ignorance « WordPress.com Tag Feed

On the Particularly Troubling Misconception that Plagues Political Discourse of Late.

Kevin Rogan — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:11:22 +0000

A slight refresher is in order:

POLITICAL SPECTRUM

Fascism—–Centrism—–Socialism

The next person I hear confusing these two ideologies I will consider punching in the head but I will ultimately decide against it because I do not like the physical pain they would likely inflict because I am feeble and they are probably less feeble.

Ideas Stalk Me

kyuun — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:04:45 +0000

What would you do if, one day, you got a chance to see into the future, and you saw that you were going to be killed within the next week by a fatal chain of events leading to one big accident?

Would you yell? Scream? Cry in frustration? Or would you do everything you could in an attempt to save yourself?

What if, on this very same day, you managed to find a chance to travel back in time to stop that chain of events from ever starting. Would you take that chance?

And, let’s just say that there’s a slight hitch with the aforementioned time-travelling. When you alter something, a rip occurs in space/time and tears open by about five centimetres, the amount doubling every time something is altered. Would you still keep going? Or would you stop and await your fate to be dished up to you, even with the knowledge that there was a slight chance that you could have saved yourself without tearing the universe down the middle?

This is the tale of just how selfish one man can get when faced with total annihilation, and the devastation that he alone can cause. It’s just a story idea, but I want to have a crack at it when I’m completely finished (or really need a break from) the novel I’m currently writing. I’m thinking it’s going to end up rather entertaining to write…

Dog Days Turn Deadly in America's Prisons

swoplv — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:03:16 +0000

By James Ridgeway | Tue September 1, 2009 4:27 AM PST The summer of 2009 hadn’t even begun whe

Ignorance is bliss?

Ashima — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:13:05 +0000

Sometimes what we are taught is what we know, until we find a reason to question it or unless one is of a highly inquisitive nature. I think that poses a big responsibility on teachers and the like, to not pass on their opinions, their position over issues, on to the students and maintain a neutral position. Since I’ve come to LSE, in almost all lectures, every prof, save one, has criticised the World Bank for being responsible for deepening poverty through their SAPs. But only one made us realise that we couldn’t take a stance until we know all sides of the debate. Did the WB actually intend those programs to fail? I believe that the professors who do pass their cynicism of WB in their lectures would obviously know all sides of the debate and have good enough reason to do so. But without telling the student those reasons or without stimulating their enquiry, is it right to condition their minds? Teachers are often looked upon as role models and many times students will take the teacher’s word for a particular point being right or wrong.

Maybe in issues like World Bank’s policies one could maintain a neutral position while teaching the subject but how about issues involving national boundaries and national integrity? Do we teach the students the geography we believe is correct or the one, which the rest of the world believes is correct? The map of India as I learned in my history, geography classes in school was how it is represented in the first picture (taken from mapofindia.com) but the map my friend who is a Pakistani knows, is something like in the second picture. Which one is correct? Until, I think 11^th or 12^th standard I didn’t even know about the existence of any other kind of map of India and I would have fought over PoK being an Indian territory with anybody suggesting that it is Pakistan. All I knew (which I believe is the common impression) was that it is unrightfully under Pakistan’s control, it is Pakistan occupied! But it came as a surprise that PoK is not even a term outside of India. That it is actually PaK (quite a coincidence! ) Pakistan administered Kashmir. The area is part of Pakistan, if we look at maps of India on websites outside the Indian domain.. Like figure 2 or 3 from undp and geology.com respectively. We’ve been conditioned all through our schooling to take the figure 1 as the map of India. Can rejecting the existence of ‘other’ make the first correct or legitimate (at least for their own citizens!)? And once we move beyond our own borders can this ignorance actually lead to arrogance on issues that may concern the political boundaries. In a school which has “…and Political Science” in its name, we are bound to be political, we are bound to have opinions and positions on sensitive issues as Indo-Pak or Israel-Palestine. Can we afford to be ignorant? The old saying “Ignorance is bliss” has in my opinion become really old and can no longer be used to justify it. I think we should be taught to be always sceptical of what we think we know.

Ray and Kirk

jbovberg — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:03:27 +0000

उपमितिभवप्रपंच - कूपमण्डूकः

Prashanth Kota — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:30:24 +0000

यो न निर्गत्य निःशेषां विलोकयति मेदिनीं |
अनेकाद्भुतवृत्तांतां स नरः कूपदर्दुरः ||

- उपमितिभवप्रपंच

If a person never gets out of his home (home town) and sees the world full of surprises, then he is to be considered as a frog in a well.

- Upamitibhavaprapancha

Ignorant? or Spreading Misinformation? What do you think?

FW — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:34:51 +0000

Really? Are you fucking kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? Has this woman never heard about PEP

Chambers

Kalliope Amorphous — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:06:02 +0000

Self Portrait, 2008

the smell of money fills our lungs
our fields are filled with blood
dripping chambers for the death knell
the infidel swings from gallows
erected on our heavy tongues
here, we exile all angels to hell

i have made an aerie for the bodies of the damned
between my skull and womb
nestled in muscle and pulse
the lock is glued
the door is jammed
do not enter this tomb
or heaven will convulse.

About Selflessness And Compassion

meng foong — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:14:48 +0000

The center of Buddhism and Yoga teachings is selflessness.

We know that all suffering arise from ignorance. It is true. But ignorance exists only when there is a selfish ego for it to attach to. When we become completely selfless, there is no stage for ignorance to perform anything.

Suffering or unhappiness or dissatisfaction occurs when we have impurities like anger, hatred, jealousy, lust, pride, greed, depression, cravings and aversions. And all these impurities arise from ignorance. And ignorance is empowering the ego, while the ego is feeding the ignorance at the same time.

To be free from suffering, all we need to do is understand what is selflessness and learn how to become selfless. We all know that the opposite of selflessness is selfishness. So, selflessness can also mean unselfishness. It means we are not thinking about our owns benefits, comforts and happiness, but being thoughtful for others and serve those who are in need of helps. But there is a deeper meaning than just being unselfish.

Without compassion, it is not easy for us to understand what is selflessness and very difficult for us to become selfless. If we have great compassion, naturally we will become selfless also. And being compassion towards all beings also include compassion towards our own self. This “self” is also a being. Without compassion, it is not easy for us to forgive others and not easy to let go of unhappiness and difficult situation (problems).

Compassion and selflessness are together not separate from each other. When we are compassionate, we will be selfless. When we are selfless, we will be compassionate too. It is like the mind experiencing everything through the senses. Without the mind, there is no use of the senses. Without the senses, the mind cannot perceive anything – names and forms (colours, sounds, tastes. smells, feels and thoughts).

When we are truly selfless and compassionate, we will also becoming fearless. When we are compassionate towards all living beings, we will not have any fear at all, not even death or painful injury towards this physical body of us. When we are not afraid of death (the unknown), what else that we can be afraid of? We will be loving and forgiving. When we are truly loving, we will not have hatred or ill-will towards any beings who had inflicted pain or injury onto our body and our feelings. We will forgive whoever or whatever that have been being unkind to us or hurt us whether intentionally or unintentionally.

When we are selfless, we don’t see any differentiation between us and others. It doesn’t mean that we are not existing anymore but we have become one with all. We are not separate from everything and every beings. Good is us, bad is also us. Ignorance is us, wisdom is also us. Birth and death have no differences as well as God consciousness and this consciousness.

Take away all the names and forms, what do we have? What are the differences? Where are the boundaries? What are the limitations? What is good? what is bad? What is happiness? what is suffering? What is real? What is unreal? What is beautiful? What is ugliness? What is praise? What is censure? What is big? what is small? What is fast? What is slow? Who are you? Who am I?

It doesn’t matter who we are, what we are, where we are, how we look, what we do, what we like and dislike – we all are the same when we are happy or unhappy, angry or jealous, laugh or cry, compassionate or wicked. And we all are the same when we have fears and worries, dissatisfaction, frustration, disappointment, doubts and confusions. Without any of the elements – fire, water, air, earth and space, we all are nothing, we won’t be exist and be here. What is the meaning about having lots of money, accumulation of wealth and taking care of the health, having sensual enjoyments, material comforts or accumulating the knowledge of the world if the nature didn’t or couldn’t provide us with the basic essentials for life existence? The nature doesn’t have differentiation of likes and dislikes, good and evil when they provide everything to every beings and everything for being here. It is us having the mind which has the differentiation of likes and dislikes, good and evil, love and hatred. We will pray for more water when it is not enough for our needs but we will condemn the water when the water is too much and causing damages and inconvenience for us. We complain about the sun and dry weather when we feel too hot, and we complain about the rainfalls and cold weather and wish for the sun when we feel too cold. The mind is never satisfied and forever changing of likes and dislikes. But the nature continues to provide without asking any rewards or repay, and never have hatred even though we have caused so much damages onto the nature. The nature is never tired nor having any intention to give or take, but just provide without limits and unconditionally and are not attach to its actions and the fruit of actions. And this is selflessness.

How to become selfless?

We need to practice patience, forgive and forget. At the same time, we also practice giving and sharing without asking any form of rewards in return. And then we go beyond all names and forms and practice detachment and indifference towards duality, treat all are equal. Slowly we will be able to not attach to our body and mind, the intellect, the ego and all the senses. Our mind will always be having unceasing thoughts (negative and positive), feelings (good and bad), judgment, comparison, criticism, competition and expectation. It is the habit and characteristic of the mind to be like that. all minds are having this same thinking habits when the senses come in contact with the object. But if we do not attach to these phenomena in the mind, they cannot affect us to do good or bad, and it doesn’t disturb the peacefulness in our hearts.

When we can detach from comforts and discomforts, we will be free from likes and dislikes. When we are free from likes and dislikes, we are free from cravings and aversions. And so, we will be free from discontentment, disappointment, irritation and frustration. We will be free from happiness and unhappiness. We don’t crave for happiness nor rejecting unhappiness. We watch all the feelings and thoughts passing by in our mind and not being contaminated or disturbed by them. All the feelings and thoughts are very temporary. They arise, stay for a while, they change and they will disappear. We can practice concentration and meditation to help us stilling the mind or slowing down the thought waves. But even that stillness state of the mind is not permanent. We will have to come back to life and the senses are continuing receiving inputs and the mind is continuing creating thoughts and sending outputs. We have to come back to life because there are still some karma for us to work on until there is no more karma left. And we will be resting in the complete stillness or silence of namelessness and formlessness.

Because of the unchanging law of impermanence, and thus it is the same as birth and death. It is a continuous cycle of births and deaths due to the cause and effect. By knowing this, we will know that we actually exist eternally, infinitely. And we will find that having this physical body and the unrest mind is not a great suffering anymore when we have eliminate the ego and ignorance. Without attaching to the body and the mind (not identify with them), the body and the mind have become an instrument for us to experience everything – up and down, within and without, and for us to learn what is selflessness (compassion and wisdom) and go back to pure existence (beginningless and endless), pure compassion and wisdom, pure consciousness and peace (without names and forms, attributes, limitations and conditions).

About Selflessness And Compassion

meng foong — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:12:19 +0000

The center of Buddhism and Yoga teachings is selflessness.

How to become selfless?

Now, I want to suppose our man Brooks an educated man, even though he sat at the foot of W.F. Buckley. But in its "first many decades," the U.S. "tolerated" not merely "misery" and "exploitation" of labor, but hereditary bond-slavery.

Mark — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:14:39 +0000

What the market "wanted" during the "first many decades" of the nation's history.

I would file this entry under the heading: “Bad Prose: Platitudes and Simplification.” For today, pundit David Brooks writes as follows: “During the first many decades of this nation’s existence, the United States was a wide-open, dynamic country with a rapidly expanding economy. It was also a country that tolerated a large amount of cruelty and pain—poor people living in misery, workers suffering from exploitation.”

Now, I want to suppose our man Brooks an educated man, even though he sat at the foot of W.F. Buckley. But in its “first many decades,” the U.S. “tolerated” not merely “misery” and “exploitation” of labor, but hereditary bond-slavery. Perhaps Mr. Brooks thinks slavery falls under the general heading of “workers suffering from exploitation.” But if he does, he has never read an honest account of the development of wealth in the “first many decades” of this nation’s existence. In 1860, one commodity alone accounted for 53% of revenues derived from exports: cotton. Which cotton, of course, was cultivated by laborers numbering in the millions (slaves), who were beaten, murdered, sold off, and raped with perfect impunity. Add to the revenues from cotton those from rice, sugar, and tobacco (all grown with slave labor) and you begin to get a clearer picture than the one our man Brooks would paint. And what did it take to resolve that problem of this peculiar form of “worker exploitation”? More than 600,000 dead in a Civil War. And then, after the Reconstruction was destroyed by white-supremacists, many more thousands dead black folk during the nations “many decades” of lynching terror. And then, finally, in 1964-65, America began to have a right to call itself a democracy.

Has David Brooks every opened a book by Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Richard Wright, or James Baldwin? Or by James McPherson? or by George Frederickson? Or by Winthrop Jordan? Or by Philip Dray? Or Rayford Logan? If he has, it availed him nothing.

David Brooks, pundit.

Next our man Brooks writes: “The unregulated market wants to direct capital to the productive and the young. Welfare policies usually direct resources to the vulnerable and the elderly. Most social welfare legislation, even successful legislation, siphons money from the former to the latter.”

Now, insofar as an abstraction like “the unregulated market” can “want” to do something, it “wants” to find the cheapest labor and resources and the least regulation it possibly can. So, it “siphons” capital from U.S. labor markets to China, Mexico, Indonesia, and so on.

I suggest that Mr. Brooks visit Detroit, unescorted, and that he ask the impoverished people there what the market seems to “want.” I suggest that he visit Iowa to see what the market “wants” “Agri-business” (so-called) to do there in its unholy name: turn an entire state into a cornfield to produce not food, but raw materials for industrial production of chemicals that are then fabricated into “food”; and to use not the sun to grow that corn, but “fertilizers” derived from the energy of the sun as stored billions of years ago in petroleum. What the market “wants” in Iowa, if we are to know it by its fruits, as the Bible hath it, is this: depopulation & destruction of communities; one of the largest underground economies of methamphetamine in the U.S.; wash-out pollution into the rivers that winds up in the Gulf, where the “market” has apparently decided that it “wants” a dead-zone the size of thirty or forty counties. As Milton puts it in “Comus“:

“If every just man, that now pines with want,
Had but a moderate and beseeming share
Of that which lewdly-pamper’d luxury
Now heaps upon some few with vast excess,
Nature’s full blessings would be well dispensed
In un-superfluous even proportion,
And she no whit incumber’d with her store;
And then the giver would be better thank’d,
His praise due paid; for swinish gluttony
Ne’er looks to heav’n amidst his gorgeous feast,
But with besotted base ingratitude
Crams, and blasphemes his feeder.
Shall I go on? Or have I said enough?”

Kirk Cameron Gets Schooled, Naturally

jbovberg — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:09:06 +0000

I don’t need to say a lot about this debacle, except to say that this is precisely the type of reaction everyone should have expected. Kirk Cameron goes to UCLA—a place of learning—and attempts to spread misinformation about Darwin and evolution by distributing trashed copies of Origin of Species? Of course Cameron ends up embarrassed. I only wish the video were better recorded.

Evangelism: The Lost call

perfection0080 — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:44:17 +0000

Its crazy today how evangelism has seemingly fallen the wayside in both America and some outside countries. Christians seem to be falling short in heeding the call. Of course the Gospel is still reaching the lost. Its not like Christianity was made in America nor that if America doesn’t nobody will, its just a shame that they don’t. Christians in countries without religious freedom are constantly sharing the faith and dealing with the consequences as the result. I share the gospel in my life, whether it be at work, church, chillin out or with a group of other Christians on the street. Unfortunately, this is not common place for most Christians. When you actually share the gospel with most people, they are shocked that they are hearing it outside of a church. Yes they are used to Christians or religious folk in general whining about what they cant or shouldn’t do but rarely do they hear the Gospel and in its entirety. You would think that other Christians hadn’t got the memo on the need to share but I’ve found that its not so much the case. The case is moreso that the world has manage to quite the mouths of believers, leaving them in spiritual infancy as the do not come to endure the very real pain and suffering that comes with sharing the gospel.

Christians are taught constantly about how to pray, read, worship, tithe, help the needy and so forth in the name of love in order to live in obedience to God. In the background, the one command that always seems to slip to the back is the call to share the gospel. Staying kooked up in the church and focusing solely on their moral advancement, little progress is made in advancing the kingdom. All their advances spiritually just lead to the improvement and greater comfort of their own lives all the while of these things are suppose to be apart of the witness in their evangelism they don’t do. Evangelism seems to be the last thing if not not at all on most Christians minds as something they must do or seek to do, leaving things in the hands of the pastor or those “gifted” to do it to fulfill that role. Infiltrated by the enemy, the world’s cries of foul play in bible bashing or hurting of their feelings have made people dull to the calling of the God’s Word. Through this many Christians come to the belief, by influence of the world and fear in their flesh, that all you need to do is do nice things for people or accept all their ways as good to make them feel like God love’s them. Distorted by a world view, Christians are led to believe showing Christ love is simply by caring for people in the flesh when it’s far greater then that. It’s caring for them in both their flesh and their spirit. What supposed love do Christians have if they, unlike the world, know of the impending judgment and the way out but don’t say anything to help prevent their ETERNAL damnation but ONLY supply their earthly needs for them to burn forever later? Doesn’t make sense does it, especially is Christians are suppose to have and know God’s love.

You see hospitals and all kinds helper associations made named after Saint this or that in the name all that is good all over the place. Christian made or built organizations to help the needy. Originally, these places were made to not only help people in their worldly needs but to help people to escape the fires of hell as well by not only providing for their worldly needs but a heavy focus on sharing the gospel as well. Now you might not even be able to find a bible anywhere near them as they have been watered down from their original intent. This is much like most baby Christians, watered down by worldly appeal. Listening to the world instead of the Word, baby Christians lacking understanding have come to neglect the sharing of the gospel and replaced it with simply just doing good deeds as the world has asked. They don’t want to hear the truth but they do want hand outs. Much like Jesus and the five thousand, they don’t come because they believe you truly have anything worthwhile to say but just so the can take advantage of what you are offering other than salvation.

Another alternative to raw disobedience through worldly wisdom is to water down the command to something more… acceptable in the eyes of man. To comprise with God’s command, friendship evangelism is sold as the way to let the truth be known while somehow enabling the speaker to avoid the pain. Developing relationships with a few people, you butter them up and never talk about Jesus. Being as nice as possible and agreeing with most of the things they say, even if they follow a completely different and false faith, you hope and wait for the day they finally ask you; “What do you believe?”. A form of evangelism that appeals to the flesh as you avoid the danger of telling the truth in the raw by buttering up your enemy first to soften the blow of rejection. After years or waiting for this one person to hopefully give you a chance, often a watered down “Jesus loves” gospel is given out of fear of not being able to handle the truth of their trespass. Instead of full on rejection you can get a “That’s what you believe and that’s what works for you but not for me” as the see Jesus as only a option to enhance their life instead of the only way to it. Along the way, every and any other people that you see or meet cannot make your friend or be in your life for more then 30 minutes is left to the wayside to fend for themselves in eternity. This is the lie that has gripped many Christians. Make a bunch of friends, pray, and hope they are bedazzled by your lifestyle. All the while we meet on a daily basis people of various backgrounds not of Christ that live far more “interesting”, “adventurous”, and sometimes even more moral lifestyles of which people would die to know over the Christian of whom they might even already consider themselves to be. Foolish. Have we been so easily blinded by our own sinful nature that we cannot see that our desire to share this way is not of God but of our flesh?

Playing this waiting game, many Christians are under the deception that they are actually sharing the Gospel when their not or “haven’t gotten around to it”. By not sharing the truth, Christians are not facing the pains that SHOULD come with their walk that is meant to refine them and guide them into both a deeper relationship with the Lord and understanding of his Word. They are kept incubated and don’t truly see the world’s dire immediate need for salvation around them and the need to do something about it. Their feelings become similar to most Americans about third world countries, knowing that its messed up but not caring enough to take action themselves. Praying well, doing a bunch of church activities, and being a nice person can’t replace the intended depth to come from full obedience to the Lord. Hence the church is left with baby believers who never cross into the deeper knowledge of the Lord learned through trial and tribulation. Yes! Babes still go through issues and produce fruit, no doubt about that. May even learn the bible back and forth but without that field knowledge their understanding is left 1 dimensional as all the issues Christ and others spoke of will not be put into proper context to their life or life as a whole. Issues that are faced amount to everyday issues most non believers go through with a Jesus twist. They mature as a person, as much as a non believer can grow in their life struggles. Essentially their lives seem no different then saved peoples besides the fact that they go to church.

Don’t get me wrong, you can evangelize through relationships and you should but not in the sense of “friendship” or “lifestyle” evangelism. You cannot cling to one bible verse and hold to it as law without reading it in context and even using Herman Nutus (You know which one they use). There is more verses that say speak then don’t speak. Jesus wasn’t a mime and the bible isn’t a picture book (accept in the case of infants… catch my drift). If you can make friends with a person and establish a relationship, go for it but don’t forget their need for Christ and the need to talk to them about it and not just sit on your butt. The thing is if most people in the church follow this pattern of ONLY relational evangelism, then it makes sense why so few people are experiencing greater growth. Why? Because there is more then one way to reach people with the truth and there is more then one circumstance to share it in and we have to be open to all of them. Instead of being used by the Lord to the max, Christians are settling for the minimum used based off a lack of knowledge that there is more. As opposed to stepping up and sharing in boarder context in which brings pain, suffering, lose and even persecution, they do not go through that refiners hotter fire. Christians have used the excuse of being shy, lacking knowledge, and etc to hide in the shadows instead of calling on God to help them step up to the plate. In such, fear has clouded their judgment and prevented them from talking to strangers for fear of rejection. Interestingly, they fail to realize that this is the same rejection Christ and the other apostles experienced. Leading to the same suffering and pain is intended to help us grow but of which we avoid but not speaking the truth.

As in the military, every soldier for Christ goes through basic training and is taught how to fight in various forms of combat depending on their positioning. Each form is meant to take advantage of the position of the soldier and his or her combatant in order to effectively neutralize the enemy as well as maxim the chances of victory. From long range to close range, each form is to be used in proper context to the positioning of the opponent as the soldiers attacks will be ineffective if the wrong tact is used in the wrong situation. For example, Punch and kicking will do nothing if your opponent is far away. By the end of training, some soldiers are found to be more proficient in one or more areas then the other. This is good but one thing that is very important to remember is that the soldier is still trained to fight on every platform. So while a soldier may be better in the area of Close range combat, as opposed to others, that soldier will still be trained, equipped and placed in situations where they still have to fight using the other techniques. A soldier does not not fight if on the battlefield just because he or she is not doing a specialized mission they are prone to. Just as a medic may primarily work in the area of healing, they are still equipped with a gun and at times when confronted by the enemy, use it. Whatever your gifting or specialty, we all still have a charge to fight in whatever circumstances, when we want to or feel up to it and when we don’t.

I understand the fears of many of Saint in the sharing of their faith. Fear of rejection, the anger, mockery, humiliation. The claims of a lack of love or respect because they believe differently. We fail to realize is that these are the same claims and rejections that came upon Christ for his speaking of the truth. Jesus warned us that as they treated him in this way that they shall with us. Its While the fears of having been unloving, disrespectful, or bible bashing from the world’s view may be hinder we should fear God and their impending fate more. Funny thing about it is that if you shared it right, no matter how loving you are, they still going to be mad. Why? Because the Gospel is offensive to those who are perishing. You just told them they have offended God, deserve hell, had to be saved, everything they thought was wrong, how they live is wrong, and the only way the can make it right is give everything up to follow a guy they don’t feel like they owe. When Christians water down the gospel or try to use sugar/worldly tactics to appeal to people instead of simply sharing the truth, they endanger the very soul of that person. A soul we will be held accountable when we are judged.

Christians must being living sacrifices. They must be willing to put themselves in uncomfortable and even life threatening situations, not just the “safe” ones. Without putting ourselves out there, we will never see the truth in its entirety come to life. The truth must not be watered down but spoken in its entirety. You cannot share the gospel or even see Christ’s love if you don’t first understand level of offense that was committed. That despite it, he still sacrificed for you even though you don’t deserve it, simply put. But even at that, we Christians need to understand that there is multiple arenas in which to share the gospel and we all should seek to max out by doing all we can. My plea is not that suddenly you are not a Christian if you don’t do street evangelism or talk to every person you meet and share Christ. Its that we are willing, given the opportunity to talk to a stranger and seek to witness to them. That we are willing to talk to a family member or friend and help open their eyes to the light of the truth. That we willing to make friends and in and out of church and bring them into understanding of what God did for them. That in every aspect of our lives we seek to share and save and if we don’t feel equipped that we seek to be. Christians must be able to live the truth as will for God because they know he is reality. Christians must also be share the truth, able to explain how and why the transformation happened in their life so that others may know they too can be saved. Christians cannot stand back in comfort as the people in the world die. Don’t just be a Godly example, tell them how to become one. The world may not want the truth but needs the truth, we have to give it to them and let them do with it as they choose.

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Matthew 28:18-20

The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

John 10:24-30

cele 3 romanii. sau cum au votat romanii duminica

Camil Stoenescu — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:50:01 +0000

I Smell U

monarc7 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:48:11 +0000

I can smell you from miles away, others say you disgusting, repulsive, so keep ‘way. But I think you a rumbustious, freeman similar to a seaman. What I learned in this world of men is your discernment seldom meet agreement so don’ hesitate to speak them.
Their gaze will amaze you in the divergent ways they truly play, but they claim to espouse some law they can only spout. ‘Man makes rules and laws’ with another rule set called Statistics leaving the whole mix in a bad fix. Betwixt and behind their lawmaking is a craving for integration but they don’ absolutely concede the anarchy that is, truly.
No mind for the minus sign that try to detract from your sublime cos they all men with belief, none of them supreme. And as they preach watch their souls, you’ll see, their hold is weak.

In the home recording studio

wellifyouinsist — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:16:25 +0000

In the home recording studio.

A wears: headphones, jumpsuit, guitar, optimism.
B wears: jeans, intense expression

A: B, how about if you fit the rhythm track around the vocal? Because the vocal is good, y’know, and the guitar is really hard to do.

B: No

A: Go on, B, it’ll be fun.

B: Ummm. No.

A: Please?

<5 minutes>

B: Ok, listen:

A: B, you’ve made it all out of time.

B: ..

A: B?

B: ..

A: This is lyrical song, B, it doesn’t conform to structuralist ideas of tempo.

…B?

B: .. You want me to turn the click up in the headphone?

A: Yes please.

The Technological Witch Hunt – Round 2

onegaiblog — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:48:46 +0000

We can see how enlightned this person isn't

It seems there are a lot of people out there, mainly older people although there are a few young people on this insane band-wagon, who are against both technology and technological advancement. They are stubborn to the core about their beliefs to the point that they will not even allow you to argue with them, often interrupting you or changing the subject to avoid having their beliefs challenged. These people represent a dying breed of relics from the past trapped in a mindset denser than stone. According to the techno-haters, technology has “taken over and is thinking for us” This article is aimed at those people, although I believe the people like us – that’s the reasonable and rational people – will get a good kick out of this too.

Let’s start with the “gadgets” technology. This would include things like cellphones with mp3 players, web browsing, cameras, etc or onboard computers in cars along with GPS navigators and the like. I’ve heard a lot of criticism for these things since, unfortunately for me, I live with a technology hater who’s also a purist. I grant that GPS – provided you can use the fsucking thing – does negate the need for reading a map book, but is that a bad thing? I’ve seen many drivers trying to read a map book lying on the passenger seat whilst trying to drive. Now that’s an accident waiting to happen. As far as the augmentation of cellular phones is concerned, the implementation of a camera was very good practical thinking. You don’t take your camera everywhere but you do take your cellphone. How many good photo opportunities were missed before this idea? As for web browsing, it’s very convenient knowing that one can look up some important information on the go rather than having to seek the nearest internet café and pay ten times what the cost of the data fees would have been to look it up or, god forbid, make a trip down to the library which entails looking through countless reference books to even find a scrap of information on what you’re looking for. Finally, built-in mp3 players. This is the best idea yet. You no longer need to purchase an mp3 player on top of the costs of the phone and you get to listen to music anywhere. What’s so bad about that?

Now we’ll tackle the issue of computers themselves. I’ve heard all kinds of things besides “destroying our humanity”, “thinking for us”, “making us stupid”, “destroying literacy” and “computers are evil” but we’ll deal with these ones for now. All the relics of the past perceive computers as toys. Well, as a writer of a book and several short stories, I’d disagree as I find it very disconcerting writing on paper. I haven’t got a fancy set up because I use my PC predominantly for writing, and watching/reading things. I play few games these days because I’m somewhat disappointed in the gaming industry over the last two years so my computer is definitely, to quote Geoffrey Leonard, “not, not NOT!” a toy.

As far as “destroying our humanity”, I’d like to point out that people who spend large amounts of time in front of a computer were anti-social to begin with. At least now they have an outlet. Prior to computers, these are the types of people who would have become obsessive above something else, reading books perhaps or maybe building figures out of soapstone – who knows? The point I’m making is that a person is anti-social to begin with; computers did not make them so and these machines are merely a more popular outlet in modern times. People who claim “internet addiction” or “computer addiction” are a bunch of sad morons who crave attention and would have found a different “addiction” were they born before the advent of computers.

Computers do not “think for us” except if the user is a complete moron and merely follows the computer’s instructions (and in that case, it’s just as well he/she doesn’t try to think for themselves). I realise that calculators have made us lazy and spell-checkers have made it a lot easier to proofread things, but is that bad? Since when is accomplishing a task the easy way automatically the wrong way? I am a firm believer that the means are irrelevant so long as the ends are the same (Providing it isn’t harmful to anybody of course). Secondly, on the subject of spell-checkers, they are not always accurate and quite often require the user to think for him/herself. Now before I hear anymore about “oh but computers keep databases and we don’t think, we just type in numbers at the work place” etc, let me point out that there is no difference between having a shelf full of paper files or a database except the access speed. The only thing that has changed is that now the user doesn’t have to manually search for the file. I didn’t know being good at looking for files on a shelf was such a note-worthy ability.

“Making us stupid” is a favourite of mine and actually relates a lot to the paragraph above. Let me just explain “stupid” here. A person is, as far as we know, born stupid (Although there are schools of thought that tend towards the idea that upbringing and stimulus during infancy plays a large role in mental development). Just because we no longer have to sit for hours to plot a graph or calculate a problem doesn’t mean we can’t if needs must. All it means is: why the fsuck should we? So, let’s get our terminology right here. Computers do not make us “stupid”, they make us “lazy”. Good, I’m a lazy person and proud of it. I won’t hold back when it comes to stuff like hygiene (personal or other) on account of my laziness; that would make me a slob. A slob is somebody whose laziness has taken control of them and led them to live in a manner which, viewed by most sane people, is disgusting. The interesting thing you relics reading this article may want to know is that lazy people and slobs existed as far back as the cavemen.

I love this one: “destroying literacy”. That’s just golden. “Literacy” has been under threat since the advent of motion pictures and comic books. Just as an aside, the word “literacy” actually refers to the ability to read, which computers, if anything, have aided and encouraged. For some reason people associate “literacy” with the interest in books and while the two are related, they are not mutually inclusive. Now, bearing in mind that television has done more to destroy the interest in books than computers ever did, I’d like to point out that the internet has given rise to many communities of readers and writers around the world who discuss books they like, exchange poetry and even post entire novels for their fellow readers/writers to judge. One could go so far as to say that the internet is actually the beginning of a sort of semi cyber-renaissance.

As for “computers are evil”, I’m tempted not to even dignify that with a response but I will, just for fun. First of all, there is no such thing as an evil inanimate object. An inanimate object is only as good or evil as the person using it (weapons included). I mean if you allow for the idea of inanimate objects being evil, you could start calling rocks evil too because they can be used to kill with. Think about it. Secondly, if computers are so evil, then why so many religious groups have websites these days? Have you seen the number of Christian sites out there (*Shudder*)? Yes, it’s very easy to call something evil if it inconveniences your group by enlightening the ignorant and causing them to start asking questions. Television and science were considered evil once upon a time (although there are some sects who maintain this belief even today – very sad). Thirdly, I’d like to know how many people out there screaming “computers are evil” have ever had to go to hospital in their lives because hospitals run on computers as do all those life-saving machines they use.

Finally, I’m going on an all-out attack here…

“The rise of computers has caused piracy”. No, it’s increased it and made it easier but piracy is as old as the first artist who learned to copy another artist’s painting precisely. Piracy became very popular with the advent of the cassette tape and people have been doing it in abundance since long before computers were a standard household item or the advent of the internet.

“The internet has made child pornography so rife”. Wrong! Before the internet was around, it was still going on just as much. The only difference was that it was done behind closed doors. Be grateful to the internet because at least now when some idiot uploads a picture of him with his penis in a kid, it gets out there and there’s some, little as it may be, chance of tracing it and apprehending him.

“The only significant contribution the internet has ever made is that it has given credibility to the uninformed opinion” – Michael Crichton. A little right but very wrong. The web has given credibility to many uniformed opinions, you just have to look at many of the blogs out there (not this one though, lol) to realise this. But then again, are the history books any better? History books have been written in a very subjective fashion for centuries now. Here’s just one example: In South Africa under apartheid, history books actually contained dreamed up facts and outright lies intermingled with the odd truth that was, of course, manipulated to suit the government. What it actually boils down to is the individual’s ability to be discerning. If you believe everything you read without researching it, be it a book or a blog, then you’re an idiot. As far as “making no contributions” is concerned, the internet has allowed many very informed people to collaborate online. It has allowed the truth to reach a lot of people living under isolated regimes. The net has allowed us to meet people from diverse cultures and backgrounds and gain better human understanding. It has made research quicker and easier than before and has helped the average man expand his mind. It has even brought romance to the lives of countless people who may have otherwise died alone (I knew a guy who married a girl he met online).

“Computers are used for fraud and all kinds of other crimes that would have otherwise been impossible”. That is a good point; sadly it is a very one-sided take on things. All levels of progress involve negative side effects. From the first monkey that picked up a bone and used it as a club to the first book ever published. Yes, even books had negative side effects like the rise of fanatic religions or how about non-graphic pornography? There were plenty of insane and filthy publications out there at one stage (Although there still are a fair share today). The knife, while a brilliant tool, has spilled more blood than can be counted. The brilliant form of transport, the aeroplane, is an integral part of war. Nuclear energy is responsible for the most awesome destructive force ever unleashed on the planet. The list goes on.

Attack completed. Gained 1000exp and 500 GP.

Let’s just look at everything on the whole. If there was no technology, there’d be no television, no books, no medicine, no hygiene, no transport, no defence from the elements and no civilisation. We’d be running around killing each other (more so than we do today), nobody would be safe and we’d all be dying at ages of 30 – 40 years. We’d have no knowledge of the cosmos. We’d never ponder existence. Why? Because creativity, to a greater or lesser degree, exists in us all and it is creativity that gives us the ability to question. Creativity and technological advancement are inseparably interwoven because technological advancement is a by-product of creativity and technological advancement is also the inspiration for a lot of creativity.

Just to clear things up, I’d like to say that I’m not all pro-technology. I will happily concede that there is an overwhelming amount of frivolous technology out there. But just because it is new and it is a “gadget” does not automatically make it bad, neither does the fact that it saves time or effort. I also admit that I’m a rampant “consumer”. But I’m a discerning one too. I do not automatically want it because it is latest or because it is the best. I do, however, want it if it has features that I have a genuine use for. I would also like to admit that I often see new technology in development or just being released and I say to myself “No!” because I too do not wish to see my world erased by that of the next generation. Sadly, it is inevitable.

Luckily there will always exist in society, an element that respects the past and the origins of what they have today. It is that sect of the populace that protect and preserve each previous generation’s styles, music and movies.

What I’m ultimately getting at is that we should not fear change and we should not scorn the past. We must embrace both sides of everything for balance is the only way any intelligent person can live. Anything else simply reflects ignorance and lack of understanding.

I feel like Nick Burns and my knee sounds like velcro

thefreshcracker — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:01:13 +0000

Ok, so I’m not an IT professional. But sometimes, lately ALL the time, I totally feel like Nick Burns. I get the lamest questions thrown at me, usually by people with “seniority”.

Does it take THAT much effort to click the little blue circle surrounding a question mark that is present in ALL your MS Office applications?

Yes, apparently it is. I’ve even gone so far as to tell someone “Well, I just Googled it,” when they thank me. It escapes them that I’ve basically just told them to do the same thing.

And why, WHYYYYYYYYY do people do things that they think are super helpful without telling me first? Those things usually tend to be the exact opposite: completely inane, utterly useless, and making my job even more tedious.

Even non-IT questions are starting to get to me. I want to scream, “We have a process in place. It is documented. REFER TO THE TEXT.” Well, since RFTM wouldn’t quite work here.

Chumps.

Also: when I descend the staircase here, my knee sounds EXACTLY like someone is ripping open some velcro. I mean EXACTLY. Sometimes the people sitting downstairs look up at me like “WTF?”

As I ASCEND the same stairs, my knee sounds like a little kid snapping.

I would not lie to you.

According to my doctor, the cartilage under my knee is worn down and my thigh muscles are uneven. Or something.

CRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRK!

permutari circulare

Camil Stoenescu — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:52:56 +0000

uptate la postarea anterioară.

A fost odată ca niciodată, demult, PD-PNL = Alianța DA. Care DA s-a transformat, după un timp, în PNL, singur (bine, de fapt PNL + PSD, neoficial însă) și un PDL și mai singur. Apoi a fost PD-L – PSD, alianța de tristă amintire. I-a urmat PD-L singur din nou, de o lună și ceva. Acum văd că este în proiect PSD-PNL. Mă întreb ce mai urmează, în același spirit tragicomic: PRM aliat cu UDMR, Conservatorii cu Laburiștii în Marea Britanie, Republicanii cu Democrații în Statele Unite, intrarea Rusiei în NATO, înfrățirea Iranului cu Israelului sau acordarea de burse în SUA tinerilor arabi studioși, membri Al-Qaeda. Dar nu, exagerez: toate situațiile descrise de mine anterior ar fi nenaturale, nefirești, imposibile din diverse rațiuni evidente (valori, cutume, interese șamd). Pe când în cazul PSD+PNL, nu e nicio problemă de imiscibilitate a culorilor politice, pentru simplul motiv că acestea nu există: ideologiile partidelor politice românești sunt ca girueta. Restul sunt doar vorbe goale și calcule pline de miez și pragmatism.

PS Bineînțeles, organizațiile ce-și spun la noi partide politice n-au nicio legătură cu partidul politic ca atare, sunt doar găști de interese, mai bine sau mai rău închegate. Cât despre guvernarea PSD, prefer să nu-mi amintesc (dacă totuși doriți o reîmprospătare a memoriei, Zoso vă ajută).

Straight Hate

ariyathe — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:17:18 +0000

When I was in second grade, we had a disaster in our school. It was an international school, situated in the hills of South India, in a place completely surrounded by forests (and monkeys of course). A boarding school with discipline engraved on its students’ foreheads. But, some new students had joined and through them, new vocabulary words had slowly seeped into the whole school (“like tea from a teabag”). The headmistress had a heart attack everytime someone opened his mouth, teachers screamed much more often and wooden rulers took on their second and more violent nature! What were those very offensive words? Brace yourself- ‘yea’ and ‘like.’ In a world where answers required ‘yes, madam’, these words had quite the need to be censored. And so they were.

Needless to say, the f-word, d-word, s-word and the other list of alphabetical curses were completely absent from my childhood vocabulary. I first realized this lack in fifth grade, my first full year in the United States. My teacher had made me a “Safety” and it was my duty to walk through the lines of kids waiting for the late bus and make sure everyone was good and disciplined (cough, disciple in the RedWhiteandBlue Empire was a joke). I was doing this one day when a small boy, perhaps in 2nd or 3rd grade, ran up to me and cried, “he called me gay!” And I was confused. Even by then, I had loved language and literature. My vocabulary was pretty strong, enough to use ‘florid’ correctly in a normal sentence. But gay? Gay was an adjective meaning happy. He called you happy? And you’re complaining? Obviously, I didn’t get the point. I had a friend there, whom I’d ask all these random questions to. She’s the one I fought with claiming that there is a ‘u’ in ‘color’. She’s the one who explained the f-word to me, who took my hand and made a dot on it to signify our teacher beginning the lecture about periods to girls, whom I nodded to though I had no idea what she was talking about. She told me that gay was a bad word. ‘It’s definition?’ I had asked but she only shook her head. It was too ‘bad’ of a word. She shook her head. The word and its usage haven’t changed. But I- I am no longer a fifth-grader.

Today, I attended a play called The Laramie Project at a local high school. It was based on a true story of a student named Matthew Shepard at the University of Wyoming. Matthew was gay. He was “bad”. And for this “badness” of sorts, he was beaten, tortured and tied to a fence in a remote area, left to die alone for eighteen hours. He was taken to the hospital but died without regaining consciousness. All this because he was who he was. Because he was gay. Because he was “bad”. It was the wooden ruler in a new and improved form- satisfaction guaranteed.

This happened 11 years ago. So you might argue that times have changed. That people are now much more accepting and they have truly redefined ‘good’ and ‘bad’. And I believed that too for a while, being the eternal optimist that I am. But today, as I walked out of that auditorium feeling proud to have seen such a piece from a high school performance, sad that something like this had happened in my lifetime and inspired to do something about it, I understood the definition of the real bad. I was telling an old friend about all this. About the play and how it made me feel and how I felt like each one of us could help, and immediately, he stopped the conversation. “I didn’t think you were that type of girl,” he began. What type? “You’re a girl who supports all this shit?” Well, if you want to call it that, yes I am. “Then I am out of the discussion because I hate gays and lesbians. Bastards should commit suicide.” Excuse me? You might want to start watching your language. An individual is an individual no matter what. Whether they’re black, brown, white, yellow, gay, trans, bi.. it doesn’t make anyone any more inferior than anyone else, I began my lecture series. Wouldn’t you protest if someone says that all Indians are good-for-nothing, curry-smelling “bastards” who need to die? Then, why this? How can you condone one type of hatred and protest the other? It’s the same thing! “Politics,” he said and signed off. End of discussion. No one wants to talk.

But I do. Let’s play this game. Let’s start from the beginning. The first question of all-why? Why are people like this? And the first answer that comes to my mind is fear. People are afraid. Of themselves, first. Homophobia begins with a fear of oneself. And the seeds of hatred begin there too. People don’t think twice about saying that a test is ‘gay’ or those new boots are for ‘fags’ or only ‘dykes’ support that sports team. ‘That’s so gay’ when their cars don’t start. ‘Gay idiot’ to that boy who cut the lunch line. These words go on and on. People don’t think twice. How many of these people would call that test, ‘Black’? That car, ‘Muslim’? Those boots, ‘Christian’? Those fans, ‘Asians’? Some people might but the numbers are fewer. Because it doesn’t make any sense! Well, neither does this. Because racism is wrong. But what about this?

Yes, I am that “type of girl.” I am the type of girl that believes in one philosophy and one word above all-Life. No matter who you are, what you are, your past, present or future. The one thing you truly own is your life and you have the right to live the way you want without judgement. If I, as a South Asian, an Indian, a Malayalee and a Christian- If I do not want to be judged solely of the above characteristics. If the tone of my skin, the length of my hair and the size of breasts do not incriminate me and place me into that definition of ‘bad’. Then, why can sexual orientation be used? Does it make one less human? If my brown skin doesn’t make me a ’sinner’, why does his male partner make him one?

Matthew Shepard did not deserve to be robbed of his life. In 2007, there were 7,624 hate crimes in this nation and 1,265 dealt with sexual orientation. And this is just what goes in the book. The true numbers, who knows? No one deserves to deal with this hatred. No one deserves to be labeled with a word that is further defined in a black and white scale of good and bad. No one.

There’s a line in the play that raised hairs on every member of the audience, that filled every eye with tears. The boy who found the body yelled “there’s nothing I could do.” He lifted his hands and sobbed and repeated those words. Nothing. I. Can. Do. Perhaps not for him. But there is something we can do before it’s too late. Each one of us can do something. We must do something. Silence supports the side of the oppressor. I wish that my fifth grade teacher had taken those boys aside and told them what it means to be ‘gay’ and that there’s nothing wrong with that. That it’s not an insult or a curse word. It’s not ‘bad.’ Let’s start there, from those roots in elementary school so that once they are in high school, they can borrow truly negative words from Merriam-Webster to describe tests, cars, fans and more. Let’s talk about this. Let’s debate. Let students talk. It’s not politics. It’s life. Politics, I agree, are adults playing a game, dress-up perhaps, on national television. This, though, is life. We isolate groups of people from society. One by one, we plant the seeds of hatred. As time goes on, the groups change and the hatred increases. More and more of humanity is segmented. Until the End. And at the last leg of the race, at the Final Precipice, we look around, only to realize that we’re alone. Who do we hate next except that figure in the mirror?

Congratulations to those high school performers! Your courage to do this though even 21st century eyes found fault with it. Your strength to say those incredibly touching lines as the character you played instead of bursting into tears. Your intellect in understanding the necessity of such a piece. Your hard work, dedication and most of all, the spirit of hope (H-O-P-E). I am left speechless.

Yes, I am that type of girl. I am not gay. And neither is that piece of paper. Neither is this test. Neither is that car. But they are? That’s cool. I am brown. She’s kind of pink. Let’s be friends.

Think about it

jlmina — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:18:01 +0000

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.”

Kung Fu-Tzu

*****

“Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.”

Will Durant

*****

“It’s innocence when it charms us, ignorance when it doesn’t.”

Mignon McLaughlin, The Neurotic’s Notebook

*****

“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.”

Donald H. Rumsfeld

"It's possible to fight intolerance, stupidity and fanaticism when they come separately. When you get all three together it's probably wiser to get out, if only to preserve your sanity." ~ P. D. James

poietes — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:52:35 +0000

Infamous Image of Secret Service Agent Climbing President Kennedy’s Limousine “Throughout hist

Thursday Evening Sohbet: Slavery or Servanthood, Prisoner Between Two Breaths

Osmanli Naksibendi — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:01:34 +0000

Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim

Thursday evening DhulQada 24, 1430 (November 12, 2009)

Sheykh Abdul Kerim Efendi is saying that mankind became robotic slaves to their machines. They forgot why they are living, that they are supposed to be servants to the Creator. The government promotes slavery through education that teaches wrong things: darwinism and running after enjoyment. We are not free, but prisoners between two breaths.

Download (35:37 mins) | Listen to the sohbet:

Rent a Rican

imuniz — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:42:58 +0000

Yesterday, my friend was surfing youtube when she came across a video named Rent-a-Rican. Yeah, a Puerto Rican. It was such an offensive video. It steretoypes Puerto Ricans as being the life of the party and tells how “renting a rican” can spice up any party because he or she can teach people how to drink rum shots, exotic dancemoves and also had a sexual meaning attached to it. You can see it for yourself. I am mad! This ruins our reputation, which honestly does not need more stirring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybhUvzdQyBE