-the-field behavior is as worthy as their football-related comments and behavior, but from what I have heard about them, they seem like cool likable guys. And when you juxtapose them with NFC players like Moss and Owens, well, it's pretty obvious who has more character. So, yay for AFC QBs.
Edmond the Hun
First, door number 2: The Patriot's Tom Brady. He's famous. After all, he's won two Super Bowls. But he doesn't seem to be haughty about it. Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi says "Tom is a guy that wants to work. Tom knows that he can't win a game all by himself. Tom says, "You go out, you put the work in like everybody else. You hold yourself accountable. You gain respect from your teammates by working hard, and preparing, and not asking anything more of them than you would ask of yourself." Kudos for humble Tom, even if I'm sick of the Patriots winning.
And door number 3: The Steeler's Ben Roethlisberger. I was already impressed with his external accomplishments---while his numbers aren't spectacular, he was undefeated in all 13 games he played in the regular season, including two against the stellar teams of Philadelphia and New England. And he's a rookie. No rookie quarterback has ever led their team to the Super Bowl. And compared to teams like the Patriots, who have already won two in recent years, or the Eagles, going to their fourth straight championship game, along with their cocky receiver Terrell Owens... well, Ben's a likable guy. You want to root for the underdog rookie who's doing pretty good.
But besides all that, he's apparently a cool humble guy, too. Dolphins coach Nick Saban recently released a book which includes an anecdote about Roethlisberger that is very revealing about his character. Saban used to coach the college football team at LSU, and when they beat Ben's team in 2002, Ben e-mailed Saban, saying that LSU was the best team that he had ever played. He also said that LSU "had the most class of any team that I have ever played against in high school or college, and I commend you for that. Many of the players, including your big-name players, came up to me after the game and congratulated me and told us good luck and have a safe trip home." Isn't that nice? Ben's not a sore loser.
I don't know if Ben and Brady's off-the-field behavior is as worthy as their football-related comments and behavior, but from what I have heard about them, they seem like cool likable guys. And when you juxtapose them with NFC players like Moss and Owens, well, it's pretty obvious who has more character. So, yay for AFC QBs.
Edmond the Hun
Friday, January 21, 2005
Letters to the Scribbler
"is the war/ongoing skirmishes between Israel and Palestine a result of Ishmael and Isaac from the Bible? cuz if it is, i thought it was prophecied to never ever be resolved or something. and if that's right. . .is there any reasonable hope that peace can be made, or is it "fated" to go on forever? (i.e. can we change, not history, but um the future or whatever) just some questions that popped up. -Sanguine"
This is a very good question by my good friend Sanguine. I must confess I am not an expert on Abraham's kids and related prophecies. I do know that all Jews are descendants of Isaac, and I believe all Arabs are descendants of Ishmael. At the very least, I haven't even heard claims to the contrary, and I seem to recall reading or hearing that even Muslims believe they are descendants of Abraham and Ishmael.
Gen 16:12 says, regarding Ishmael, that "he shall be a wild man; His hand shall be against every man, And every man's hand against him." This doesn't necessarily or specifically claim that he shall be at war with Isaac, or that it will last forever, or that it even applies to his descendants at all. However, that's just one verse I found, and there could be more. Quite frankly, I don't know.
Whether or not there are prophecies regarding Israel and Palestine's enduring conflict, I do know that there are far too many Muslims/Arabs who absolutely hate all Jews and want to kill them all. Abbas is trying to work out a deal with the radical Hamas group, but I'm skeptical as to it actually happening. Pragmatically, I don't expect fighting to end until the Antichrist comes and finds a devilish way to appease all the Jew-haters.
But even if peace will never come, we can still try to get peace to come, or at least try to minimize the loss of life and make things as good as they can get, however good that is. Even if it's "fated" to go on forever, that doesn't mean we should give up on them.
Hope that helps. Any insight from a Jewish or Christian scholar who randomly finds and reads this blog would be most welcome.
Edmond the Hun
This is a very good question by my good friend Sanguine. I must confess I am not an expert on Abraham's kids and related prophecies. I do know that all Jews are descendants of Isaac, and I believe all Arabs are descendants of Ishmael. At the very least, I haven't even heard claims to the contrary, and I seem to recall reading or hearing that even Muslims believe they are descendants of Abraham and Ishmael.
Gen 16:12 says, regarding Ishmael, that "he shall be a wild man; His hand shall be against every man, And every man's hand against him." This doesn't necessarily or specifically claim that he shall be at war with Isaac, or that it will last forever, or that it even applies to his descendants at all. However, that's just one verse I found, and there could be more. Quite frankly, I don't know.
Whether or not there are prophecies regarding Israel and Palestine's enduring conflict, I do know that there are far too many Muslims/Arabs who absolutely hate all Jews and want to kill them all. Abbas is trying to work out a deal with the radical Hamas group, but I'm skeptical as to it actually happening. Pragmatically, I don't expect fighting to end until the Antichrist comes and finds a devilish way to appease all the Jew-haters.
But even if peace will never come, we can still try to get peace to come, or at least try to minimize the loss of life and make things as good as they can get, however good that is. Even if it's "fated" to go on forever, that doesn't mean we should give up on them.
Hope that helps. Any insight from a Jewish or Christian scholar who randomly finds and reads this blog would be most welcome.
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Middle East: Palestine Terrorism Angers Israel
(What's New?)
First off, I'm wondering why this article got stuck in the back of the news section of the Post Dispatch. But that's irrelevant.
As you all know, or should know, some guy named Abbas won the Palestinian elections, and he says he'll stop terrorism and violence against Israel in order to get Palestinians the statehood that they all want. The problem is, there's still racist radicals who still want to wipe every Jew off the face of the earth.
There was apparently some talking going on, or talk about some talking, or, well, some kind of communication that was or might be happening between Abbas and Sharon, Israel's prime minister. But that all stopped after some Palestinian terrorists killed six Israelis. Sharon says Abbas must halt militant attacks if he wants peace talks. Good luck, Abbas.
It's interesting that the paper reports the death of six "Israelis." Not militants, or soldiers, just "Israelis." I think I can infer that means "civilians." So why don't they say civilians? Why does everyone want Israel to look so bad and Palestine to look so good? They just killed six more innocent civilians! Whenever Israel kills something, the news blurbs always say "Israelis kill two Palestinian militants" or something like that. Militants. Soliders. The Israelis try hard not to kill Palestinian civilians. The Palestinians kill Israeli civilians all the time and don't care. Alan Dershowitz has clearly pointed that out in his book The Case For Israel, which is an amazing book on the truth behind Israel and Palestine and the incredible international media bias against Israel. And the everyday news headlines only confirms that fact.
But let's forget about the media bias for a second, because that's not going to change, unless everyone reads Dershowitz's book. (Yes, I'm plugging that book. I never plug things on my blog. So here's one thing I'm plugging. You should all go read it. Now.) Let's try to focus on the big question: Is there any hope for peace between Israel and Palestine? The obvious answer: not as long as there's still the racist radicals who hate every single Jew and want to kill them all.
Former Palestine leader Arafat turned down a peace compromise with former Israeli leader Barak in 2000. Dershowitz says that it's because "major terrorist groups... oppose the existence of Israel... they have pledged to continue terrorism against Israel's Jews until all of Palestine is liberated and not one inch of it is under Jewish control... The real reason why Arafat turned down Barak's offer is that he was afraid to make peace with Israel... He knew that radical Islamic groups...would regard anyone who accepted it as a traitor, deserving the death that had been meted out to so many others...who had previously accepted Israel's right to exist."
Even if Abbas's motives are completely pure, which I don't necessarily believe anyway, he's never going to be able to create a compromise as long as these terrorist groups still exist. They're going to keep attacking Israel regardless, and if he tries to make peace with Israel, they'll probably try to kill him.
This has always been true, but now it's coming to a head, because Israel has said they won't talk anymore unless Abbas can stop them. Can Abbas stop them? Will he try to stop them? Does he want to stop them? Only when these questions are answered can the "big question" of peace be answered. Call me pragmatic, but it's not happening any time soon.
Edmond the Hun
First off, I'm wondering why this article got stuck in the back of the news section of the Post Dispatch. But that's irrelevant.
As you all know, or should know, some guy named Abbas won the Palestinian elections, and he says he'll stop terrorism and violence against Israel in order to get Palestinians the statehood that they all want. The problem is, there's still racist radicals who still want to wipe every Jew off the face of the earth.
There was apparently some talking going on, or talk about some talking, or, well, some kind of communication that was or might be happening between Abbas and Sharon, Israel's prime minister. But that all stopped after some Palestinian terrorists killed six Israelis. Sharon says Abbas must halt militant attacks if he wants peace talks. Good luck, Abbas.
It's interesting that the paper reports the death of six "Israelis." Not militants, or soldiers, just "Israelis." I think I can infer that means "civilians." So why don't they say civilians? Why does everyone want Israel to look so bad and Palestine to look so good? They just killed six more innocent civilians! Whenever Israel kills something, the news blurbs always say "Israelis kill two Palestinian militants" or something like that. Militants. Soliders. The Israelis try hard not to kill Palestinian civilians. The Palestinians kill Israeli civilians all the time and don't care. Alan Dershowitz has clearly pointed that out in his book The Case For Israel, which is an amazing book on the truth behind Israel and Palestine and the incredible international media bias against Israel. And the everyday news headlines only confirms that fact.
But let's forget about the media bias for a second, because that's not going to change, unless everyone reads Dershowitz's book. (Yes, I'm plugging that book. I never plug things on my blog. So here's one thing I'm plugging. You should all go read it. Now.) Let's try to focus on the big question: Is there any hope for peace between Israel and Palestine? The obvious answer: not as long as there's still the racist radicals who hate every single Jew and want to kill them all.
Former Palestine leader Arafat turned down a peace compromise with former Israeli leader Barak in 2000. Dershowitz says that it's because "major terrorist groups... oppose the existence of Israel... they have pledged to continue terrorism against Israel's Jews until all of Palestine is liberated and not one inch of it is under Jewish control... The real reason why Arafat turned down Barak's offer is that he was afraid to make peace with Israel... He knew that radical Islamic groups...would regard anyone who accepted it as a traitor, deserving the death that had been meted out to so many others...who had previously accepted Israel's right to exist."
Even if Abbas's motives are completely pure, which I don't necessarily believe anyway, he's never going to be able to create a compromise as long as these terrorist groups still exist. They're going to keep attacking Israel regardless, and if he tries to make peace with Israel, they'll probably try to kill him.
This has always been true, but now it's coming to a head, because Israel has said they won't talk anymore unless Abbas can stop them. Can Abbas stop them? Will he try to stop them? Does he want to stop them? Only when these questions are answered can the "big question" of peace be answered. Call me pragmatic, but it's not happening any time soon.
Edmond the Hun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)