Ubiquity (definition):
Listen to the speech here
Mr. Vice President, and Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Senate and House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941--a date which will live in infamy--the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American Island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.
As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
But always will our whole Nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces—with the unbounding determination of our people—we will gain the inevitable triumph- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
May we never forget the cowardice and evil mindset of such enemies, the sacrifice of our young men who died in that attack, and the heroism and sacrifice of the brave young men who ultimately secured victory against our aggressor.
This is Part 3 of my analysis of the 2010 General Election from Orange County, CA. The following is a list of how I am voting on some of the Statewide and Local offices:
Governor
This is Part 2 of my analysis of the 2010 General Election from Orange County, CA.
Propositions
Summary
Prop 19: NO
Prop 20: YES
Prop 21: NO
Prop 22: NO?
Prop 23: YES!!
Prop 24: NO!
Prop 25: NO!!
Prop 26: YES
Prop 27: NO
Rationale
Prop 19: NO -- A Yes vote would result in greater proliferation and availability of marijuana in CA. Children will be able to much more easily acquire it without breaking the law. It will be virtually impossible for the State to regulate or enforce any controls when marijuana is grown in private individuals' backyards. Alcohol and marijuana are not the same: Alcohol is intoxicating when abused and consumed in excess. The sole purpose of smoking pot is to get "stoned." It's interesting how militantly opposed to tobacco smoking our society has become, while at the same time so strongly in favor of pot.
Prop 20: YES -- I'm somewhat torn about this one. On one hand I'm not convinced that this "Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission" is truly independent. How are they held accountable? How are they protected against political influence? Theoretically, we should be able to hold our Representatives accountable by recalling or not re-electing them should they violate our trust. However, when it comes to re-districting, this doesn't seem to work, and allowing the Fox to guard the hen-house is not a reasonable solution in the first place. The Commission already exists for State districts; this measure just expands the juridiction of the Commission to Congressional districts. Every Conservative I know is in favor of this one. I lean in favor of it, but not strongly. The NO position is endorsed by the California Teachers' Association, the Sacramento Bee, and the Sierra Club...Even more reason to vote YES.
Prop 21: NO -- The State of CA is virtually broke. Due to the depression, revenue is down. But CA overspent on unnecessary projects and now is scrambling for money. Rest assured, legislators will find my a myriad of ways to squeeze more money out of the taxpayers. Let us not foist another tax increase upon ourselves! There are other, more appropriate options for the State Parks: 1) Transfer the Parks under Private ownership and control, or 2) Fund the really important Parks from current revenues (if they're really necessary, they'll find a way to do this), or 3) Drop the rest entirely and let private parties buy up the land. Go away you money-sucking leeches! A No-Brainer.
Prop 22: NO? -- Still undecided on this one. But, based on the Ground Rules above, my default position for propositions is NO. On the surface, this looks like a good prop--it claims to prohibit Sacramento from raiding Local sources of revenue. But Conservatives are mixed on this, as there are reportedly other unsavory provisions hidden within. I will continue to study this issue; If my vote changes, i'll update this post.
Prop 23: YES!! -- Temporarily (unfortunately, not permanently) suspends implementation of AB32, the "Global Warming Final Solutions Act." That legislation is not only unnecessary but, even worse, is an attempt by the CA government to overreach, and impose restrictive regulations in the name of "climate change." The effects will be to drive the nail into the coffin of the CA economy. If AB32 goes into effect, jobs will be lost and, I suspect, we will witness another mass exodus of employers and taxpayers out of CA to other, more friendly states. Too bad Prop 23 bill only temporarily suspends this insanity.
Prop 24: NO! -- California already has about the worst business climate in the nation. Employers and employees have left CA in droves to seek greener pastures elsewhere. While other states are trying to lure employers, CA is trying to drive them out by increasing their taxes. Businesses do not pay these taxes--we do: through increased prices, lower wages (or fewer jobs), and lower investment returns (i.e., 401(k) value). Another No-Brainer.
Prop 25: NO!! -- This Proposition is not about passing an on-time Budget. Removing the 2/3 requirement from passing a Budget deprives us of an essential Check and Balance in our Legislature. If this prop passes, liberal legislators will be able to pass through extravagant spending with no opposition. And to pay for this, they will be able to more easily foist upon the taxpayer all sorts of new "creative" tax schemes (described as "fees," "assessments," and what have you). The fact that all the Teachers' Unions are in support of this prop is another strong motivation to oppose it. This is about the biggest No-Brainer on the ballot.
Prop 26: YES -- Call a Tax a Tax. Currently, government officials across the state have been raising taxes on us by disguising them as "fees." This Proposition helps re-classify as taxes those revenue increases that are actually taxes, making it more difficult to enact without a public or 2/3 majority vote. I'm voting YES to stop this insanity.
Prop 27: NO -- A Yes vote would rescind the current re-districting scheme and restore the original, politician-led re-districting that results in gerrymandering districts for state offices in order to keep politicians in power. While I'm not convinced about the aforementioned "Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission," I also know that the politicians can't be trusted to do this themselves. I'm voting NO to leave it as it is.
Part 3 will be a brief analysis of my votes for State and Local offices...
"Willoughby!" cried Sir John; "what, is he in the country? That is good news however? I will ride over to-morrow, and ask him to dinner on Thursday."
"You know him, then," said Mrs. Dashwood.
"Know him? to be sure I do. Why, he is down here every year."
"And what sort of a young man is he?"
"As good a kind of fellow as ever lived, I assure you. A very decent shot, and there is not a bolder rider in England."
"And is that all you can say for him?" cried Marianne, indignantly. "But what are his manners on more intimate acquaintance? What his pursuits, his talents, and genius?"
Sir John was rather puzzled.
"Upon my soul," said he, "I do not know much about him as to all that. But he is a pleasant, good-humoured fellow, and has got the nicest little black bitch of a pointer I ever saw. Was she out with him to-day?"
My grandmother died last week. It wasn't entirely unexpected, but it was sad nonetheless. But she lived to a ripe age of 89 and was a follower of Christ. She was ready to go. It was bitter-sweet.
When my grandfather died ten years ago, he had a funeral in the church but there was no graveside/burial service. Whoever wanted said a few words and that was about it. So this time, especially since there was to be only one service (at the graveside) I offered my father the option of me presiding over a simple burial service. In the end, they found a pastor from the Calvary Chapel my grandmother used to attend and he presided over the service.
I'm sad to say I was pretty disappointed with the service. In true Calvary Chapel form, it was very informal. But, what's worse, while the pastor talked a lot, very little was actually said. There was virtually no Scripture reading, no presentation of the Gospel, no comfort given to the grieving in the objective work of Christ on their behalf, and no talk about the Resurrection. If I would have given the homily, I would probably have said something like the following. It's by no means perfect, but I think it touches upon some of the more important points of objective comfort for Christians:
...in the US House or Senate to stand up to President Obama and say, to his face, the same things this British member of the European Parliament said to PM Gordon Brown?
Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP for South East England, gives a speech during Gordon Brown´s visit to the European Parliament on 24th March, 2009.
On Saturday I had the privilege attending a 3-hour lecture given by the well-known New Testament scholar, and Bishop of Durham, . N.T. Wright. It was hosted by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, CA. The title of the lecture was "Paul for Tomorrow's World." The lecture was taped and is slated to be available for viewing here.
Bishop Wright is well known for his defense of the biblical crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, among other doctrines. He is, perhaps, even better known today for his controversial teachings of a "New Perspective" on the writings of the Apostle Paul.
This was the first time I had heard Rev. Wright speak. He has a wonderful and engaging speaking style. It is no wonder he is so popular. Further, while the title of the lecture is indicative of Rev. Wright's position, I found it interesting that he did not really delve too much into the details of the New Perspectives theology. In fact, the vast majority of what he discussed was thoroughly orthodox and in agreement with Reformational Christian theology. What follows is my attempt to capture what he said during the lecture:
=========================
The First part of the lecture focused on "Paul and the Kingdom of God." Paul doesn't talk much about it but we badly need it. For some time he (Wright) has been trying to present Paul's message as a "big picture."
The problem is we think we know what Paul's message of the Kingdom is. However, we read Paul "with 19th century eyes and 16th century questions." We assume that unregenerate people go around worrying about whether they're going to go to heaven and assuming that they have to work their way in.
Paul's message about the Kingdom of God is "all about God; it's only about me inlight of that." Heaven is not our final destiny. In reality, God's sovereignty over the world results in Him rescuing that corrupt world.
Jesus is already reigning. Most Christians wouldn't disagree with that; but they don't understand what it means.
We often separate what Jesus did from what happened to Him. Jesus taught that all that stuff that the Jews had been longing for is now happening, but they just didn't see it. Jesus was busy "doing the kingdom."
The main point of the Resurrection wasn't that "Jesus is alive, therefore we're going to live again." Instead, it's "Jesus is alive, therefore God's new creation has begun."
The Kingdom of God is not about escaping this world. Love is not just our duty, it is our destiny. Because of the Resurrection, everything you do now will somehow be a part of God's new world.
---------------------------
The Second part of the lecture focused on Paul's teaching in his letter to the Romans (esp. ch 5:12-21). Up until now, Paul has been expounding the covenant faithfulness of God. Through His faithfulness to the Covenant, He is faithful to the creation.
When God saves us, He does it so that, through us, he makes the world right.
---------------------------
In the Q & A sessions, a few interesting questions were raised. He noted that the "fire" mentioned in 2 Pet. 3:10-11 is purgative, not destructive.
He noted that he sees an interesting potential that, in the Eucharist, there is a sense in which we have food coming from the future into the present. He thinks that may be a better sacramental approach.
Regarding the "intermediate state" (between death and the resurrection), the New Testament doesn't say much. The word used in Scripture signify a place to go and be refreshed, but not a place to live.
Romans 13 is about police work (not international warfare). Private vengance is out. Civil authorities are the way God has chosen to keep the world in order. But, how does that work out on an international level, between sovereign states?
Regarding the saints that were raised to life at Christ's death, he notes that this is one of the oddest parts of the Gospels. He doesn't know exactly why or what. Did they die again?
Regarding changing the pervasive pop-eschatology, he noted the best approach is to be involved in the community, showing people that Christians are not just polishing brass on a sinking ship, but that we care for other people because, through us, God is restoring the creation.
Regarding literature, he noted that so much Christianity today assumes beauty is unessential window dressing. We need to bring back music and art back to a place of importance in culture.
Regarding politics, we need to find a proper middle-ground between Anabaptist isolationism and theocratic domination.
Regarding unity in the midst of Christian disagreements, he noted that he believes women may be pastors, in light of the fact that Jesus' first witnesses of Him were women, Julia was an Apostle, etc. This is not something that should divide the Church.
===========================
In the midst of his discussion, Rev. Wright brought up a lot of important topics, such as vocation, eschatology, the already/not-yet paradigm, and issues that are adiaphora, on which I would agree with him wholeheartedly. For example, he repeatedly poked at the Gnostic, individualistic, me-centered understanding of salvation and eschatology that is pervasive in evangelicalism today. He encouraged Christians to have a broader understanding of Scripture, rather than just focusing on individual verses. For all of that, I am thankful for his teaching.
However, on a couple other points, I think he was off. First, at the very beginning he stated that because Christians read Paul "with 19th c. eyes and 16th c. questions," we assume that non-believers are walking around worrying about whether they're going to heaven and assuming they have to work their way in. I think Wright here is fighting a straw man. I don't know anyone who believes that people worry about whether they're going to heaven. I think it's pretty obvious that most unbelievers in the U.S. today don't give much thought to their eternal destiny. And when they do, I think they assume they're going to heaven. But they assume they're going to heaven--if there is such a place--because of their works. "I'm not such a bad person, after all. At least I've never killed anyone."
The second point on which I found disagreement with Wright was on the topic of a female pastorate. While he rightly points out that it was women who first told of Jesus resurrection, I don't think that narrative passage points to anything other than that women first told of Christ's resurrection. He didn't have time, but he neglected so many other didactic passages and the whole concept of the created order, biblical headship of men, etc.
All in all, the lecture was informative. Once it become available, watch the video online and post your comments here.
Many of us have read this before. But, something this good ought to be read again. The following link is to an amusing article which connects Plato's philosophical analysis of the human soul (the "tripartate soul") with the the three most common uses of tobacco. While the analysis may be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I think it accurately highlights some characteristics of humanity, especially in light of the culture in which we live today. So, here's a link to the article (at First Things). And here are a few choice excerpts:
A cigarette is inhaled: it must be fully and internally consumed in order to give pleasure. And a cigarette, with its quick buzz, is also instant gratification.
A cigar is visually impressive: with its large size and great billows of smoke, it often leaves a greater impact on the spectator than on the smoker.
Unlike cigars and cigarettes, a pipe endures. Similarly, the questions of the philosopher far outlast the passing concerns of physical desires on the one hand and human ambitions on the other.
If the pipe epitomizes the intellectual way of life, then is it any surprise that it cannot be found where schools substitute politically correct ideology for real philosophy, or where the intelligentsia, instead of engaging in serious thought, pander to the latest activist fads? Is it any surprise that America’s most famous pipe-smoker in the last thirty years has been Hugh Hefner, pajama prophet of the trite philosophy of hedonism?
Author and professor David Wells, speaking on the White Horse Inn, on October 5, 2008, had the following to say about the significance of the absence of the pulpit the evangelical Church today:In this last book I wrote, The Courage to be Protestant, I talked about the transition from the Pulpit to the Plexiglas stand to the Barstool. And nobody, none of us, would say that the Word of God is chained in its delivery to a pulpit...Of course the Word of God can be preached outside a pulpit. But I think the importance of this transition has less to do with the thing that has been abandoned (i.e., the pulpit) and much more to do with the internal change which has happened. Because the preacher is now orienting himself to the congregation in a relational fashion, whereas the pulpit symbolized the preacher’s orientation toward God in a theological posture. That’s what the pulpit was saying in traditional churches. It was elevated because the Word of God is elevated, as it were, over the congregation. And the preacher stood before God to deliver that Word. So there is an internal posture that was intended to be symbolized by that pulpit. That internal posture before God, and the whole theological frame of understanding that, has disappeared in many churches today. And, therefore, what you have as a consequence is the rearrangement of the church to adopt a nightclub atmosphere, or entirely religiously neutral atmosphere, so you have no religious symbols, and so forth.
Here are a few descriptions I heard or read about Governor Palin's speech last night at the RNC, from both conservatives and mainstream media alike:
"Stunning." "Phenomenal." "A home run." "Elegant." "Poised." "Connected with middle America." "She was impalin!"
In my opinion, Sarah Palin knocked it out of the park last night. She had a tall order to fill. She had to do exceptionally well, to convince America (and her numerous vitriolic critics) that she is a force to be reckoned with, that she is qualified to be where she is, and that she deserves some respect. I believe she did all that and more. And she left the opposition and critics scrambling.
And, in the midst of all this, her teleprompter broke. Nevertheless, Palin continued, unfazed, to deliver her exceptional speech without any interruption. (Compare that to how Obama reacted when his teleprompter went out.)
On the Frank Pastore Show yesterday, Rebecca Hagelin, VP of Communications for the Heritage Foundation, said the following:
"Sarah Palin is the modern Proverbs 31 woman."
Thoughts?
US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has recently been chastised for speaking on theological positions about which she, apparently, knows very little.
"Pelosi Gets Unwanted Lesson in Catholic Theology"
I'm no Roman Catholic, but abortion is one issue where the Protestant Church stands side-by-side with Rome. And the US cardinals, archbishops, and bishops have emphatically taken Pelosi to task for her ignorant attempt to defend abortion a la St. Augustine.
UPDATE: Excerpt from the Bishop of Fargo's letter of condemnation:
The Christian teaching on abortion throughout history is unchanged. Human life from the moment of conception is to always be respected, treated with dignity, and protected. Catholics who support so called abortion rights support a false right, promote a culture of death, and are guided by the “father of lies” rather than by the light and truth of Jesus Christ. Out of respect for the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Church, any Catholic who supports abortion rights has placed himself or herself outside of visible unity with the Church and thus should refrain from receiving Holy Communion. Catholics have a responsibility to study the teaching of the Church on human life and when life begins. This teaching is affirmed by revelation and is a basic truth of natural reason. I ask all of you in your presentations, teaching, or preaching to state the truth of this teaching in an unequivocal manner.(h/t: www.townhall.com)
Yes, I got a ticket. But it's only my second ever. Then again, it was my second in about as many years. Yes, it was for speeding. But I was trying really hard to drive the speed limit; I looked up from my speedometer for just a couple seconds and--BAM!--there were those flashing red and blues. He didn't seem to buy my story, either...
Anyway, so in order to avoid getting a point on my driving record I had to face the long, dull, drudgery of Traffic School. I chose two weeknights over an entire Saturday. Orange County doesn't let you do this over the internet, like some other counties. And they no longer have those famous Comedy or Gardening or Beach Party Traffic Schools either. They actually expect you to sit in a class and learn about how to be a better driver. The nerve!
Thankfully, they do their best to make the 8 hours go by as painlessly as possible. After spending a full half hour walking the class step by step through the process of filling out our certificates (something that should only take about 5 minutes), the teacher began discussion about traffic safety issues. This mostly involves asking people what they "allegedly" did, and making fun of them for being an idiot.
Through all of this, you actually learn some pretty useful stuff. Much of which, it seems, most people don't really know. So I thought I'd provide a list here of some of the more informative points:
We just finished a kitchen remodel. In the course of events we also purchased new ovens. Beautiful, stainless steel, convection, double ovens from Kitchen Aid. As I sat down to browse through the instruction manual (hey, I'm an engineer! what do you expect?) I learned that our ovens keep the Sabbath. And boy do they ever!
When the Sabbath Mode is set, only the number and start keys will function, no tones will sound, and the displays will not show messages or temperature changes. The heat sources icons will appear lit on the oven display throughout the Sabbath Mode. When the oven door is opened or closed, the oven light will not turn on or off and the heating elements will not turn on or off immediately.It continues like this, spanning two pages. There are countless steps for enabling, disabling, setting, changing settings, and on and on.
If a power failure occurs when the Sabbath Mode is set, the oven(s) will remain in Sabbath Mode but will no longer be actively cooking. The “ON” indicator will no longer be lit. Touch OFF to return to normal operating mode (non-Sabbath Mode, not cooking)
I was catching up on listening to episodes of the White Horse Inn on my iPod on the way into work this morning. Toward the end of the 2/16/2008 episode ("What would Moses Do?"), Dr. Horton offers a couple of nuggets of wisdom on preaching and the Bible, which I had to transcribe:
When people say, "I need more practical preaching," what they're saying is "I need more Law." Now, they may be right. But a lot of times the sheep don't know what they really need. And if, by nature, we crave more instructions and less about Christ--if, by nature, we take Christ and the Gospel for granted, but really want to hear about how we can have a better marriage--don't you think it's better for us, especially as ministers, to say, "No, Christ told Peter, 'Feed My sheep.' And I'm going to feed you as well as direct you. You need this [Christ-centered, Gospel-oriented preaching] more than you realize. What you're asking for in 'more practical preaching' is more about what you should do and less about what Jesus has done." ...
Now[days], the Bible is God's instruction book. And that's how a lot of people talk about it. Or it's the "Owner's Manual." Well, what is an owner's manual? An owner's manual is a guide you go to that tells you how to fix your car. Folks, that's the wrong category. The Bible is not, primarily, God's instruction book. It has instructions, and they need to be preached. But it is not primarily that. In fact, the Bible's silent on half the things that preachers want to talk about on Sunday morning--when it comes to the "practical."...I don't need a Christian diet; I need a Christian Gospel, if you've got that. Tell me something I can't get from Oprah or Dr. Phil...
You gotta be careful on the Internet. Sometimes you might run across something really frightening, hidden deep on some page of some website somewhere, like this:
