Paultastic Musings

I saw Derek Webb perform here in Omaha on November 10. I took notes with my phone so I could remember his set list. I'm recording them here in case anyone finds them interesting.

I Want a Broken Heart

Nobody loves me

...talk about mockingbird...hard to follow jesus

Mockingbird

A New Law

King and a Kingdom

...talks abot wife...traveling

I Hate Everything But You

...talks about his whole family in lincoln pas in heaven caedmons brother reason for migration to nebraska

Can't Lose You

...talks about no setlists...chance for humiliation...hard to write a love song when married..truth will sabotage...I have been to the other side of the mountain...and it is good...but you trade one set of complications for another set of complications. Hate about xian music...witnessed to and go and live perfectly. They take half the truth and parade it around like it were the whole truth...which is a lie. Love songs lie...its all great...youre great im great...next song is a love song about martin luther...

Saint and Sinners

...talks about long line of leavers...how he hated the version of "Dance" recorded on long line of leavers...so he hated the song for about five years

Dance

Rich Young Ruler

...most difficult song...im commanded to love my enemy...if someone who wants to repay violence with violence...jesus says we must love our enemies...i must renew my mind on this...mlk the only way to defeat an enemy is to love them into being our friend...i know i could do much violence to others...look at our world...violence at our prisons. Dont become a monster to defeat a monster. The church should have the answer for the world.

My Enemies Are Men Like Me

Wedding Dress

...mockingbird free for one more month...tour break coming up and he is happy...digital piracy doesnt bug him as long as people are sharing his music...you can copy his music and give it away...he is the copyright holder.

Lover

Great show. Derek was inspirational as always. See him if you get a chance. He's one of the great ones.

This game is awesome! Pick out the 50 dark movies hidden in the painting. Done to promote M&Ms dark.

50 Dark Movies, Hidden in a Painting

If recent college graduates apply for a job at Killian Advertising in Chicago, they'd better mind their grammar, spelling and punctuation -- not to mention their sentence structure, syntax and diction -- lest they end up in the company's "Cover Letters From Hell" that it posts on its Web site.

Six years ago, Bob Killian, owner and founder of the agency, began posting anonymous excerpts from poorly written cover letters he received from those asking for employment.

The mistakes ranged from unfortunate omissions ("I am seeking a new position as i have recently been laid" and "I also have a degree English which serves me well in editing text for poor grammer or typos") to nonsense sentences and topics ("It is through the innovational process, as well as media, that the features of an image can be highlighted and brought to the forefront for the consumer viewing" or "The colors red, blue, and lavender are those that I identify with the most. I feel they accurately describe my personality. I choose red because I turn red when I get embarrassed ...").

Some candidates even try their hand at poetry -- one girl rewrote "'T'was the Night Before Christmas," editing herself and the advertising company into the story and substituting presents for a job.

The goal of putting the letters online, Killian said, is to show job seekers that, "Hello! This is not a recognizable form of communication!"

Ridicule Not the Point

Recently, Killian went through 100 letters that arrived at his agency from applicants requesting jobs and interviews. Of the 100, not one was without some kind of spelling, grammar or syntax error.

At first, Killian thought that a personal approach was best. When one of the letters came from a senior graduating from a fairly prestigious college and did not contain a single sentence without an error, Killian drafted a "gentle note," advising the student to get some help with his writing.

What Killian got in response was an angry four-page reply.

"That really set him off," Killian recalls. "We haven't done it since. We don't want to have to change the locks on the building."

Unfortunately, in the 19 years of the company's existence, the problem seems to be getting worse, which Killian attributes to changes in technology and everyday communication.

"There are a whole lot of people that can't speak in an authentic voice," Killian said. "We're not a generation that writes a lot. Colleges don't seem to be very demanding.

"Texting is making it worse. We're getting printed letters with the letter 'U' standing for 'you.' And this kid wants to be hired in a communications position!"

While the site started off as just a joke within the company, its popularity has helped Killian find business clients and literary agents find him. A small book is currently being compiled with "Cover Letters from Hell" excerpts the company has collected over the years.

Though the site's commentary pokes fun at applicants, Killian insists that ridicule is not really the point of the compilation.

"Quite a few [potential applicants] are intimidated from applying, or sending a cover letter at all, but all that they should do is exercise some care," Killian said.

"I think if people just absorb what's in there, they'll at least be able to write clearly and express themselves in a meaningful way."

A Colorado fan sees the light.

From http://www2.steamboatpilot.com/news/2006/sep/10/brent_boyer_seeing_red/

I emerged from the bowels of Memorial Stadium a lone Buffalo on the Great Plains.

In the weeks leading up to my trip, I had thought nothing of flaunting my Colorado Buffaloes gear in enemy territory, but my pre-game confidence quickly gave way to the realization that I was outnumbered — 85,181 to one. Me. Alone. And yes, even a little bit scared.

Of course, I would soon discover I had nothing to fear, and that upset me even more. It was as if the Big Red Nation wanted to prove it was better than me — us.

They did, and it wasn’t hard.

As I walked along the chain-link fence that separated the University of Nebraska players from the fans who idolize them, I felt a little like one of those poor Louisiana Tech players on the visitor’s sideline — outnumbered, undersized and pretty sure that at some point of the day I would be humiliated. (They were, by a score of 49-10. And so was I, but CU’s opening-game loss to Division I-AA Montana State wasn’t announced until most of the crowd had left the stadium.)

As a proud CU alum, there was nothing about the University of Nebraska that I could even pretend to like. The Cornhuskers are the Giants to my Dodgers, the Raiders to my Broncos.

But that was before my visit to Lincoln, Neb.

Don’t get me wrong — I never have been nor ever will be a Cornhuskers fan. But I just can’t conjure up the hate like I used to, and it’s because the University of Nebraska is what my beloved CU will never be: a college football paradise.

It was instantly apparent how much better of a college football atmosphere thrives in Lincoln than ever will in Boulder. It’s like comparing apples to oranges, or Champs Sport Bowls to Orange Bowls.

n The student section was standing-room only 45 minutes before kick off; CU students often don’t file in to Folsom Field until the second quarter, if they bother to show up at all.

n Nebraska’s marching band actually takes the time to learn each opponent’s fight song — and plays it before the game as a sign of respect. At Folsom Field, visiting players (and their fans) are greeted with hurled oranges, marshmallows and language that would make Andrew Dice Clay blush.

n Pouring rain had zero — ZERO — effect on attendance at Memorial Stadium last weekend. In Boulder, a light drizzle provides many “fans” with an excuse to not go to the game.

n Cornhuskers fans know every team cheer, chant and song. The best-known cheer at CU is an eight-word diddy that includes two f-bombs.

I had always joked that Nebraskans so love their football team because their geographic misfortune leaves them little else to do. And that still may be the case, but I have a new respect for the greatest fans in college football. And in case they should forget, there are signs over every stadium entrance (“Through these gates pass the Greatest Fans in college football) reminding them of their place in our football-crazed country.

I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes. And if I’m lucky, I’ll get to see it again.

A bit of a history lesson...

(CNSNews.com) - People sweltering from a heat wave in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. might find cold comfort in the fact that the temperatures of the past few days are not the hottest on record. That "honor" belongs to a summer 76 years ago -- decades before the controversy over "man-made global warming" began.

"From June 1 to August 31, 1930, 21 days had high temperatures that were 100 degrees or above" in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area, Patrick Michaels, senior fellow for environmental studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Cybercast News Service. "That summer has never been approached, and it's not going to be approached this year."

Between July 19 and Aug. 9 of that year, heat records were set on nine days and they remain unbroken more than three-quarters of a century later. "That's hot," added Michaels, who also serves as professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Va.

The summer of 1930 also marked the beginning of the longest drought of the 20th century. In 1934, dry regions stretched from New York and Pennsylvania across the Great Plains to California. A "dust bowl" covered about 50 million acres in the south-central plains during the winter of 1935-1936.

However, the first six months of this year were the hottest across the nation since the federal government began keeping records in 1890, according to Dennis Feltgen, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who told NBC News that about 50 all-time high-temperature records were broken during the month of July.

But Michaels noted that high temperatures are common in the middle of the summer.

"Climatologically, the last week in July is the warmest week of the year on average, and when the atmospheric flow patterns get into anomalously warm configurations during this time of the year, temperatures will skyrocket," he said.

Along with an unusual upper-air pattern, the Washington, D.C., area "was exceedingly dry" during the summer of 1930, Michaels stated.

"Generally speaking, when the ground is moist here, temperatures cap out in the high 90s," he noted. "That's because the sun's energy is divided into evaporating water and directly heating the surface. If the surface is dry, then everything goes into heating the surface, and you get exceedingly hot temperatures like you saw in 1930.

"Big cities are getting warmer -- with or without global warming -- because the bricks and the buildings and the pavement retain heat," Michaels added. For that reason, he prefers to compare temperatures in nearby rural areas. "There's been very little change" in those areas, "so we trust the record to be a reliable indicator of base climate."

Residents of the nation's capital can look forward to some relief, as weather forecasts for the weekend call for a cooling trend. "If we were going to go into the 100s -- the 103 and 104 degree range -- we would have done it, but there's just a little bit too much moisture in the surface to allow that to happen," Michaels said. He noted, however, that temperatures are expected to rise again next week.

The mid-summer temperatures have provided more opportunities for environmentalists subscribing to the theory that man is responsible for the current global warming.

Jay Gulledge, senior research fellow for science and impacts at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, told NBC News on Wednesday that "this heat wave and other extreme events we've seen in recent years are completely consistent with what we expect to become more common as a result of global warming, even though we can't be definitive on any single event."

Michaels acknowledged that "global temperatures have been warming slightly for several decades" and noted that the surface of the world "is a little bit warmer than it was in the 1930s" even though "temperatures dropped between 1940 and 1975."

"Usually, the way the jet stream breaks out is very hot in the East and relatively cool in the West or vice versa," he said. "This time around, it looks more like the summers of the 1930s," but he dismissed the idea that the extreme temperatures of that time were caused by man-made "global warming" since "it wasn't around then."

Although the recent heat wave have not convinced Michaels that "global warming" is a severe problem, it was apparently enough to make a "convert" out of conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson.

"We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels," Robertson said during his "700 Club" broadcast on Thursday. The high temperatures in some regions of the U.S. East are "the most convincing evidence I've seen on global warming in a long time," he added.

A typical working parent spends just 19 minutes a day looking after their children, official figures revealed yesterday.

The startling research shows the devastating impact that working full-time has on children who hardly see their parents.

With less than 20 minutes spent with their parents every day, this is only enough time to eat a quick breakfast together or have a couple of bed-time stories.

The Office for National Statistics looked at nearly 4,950 people over the age of 16 in Britain to find out what they do all day.

The findings make grim reading for working parents who already worry that they spend too much time at work - and too little at home.

Parents who work full-time spend just 19 minutes every day "caring for [their] own children", according to ONS's "Time Use Survey", published yesterday.

A further 16 minutes is spent looking after their children as a "secondary activity", but this means that they are doing something else - such as the weekly supermarket shop - at the same time.

The findings come at a time when record numbers of women are working as huge mortgages and soaring household bills force them to earn a living.

Official figures show that 12.6million women have a job, compared to just 8.5million in the 1970s.

The ONS looked specifically at working women in Britain and what they do during a typical 24-hour period to create a typical "Diary of a Working Mum".

They sleep less and work more than any other "type" of woman - and still have to do about two-and-a-half hours "domestic work" every day, it reveals.

A typical working woman gets nearly 40 minutes less sleep every night than a full-time mother who gets more than nine hours sleep every night.

This is because she gets up earlier to travel into work every day, or spends time every night doing a long list of domestic chores before going to bed.

On average, a working woman toils at work for over five hours a day, although this figure appears low because it includes holidays and weekends when no work is done.

5 down, 14 to go

Recent research showed that most mothers with young families would prefer to stay at home and look after their children.

A survey of working mothers found that just six per cent wanted to work full-time, according to Prima magazine.

Half wanted to combine bringing up their children with a part-time job, while more than a quarter wanted to be a full-time mother.

They were asked: "In an ideal world, what would you like to be?" Twenty- six per cent said they wanted to be a "housewife and mother". The most popular response, given by 50 per cent, was to be a "mum who works part-time".

Maire Fahey, editor of Prima, said: "In the 1980s, we thought we could have it all and aspired to high-flying careers and happy families.

"But the cracks are starting to show. Family life is suffering and something has got to give."

The new ONS survey shows that life is also extremely tough for fathers with young families, particularly those whose youngest children is under the age of four.

They sleep less, works more and do more "domestic" work than any other "type" of man, such as one with older children or one with no children.

A typical father whose youngest child is under four gets less than eight hours sleep a night and does more than three hours of domestic chores every day.

They are also working more than one hour a day longer than their male colleagues who do not have children.

Overall, the ONS found that a typical person's 24-hours is mostly spent sleeping, working and watching television, which are the top three activities.

A woman will spend 8.3 hours asleep, 2.4 hours watching television, DVDs or videos and 2.2 hours working.

A man will spend eight hours alseep, 2.8 hours watching television, DVDs or videos and 3.5 hours working.

Just 24 minutes in 24 hours is spent reading, a figure which drops to just 10 minutes for younger people.

I have to confess I sort of chuckle when I see a mentally challenged individual. The naive grin, maybe the malformed features--they just cause me to feel superior.

Every once in a while I'm humbled by a touching story or picture of a retarded person which makes me realize how inferior I really am. Inferior in that I am the one who needs the attitude adjustment. Inferior in that I am the one who is sad and pathetic that I need to feel superior to anyone. Inferior in that I cannot recognize that the unconditional love these people have is better than my disgusting contempt any day.

The 2006 Special Olympics USA National Games were held in Des Moines this week. This picture of Jason Gieschen (Ogallala, Neb) carrying Desmond Thompson (Baltimore, Md) in competition is one of those pictures that help me readjust my priorities and recognize my failures as a human.

Gieschen carries Thompson (Gary Fandel/Des Moines Register)

Even though I know I'll forget this temporary humility, I hope it lingers for longer than a day or so.

I'm surprised that I'm not shocked by this. People disgust me.

From dailymail.co.uk.

The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.

Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.

Babies are being aborted with only minor defects.
Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby.

A leading doctor said people were right to be 'totally shocked' that abortions were being carried out for such conditions.

Campaigners warned we are turning into a society that can no longer tolerate imperfection. Doctors were recently told they can now screen IVF embryos to try to weed out inherited cancers.

Ethical groups fear parents are opting for abortions because they are not told of the support and help available if they continued with the pregnancy.

Details of the terminations emerged as new figures revealed an alarming rise in the use of an abortion pill that has been linked to 10 deaths.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that between 1996 and 2004, 20 babies were aborted after 20 weeks because they had a club foot.

It is one of the most common birth defects in Britain, affecting one in 1,000 babies each year. That means around 600 to 700 babies are born annually in the UK with the problem, which causes the feet to point downwards and in severe cases can cause a limp.

However it can be corrected without surgery using splints, plaster casts and boots. Naomi Davis, a leading paediatrician at Manchester Children's Hospital who specialists in correcting club feet, said: 'I think it is reasonable to be totally shocked that abortion is being offered for this.

'It is entirely treatable. I can only think it is lack of information.'

Babies are being aborted with only minor defects

Figures also show that four babies were aborted since 1996 because they were found to have webbed fingers or extra digits, which can be sorted out with simply surgery.

Remarkable pictures recently have revealed how at just 23 weeks baby in the womb appears to smile, yawn and flinch in pain.

In 2004 it emerged a baby was aborted at 28 weeks after scans showed it had a cleft palate. Curate Joanna Jepson tried to ensure criminal charges were brought against the two doctors involved but the authorities last year decided against prosecution.

She however vowed to continue in her fight to make terminations illegal after 24 weeks and to ensure cleft palates were not included within the term 'serious handicap' and used to justify late abortions.

Ms Jepson reacted angrily to news of the club foot abortions.

'The law was not designed for this,' she said. 'Actions like these are fostering a disposable attitude to human life and I'm extremely concerned it is going on.

'I am appalled that the medical profession is allowing or even suggesting abortions for these conditions.'

Sue Banton, founder of the group Steps for parents of children with foot disorders, said last year one couple decided to terminate a pregnancy at 25 weeks after discovering their baby would have a section of foot missing.

'We gave them other families to talk to, but they just didn't want to know,' she said. 'It is terrible.

'I know lots of perfectly nice people with this condition and you just can't imagine them not being here.'

Pippa Spriggs from Cambridge, whose son Isaac is celebrating his second birthday in July, was dismayed when as scan showed her baby had a club foot.

'Abortion certainly was not openly advised but it was made clear to me it was available,' she said.

'In fact he has been treated and the condition has now slowed him down at all.'

Julia Millington, of the Alive and Kicking Campaign, said: 'It is all about our perceptions of perfection.

'Increasingly things are moving along the lines where nothing is good enough.

'It seems we can no longer tolerate any imperfection.

'Babies are at the mercy of ultrasound scans and what they may disclose.'

Michaela Aston, from the pro-life group LIFE, said: 'One sympathises for many of the parents of these unborn children aborted after disability has been detected.

'What information are they being given by healthcare professionals so that they can make a truly informed choice?

'We suspect that many parents make the decision to opt for abortion in complete ignorance of the help and support available to children with disabilities and their families.

'For this, health care professionals must shoulder a large part of the blame.

'If, as a society, we are truly committed to equality for people with disabilities then such blatant discrimination against the disabled unborn must stop.'

But Jane Fisher of the charity Antenatal Results and Choices defended the right of parents to terminate pregnancies when defects are found. 'This is not part of a move towards designer babies,' she said.

'These are difficult and painful issues.'

A great post by Mollie on GetReligion:

Billie Stanton says her journalism profs at the University of Arizona 30 years ago were relentless about balance and objectivity. “Every angle must be covered, and if you had any bias, it better not show,” she writes. “This credo served me well for many years. When some talented Denver Post reporters covered an anti-gay referendum later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, their bias showed. Repeatedly I demanded rewrites to give the homophobes’ side equal credence.”

Mollie asks:

[H]ow fair of a shake can you give people when you believe their legislative opinion is based on an irrational fear of homosexuality?

But not only that, several members of the media attack Stanton, not for calling Christians and Conservatives "Homophobes," but instead liken her to giving the Ku Klux Klan equal time.

Objectivity — never a great idea in journalism in the first place — posits that we shouldn’t make value judgments as to the people involved in the story or their views. But I think we can, and should. It may not be universally accepted, but homophobes’ views are NOT equally as legitimate as the views of those who preach tolerance, just as segregationist views are not equally as legitimate as those who preach racial harmony.

Tolerance, huh? The thought police will decide for you what is tolerable, everything else is intolerable.

A good site (scientific american blog) that summarizes the debate quite well.

Are you a Global Warming Skeptic?"

(From http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/11590977.html)

How sensitive is Earth's climate? Sufficient to warm by at least several degrees in response to greenhouse gas pollution but perhaps not as sensitive as some scientists have feared, according to a new study.

Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much the global temperature will warm in response to greenhouse gas emissions, explained Gabriele Hegerl, a climate scientist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

The measure specifically estimates how the climate might respond to a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that humans release by burning fossil fuels in cars and power plants.

"If [climate sensitivity is] high, we have a strong response not only to carbon dioxide but to any greenhouse gas. If it's low, we have a weak response. So we would really like to know what it is," Hegerl said.

Hegerl and her team measured climate sensitivity by studying temperature changes in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 700 years.

The study's results refute recent research suggesting that the climate may be susceptible to extreme increases in temperature. But Hegerl cautions that the findings do not diminish the threat of global warming.

"[The finding] means the climate does react significantly to greenhouse gases," she said.

"In other words," she added, "we have really detected greenhouse warming, and we are really concerned it is not small."

Climate Sensitivity

In 1979 meteorologist Jules Charney made the first modern estimate of climate sensitivity using two climate models. He concluded that the Earth would warm within a range of 2.7º to 8.1ºF (1.5º to 4.5ºC) if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled.

That range has become the generally accepted value of climate sensitivity and is used in international climate-change research.

But some estimates over the past five years have suggested that the temperature change may be much higher.

Several studies have found that the temperature change may be higher than 16.2ºF (9ºC). One estimate put it at 19.8ºF (11ºC).

To obtain their estimate, Hegerl and her colleagues used reconstructions of the climate in the Northern Hemipshere over the past 700 years, which were made using data about ancient volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation, and greenhouse gas levels.

They then used a simple computer model to determine what type of climate conditions led to those temperatures, tweaking different variables such as volcanic ash and solar radiation.

On the basis of this model, they found a climate sensitivity of 2.2º to 15.5ºF (1.2º to 8.6ºC).

In addition, the team used a different model using climate data from only the 20th century and came up with a similar result.

"We have two lines of evidence, basically," Hegerl said.

When the team combined the two estimates, the researchers found that the climate sensitivity range narrowed even further to 2.7º to 11.2ºF (1.5º to 6.2ºC).

These findings are similar to the conclusions reached by Charney in 1979, rather than the more extreme ranges estimated in recent studies.

The results are reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature.

Controversial Results

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeler with the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. He said the study is the first to formally confirm scientists' assumptions about climate sensitivity.

"Basically no one really believes that those really high sensitivities [measured in the past five years] are possible," he said.

But Michael Schlesinger, a professor of meteorology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and co-author of a 2001 paper on climate sensitivity, is wary of the new study's methodology.

In particular, Schlesinger questions the effects of comparing climate sensitivity based on the 20th century record with another estimate based on a 700-year record.

"If they chose a different [record]—if they chose our [study] or any others—and had done this, I do not see how [the range] gets narrowed," Schlesinger said.

"I'm not comfortable with the results."

On the other hand, James Annan, a climate modeler with the Frontier Research Center for Global Change in Kanagawa, Japan, said the sensitivity range should be narrowed even further, based on the results of his own work published in March.

"If they had looked at a greater range of evidence, then the limits would have been even tighter," he said.

Regardless of the numbers, most scientists seem to agree that the study confirms that the climate remains susceptible to global warming.

The top of the range found in Hegerl's study is higher than that found in 1979, Schlesinger points out.

"[That] means climate sensitivity is larger than we thought for 30 years," he said. "So the problem is worse than we thought. This doesn't give us any solace."

Here's one of the better blogging entries I've seen covering this "Gospel of Judas" frenzy that has the media gushing with excitement. As someone who has studied the canon and early church history, I can tell you that the article is spot on.

I love the way AP characterizes Irenaeus’ theological whooping of the Judas-adoring Cainites. “Sorry guys but you differ from mainstream Christianity.” That’s like saying the Flat Earth Society was denounced for differing from mainstream cartography. I also love the Pagels quote. Really? The Gnostics didn’t think they were heretics? Well, I guess the battle between orthodox Christians and Elaine “Gnostic Gospels” Pagels is settled, then. And that’s precisely what the AP story makes it out to be. Their next series of quotes are just odd, really.

Check it at The gospel of ignorance.

Great opinion article on Global Warming

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

By Bob Carter
(Filed: 2006-04-09)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

Phil Johnson had an abosolutely profound way of explaining the bondage of the will. As posted by James Spurgeon at Team Pyromaniacs:

You DO have more than one option. What you do not have as an unredeemed sinner is the moral capacity to choose the right option. Sinners HATE God and have no taste for righteousness. Therefore they will never make a righteous choice.

No one is denying that they have a choice. What we're denying is the idea that their wills are inclined neither to good nor to evil, so that they have an equal capacity to choose either way.

In other words, free choice can exist even when the will is determined. Look at it like this:

Let's set before a horse two meals. One is a bowl of raw horse meat and the other is a manger of hay. Set him completely free, and let him choose which lunch he will eat. Can you guess which meal the horse will choose? He will choose the hay every time. His will is governed by his desires, and the desires are shaped by his nature.

Now take the same two meal options and set them before a dog. Untether the dog and let him choose what to eat. What will the dog choose for lunch? He will choose the horse meat *every time.* Why? Because his nature determines his desires, and his desires govern his will.

In other words, both the will of the dog and the will of the horse are determined by something other than the will itself. There is no possibility that they will choose any way other than what their nature dictates. And yet they are perfectly free to choose, without compulsion, between the choices that are set before them.

So it is with fallen man. He is free to make his choices apart from any external compulsion. And yet every person ever born of human parents chooses to sin. Why? Because our nature determines our tastes. Our will is free to choose because it is not under any external compulsion. And yet it is also *determined* by our nature and inevitably chooses evil.

So there's a true kind of 'free will' that Calvinists affirm--but we deny that the will is free to determine itself.

In other words, you cannot change your nature by an act of the will (Jer. 13:23). The human will is inexorably bent toward evil. We cannot ultimately make any other choice. And in yet the moral choices we make, we choose freely and are therefore responsible for what we choose. This is not really that hard a concept, but the sinful mind does not want to receive it.

Finger break dancing! It's all the rage! I wonder how long it will take before this is featured on MTV?

Christian Science is neither Christian, nor Science. Talk amongst yourselves.

For a good time, send a personalized, inspirational, vanity-inducing web message to anyone. It's easy... if you would like to see your own name, visit:

http://FirstName.LastName.youaremighty.com

You don't have to fill out any form or anything, it just works.

I'll never forget overhearing a girl bragging about her regional dialect:

"Wisconsin is like one of the least EEYAC-sented states in the nation."

She was proud that she didn't have an accent, but it was glaringly obvious that the word "accented" was, well, accented. And heavily at that.

I moved to Nebraska when I was in fourth grade. Having grown up in California, I was surprised that the kids from Nebraska didn't speak with an accent. I had a little trouble understanding what "pop" was, but after I realized they were referring to "coke," my cultural shock had subsided.

I've been wrong all these years. Apparently we in Nebraska suffer from what is called the "Cot/Caught" merger. When we pronouce words like cot/caught and don/dawn, they are pronounced the exact same way. However, they should be pronounced differently. The first should be pronounced quickly, with the tongue in the back of the throat and the lips spread open. Boy, I do have an accent!

A viking demonstrates proper pronunciation of the word "Cot."

Even more interesting is that the Cot/Caught merger is coming from the West Coast. It's spreading, and it mainly affects those under 40 in Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. That's why I didn't notice it when I moved here! I was part of the problem.

The article below has a humourous story illustrating this:

Nebraskan reports a similar experience in which she was speaking to her grandmother about a friend named Dawn. Apparently interpreting “Dawn” as “Don,” the grandmother wanted to know why Dawn’s parents had given her a boy’s name.

Northern Cities Shift

The girl from Wisconsin is affected by what linguists refer to as Northern Cities Shift or NCS. Surprisingly, many don't even realize they have the accent:

As research by Dennis Preston has shown, Michiganders believe they are “blessed” with a high degree of linguistic security; when surveyed, they rate their own speech as more correct and more pleasant than that of even their fellow Mid-westerners. By contrast Indianans tend to rate the speech of their state on par with that Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan. Indeed, it is not uncommon to find Michiganders who will claim that the speech of national broadcasters is modeled on their dialect. Even a cursory comparison of the speech of the network news anchors with that of the local news anchors in Detroit will reveal the fallacy of such claims.

A very interesting article on the accents of the Midwests can be found at http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/midwest/

Oh no! Whatever shall we do? God has been disproved because of the latest scientific study! According to a recent study, the largest of its kind (their claim, not mine), prayer had no effect on cardiac patients.

See the Reuters article here.

Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that."
James 4:13-15

I’m not surprised by these results.

This study couldn’t take into account what each person’s families were doing for the person outside of the study. Also, what is the appropriate dose of prayer? Did each person receive the same dosage? Was it God’s will that each of the people in the prayed-for group should recover? But most importantly, were the prayers consistent with God’s will?

A guy praying, perhaps for a cardiac patient.

I think the study was fair, and it did its best to approach prayer in a scientific manner.

We humans can’t impel God to do anything against His will. If the Christian claim is true, that God is sovereign over the entire universe; would it be consistent for Him to be slave to a study?

I found this little bit amusing:

scientists today ended a 10-year study on the so-called “power of prayer” by concluding that God cannot be manipulated by humans, not even by scientists with a $2.4 million research grant."

-- http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2229

By the way, yes, I believe prayer can be effective, but only if it is not contrary to God’s will. Some might say, well, why pray at all? Well, if you are praying along the lines of God’s will, then it is beneficial for you and for the person you are praying. No one can know God’s will perfectly, so I pray for people and events knowing full well that if it isn’t God’s will, it isn’t going to happen.

Remember Jesus’ prayer? "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven."

Other Studies Disagree

Finally, there are several studies that seem to contradict this study's findings. Read up beow:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

South Dakota recently caused the hair to stand up on the necks of many pro-choicers when they decided to ban abortion state-wide. They felt that with the new, improved, conservative Supereme Court, an abortion ban would be more likely to stand up under constitutional law.

That remains to be seen.

The baby-killers aren't sitting on their laurels, though. Cecilia Fire Thunder, the President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe insists that if the abortion ban stands, this tribe will take it upon themselves to open up a women's clinic so "women have access to contraceptives, have access to family planning options, and that information needs to be out there at all times where all women of childbearing age have that information and use it."

Okay, that's all well and good, I'm pretty sure the ban didn't outlaw contraceptives and information. What are you getting at Mrs. Fire Thunder? (By the way, Native Americans have very cool names. Can you imagine how cool that would look on the back of a Husker jersey?)

Look how they slip in the, "Yeah, we'll provide all these services for women...and um, (muffled voice), killyerbabies"

"Pardon?"

"We'll um, (cough) killbabies."

"Did you say Kill Bill Vol. 3?"

"No, we're going to kill babies."

"Oh! Kill babies. Well, why didn't you say so. Just what the dwinding Native American population needed! What a great service you're providing. NOTE: This is Sarcasm for those of you living in Rio Linda.

Tough times have befallen pro-abortionists in South Dakota. South Dakota unborn babies released a statement saying that they are "elated" at the new ban, and that they "enjoy swimming around in here."

The best/saddest part of the article is this quote from Ms. Fire Thunder:

We just want to make sure that something is done for women who make that decision. All we can do is provide that to them, no questions asked. It's their choice. It's between her and God and that unborn baby. And I honor that.

How is it between her and the baby? What choice (since you seem to be big on choice) does the baby have in this? When you see a man cruelly beating his dog, do you walk past and say, "Ahh, that's just between him and his dog. No questions asked."

Or how about those that would abuse their infants. "Ahh, that's just between her and her infant. And God, of course. No questions asked."

It's mind-numbing statements like this that make me want to bald prematurely. No one would dare challenge what she's saying because she sounds so sophisticated, so caring for women.

But when you dig deeper, this is baloney of the highest order.

At this point, everyone should revisit Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion. Especially the Mistake #3: Assume what you are trying to prove

Advocates of elective abortion must show that the unborn are not fully human or their case crumbles. But instead of proving this conclusion with facts and arguments, many people simply assume it within the course of their rhetoric. We call this "begging the question" and it is a logical fallacy that lurks behind many arguments for abortion.

A person begs the question when he assumes what he is trying to prove. Imagine you are undergoing an IRS audit. If federal prosecutors were to ask, Have you stopped cheating on your taxes?, your defense lawyer would strongly object. The reason is simple: The question assumes you have broken the law, the very point prosecutors are trying to prove. Your attorney would rightly demand they prove guilt with facts and evidence, rather than assume it with rhetoric.

Arguing that abortion is justified because a woman has a right to control her own body assumes there is only one body involved--that of the woman. But this is precisely the point abortion advocates try to prove. Hence, they beg the question.

Or, take the claim that no one knows when life begins, therefore abortion should remain legal. But to argue that no one knows when life begins, and that abortion must remain legal through all nine months of pregnancy, assumes that life does not begin until birth--the exact point abortion advocates try to prove. This is hardly a neutral position. It is a clear case of begging the question.

So is the coat hanger argument, which states that women will die from illegal abortions if laws are passed protecting the unborn. But unless you begin with the assumption that the unborn are not human, you are making the highly questionable claim that because some people die attempting to kill others, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so. Should we legalize bank robbery so it is safer for felons?

If you think a particular argument begs the question regarding the status of the unborn, simply ask, Would this justification for abortion also work as a justification for killing toddlers or other humans? If not, the argument assumes the unborn are not fully human.

Again, it may be the case that the unborn are not fully human and abortion is therefore justified. But this must be proven with facts and evidence, not merely assumed by one's rhetoric.

Wow, I love Spring. Spring is my favorite season. Fall is great and all, but Spring is the season that says, "Hey, I got you, dogg. It's all gonna be okay. That winter guy won't be bothering you for a long, long time."

My lawn (except where zoysia grass is grows) is turning green. Birds are hanging out in my back yard. Squirrels are brazenly eating nuts right by the back door. (Hannah appreciates this, and makes little doggie sounds whenever she sees them. She thinks all animals make doggy sounds)

Yes sir, I like it. I like it a lot.

These guys dig Spring too, I would imagine.

I'm going to jot down little rules that escape people in their quests to be funny. I'm not an expert on being funny, nor am I a comedian. However, I do enjoy comedy and have spent many hours watching comedians.

Rule #1: After telling a joke, move on as if you hadn't told any joke

If your joke or comment solicits a laugh, GREAT! But don't keep commenting on it, or you cheapen the impact of the joke. It's gone, finito, finished.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone forwards me a funny picture or makes a sarcastic comment that causes me to laugh out loud. When the joke teller senses that I enjoyed the joke, they will ask, "Did you like that?" and then they elaborate on the thought process that led to the telling of the joke.

In the process, the joke teller becomes more human, more like me...and so loses the essential joke telling arrogance that is required for a master joke teller.

On the other hand, the joke teller who can continue on with the previous line of reasoning without missing his stride, will cause his listeners to continue chuckling over the joke for the rest of the day. The joke leaves the listeners secretly wanting more.

For it is the joke teller who doesn't care if you like the joke who commands the greatest impact with his joke. And the best way to show he doesn't care is to pretend he didn't make the joke at all. This requires that the joke teller to refrain from smiling, chuckling, and even elaborating further on the joke, though he be tempted to do so.

This is so sad.

Shane Rosenthal, the Producer of the White Horse Inn interviewed several pastors at the National Pastors Convention 2006 some basic doctrine questions.

See http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2006/3/4/pastors-cant-answer-questions-about-basic-doctrines.html for more information.

When Shane asked, "are you familiar with the doctrine of imputation?"

33% were "familiar," 67% said they were "unfamiliar."

When Shane asked "is justification by works, faith and works combined, or faith alone?"

0% (thankfully) responded "by works." 25% responded "by faith and by works," while 75% responded "by faith alone." Sadly, this figure is grossly misleading if people say they believe in justification by faith but don't even know what imputation is! Many of those who said "by faith alone," qualified their answer with some sort of appeal to sanctification or the transformed life. It was utterly tragic.

When Shane asked "Is justification a one time declaration or a life long process?"

49% said that justification is a process, 31% said a declaration, while 14% indicated that is was both. 6% were not sure.
When Shane asked, "What are we saved from?

43% said "ourselves." 24% said from "sin and death" while 17% said (correctly) that we are saved from eternal judgment or the wrath of God. Another large group were not sure about the question and some admitted to have never even given this subject any thought.

My goodness, we've become a bit lenient on who can become pastors nowadays. Remember when people had to go to seminary to be considered credible?

It's ABOUT TIME! I've been waiting for a bar that captures the flavor of Deuteronomy 8!

Meet the Bible Bar – one of the greatest new products ever introduced to the Christian market. This fantastic-tasting, all natural whole food bar contains the seven foods which the Lord calls good in Deuteronomy 8:8 - Wheat, Barley, Honey, Figs, Olive Oil, Grapes, and Pomegranates. You’re going to love this first-of-its-kind nutritional bar with its refreshing, natural fruit flavor and Biblical significance.

(Ahhh, gotta love Christianity and Capitalism)

Melinda finally let me get an iPod. So I got the 30 GB iPod Video. It's awesome. I put all my music files (and debates and lectures) on it and its only a third full. For those of you in Rio Linda, that means I have 10 GB on it.

Some tips for those of you who are going to buy an iPod.

1. Get a case for it immediately, better yet, get it as you buy it. If you don't have a case, leave the protective plastic sticker on it until you get a case for it. Black shows the scratches much more than the White iPod.

2. There's only one case to buy for it as far as I'm concerned. I've seen three or four cases for it and I found a great one reviewed at iLounge.com. It's a CapDase Silicon case. The only place I've found to buy it is at Vinko's Treasures. He is based in Hong Kong, but I ordered mine on a Saturday and it arrived in Omaha on Thursday. The case cost $11.00 from his eBay store, and shipping was like $8.75. It's still cheaper than buying those velcro or leather cases we have here (which scratch it all up).

Here's a link to the case I bought (every iPod owner who has seen the case has drooled over it). Click on the image to go to the page to buy it:

Check this optical illusion out. It looks like its animated, but its not!

This is well worth watching. Some people have waaaay too much time on their hands. And I'm glad of it!

These Japanese guys put on a mock ping-pong competition where they perform several crazy stunts that emulate incredible slo-mo stunts and camera tricks. But there are no camera tricks, nor is there slo-mo. It's all done by a team of well-concealed extras.

Watch it at http://youtube.com/watch?v=QtqYdlN5rvA

Chuck Norris facts are becoming quite popular these days. Here are just a few gems:

1. Chuck Norris's tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.

2. In an average living room there are 1,242 objects Chuck Norris could use to kill you, including the room itself.




3. Chuck Norris sent a picture of himself in the crouched position to the IRS. Chuck Norris has not had to pay taxes...EVER

4. Chuck Norris CAN believe its not butter.

5. If you spell Chuck Norris in Scrabble, you win. Forever.

6. Chuck Norris uses pepper spray as eye drops.

7. Chuck Norris wasn't born. He punched his way out of the womb. Shortly thereafter he grew a beard.

8. Bullets dodge Chuck Norris.

9. Superman owns a pair of Chuck Norris pajamas.

10. If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris, you may be only seconds away from certain death.

11. Chuck Norris doesn't use spellcheck. If he happens to misspell a word, he changes the actual spelling of it.

12. Chuck Norris doesn't sleep. He waits.

13. Chuck Norris clogs the toilet even when he pees.

14. When Chuck Norris jumps into the water, he doesn't get wet. The water gets Chuck Norrised.

15. Chuck Norris counted to infinity. Twice.

16. Geico saved 15% by switching to Chuck Norris.

17. Chuck Norris does not have AIDS, but gives it to people anyway.

18. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC for the show Law and Order, claiming the stole the names of his right and left leg.

19. Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.

20. Chuck Norris puts the laughter in Manslaughter!

The Enemy is alive and well, as Dan Edelen of Cerulean Sanctum shows us. In Conversion by Force, a post by Chandrakant Chavada, we are told that there is an initiative in India to persecute Christians by forcing them to recant their faith in Christ. Unfortunately, this was to begin on February 11th. I ask everyone to visit Chandrakant's and Dan's blog post, give your prayers, and spread the word.

Originally from CBC Canada

More than 30 years after introducing American audiences to the Monty Python gang, PBS is preparing to relive its adventures with dead parrots and silly walks.

Beginning Wednesday, the public broadcaster will air six new Monty Python specials, produced exclusively for PBS. The series will air Feb. 22, March 1 and March 8 in two-hour blocks.

Each of the one-hour programs will focus on one member of the original Monty Python troupe, which famously spoofed upper class twits, lumberjacks, old ladies and pet shop owners.

Five of the original Python gang are still living. They've gone on to produce, direct and star in other series and major movies.

An adaptation of their 1975 movie, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, became a hit last year when it opened on Broadway as the musical Spamalot. Former Python member Eric Idle co-adapted Spamalot, which now is touring the U.S. and reminding Python fans what they've been missing.

John Cleese, Michael Palin, Terry Jones, Terry Gilliam and Idle each produced and wrote an episode for the new PBS series, beginning with Eric Idle's Personal Best, which airs on Wednesday. Together they created a sixth special to honour the late Graham Chapman, who hallowed the taste of Spam.

Each chose his "personal best" original Python skits for the specials. Jones, who warned the world that "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" chose the bicycle repair man and the bishop, while Palin brings back the Piranha brothers sketch.

Monty Python's Flying Circus debuted in Britain on the BBC in 1969 and the series ran until 1974. The series began airing on CBC in Canada in 1971. PBS was the first U.S. network to pick up the show, which developed a cult following in both the U.S. and Canada.

PBS plans to introduce a whole new generation to the series by airing all 47 of the old episodes beginning this spring.

The Python gang also produced the movies The Life of Brian, The Meaning of Life and And Now for Something Completely Different.

Man, I can't keep up with the demands of paultastic.com. I have a new camera I'd like to upload photos from....just give me some time.

Also, the front page is horribly out of date. I'll fix that.

I upgraded my blogging package to 0.9.1 (b2evolution. It seems to be running much faster. I was getting hammered by spam, despite my blacklist. I'll just have to try some new stuff out. I'm having some success with using CAPTCHA for anyone leaving comments, and I changed the folder name for my htsrv folder.

Getting nicer here. It was very cold the last few days, now it's 39 degrees out. It should be in the high 40s the rest of the week!

There were some eye-opening remarks from Bryant Gumbel on the most recent episode of HBO's Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel. According to a transcript posted by a television columnist named Seth Frelich, Gumbel said the following in his closing monologue last week (emphasis mine):

"Finally, tonight, the Winter Games. Count me among those who don’t care about them and won’t watch them ... Because they’re so trying ... Like, try not to be incredulous when someone attempts to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something’s not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in what’s called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won ... So if only to hasten the arrival of the day they’re done, when we can move on to March Madness — for God’s sake, let the games begin."

Video clip (31 secs), from the Real Sports originally aired February 7, as provided by the MRC's Brent Baker: Real (665 KB ), Windows Media (1 MB ) or MP3 audio (185 KB ).

The comments have received scant coverage, with the San Francisco Chronicle (in a betting column) and The Columbus Dispatch (in a "People in the News" column) among the few outlets that have even mentioned the episode.

Kudos to radio talk-show host Larry Elder for highlighting the remarks.

Gumbel's remarks have been followed by many angry posts at HBO's Real Sports Bulletin Boards. The story was also picked up at Free Republic, where one poster wrote, "Remember what they did to Rush over the McNabb remark. I will contact HBO."

You'd think these remarks would have received more attention than they have. (Well, maybe not.) It's just hard to imagine a Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity getting a pass on something like this. Don'tcha think?

Flashback: MRC: "Bryant Gumbel: Liberal Activist Masquerading as Impartial Journalist"

Originally from NewsBusters.org.

I stumbled upon a great article by R.C. Sproul at ModernReformation.com.

R.C. Sproul

These things need to be pondered by Protestants today. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognised by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism today become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimise and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters?

Click here for the rest of the article.

Man, I'm just falling behind! Sorry!

First, I've been swamped at work, but I got a promotion. I'm the Production Software Engineer, which is a pretty important position. I'm excited to fill my new role and to show what I can do.

Hannah is growing up so fast! She's a great mimicer (is that a word?) Currently she says bye bye and waves, clicks her tongue, says "uh-oh" when her sippy cup falls or for no real good reason. She sighs, fake coughs, and makes Daddy's blast off noise when he pretends she or Jonah is shooting into the air. Good stuff.

Jonah is sooo smart! I know everyone says that about their kids, but I'm just amazed at what Jonah can do. First off, the kid is only 2 years old and he can do 100 piece puzzles by himself. Granted it takes a while, but he can do it. Secondly, the kid can already read a few words. Fox, Dad, Lucas, Mom, Go, and Caillou. He can spot those words and read them to you. He even sounds out the words, which is amazing for a kid this age: "C A T.... Kh Uh Te KhUhTe....Kahhhht." I was scrolling through the program listing on my TiVo, and Jonah was watching the screen. The word Caillou appeared near the bottom of the list and Jonah pleaded that he wanted to watch Caillou! I asked him if he could point out Caillou on the TV and he walked up to the TV and placed his finger on the correct word. Wow.

Jonah's funny things reel:

1. The other week Jonah had a pimple on his cheek. He informed when I got home from College: "Daddy, I got a nipple on my cheek."

2. We're trying to encourage Jonah to finish up the potty training. He's so close, but going #2 is not his strong suit. We've come up with various rewards to compel him. We've had the most luck with letting him have some of Dad's soda when he accomplishes the deed. Oftimes Jonah implores: "Can I have some pop? I went poopoo in the potty!" Tonight, we went to a restaurant and after the waitress brought us our drinks I took a sip of delicious Diet Pepsi. Jonah proudly announces for all to hear: "Daddy has pop. Daddy goes poopoo in the potty."

I saw this on HuskersIllustrated, originally posted by huskerbk. I wanted to save it here before it was lost.

After seeing Herbstreit's list of the greatest teams of all time, I couldn't sleep. So I wrote this in about 20 minutes off the top of my head. My friend is also a diehard Husker fan who used to work at espn in Bristol with those guys. He saw it and wanted me to send it in to him and the college football crew. It's long and probably doesn't make much sense, but it helped me get out my frustrations. I posted it a couple days ago, but it got buried really fast. Don't read if you don't like long messages.

Hey Kirk, my name is so and so. You know me from the 1998 Orange Bowl when Nebraska played Tennessee in Osborne's last game. Well, you don't know me, but you would know of me. I was one of those three Husker fans that stuck around until like three in the morning with you, Corso, and Fowler to see if the Husker's would get a split poll. My Friend Alex actually worked in Bristol at ESPN for awhile after that and talked to Fowler to see if the three of you remembered us. He had said that you guys did. I really like the job you do on gameday and have always talked about that night I spent at the Orange Bowl with you guys to my friends. I must admit that I have a big beef with your greatest teams of all time list. I actually wrote all of this after I saw your list and it comes mostly off the top of my head. Remember, I really enjoy listening to you, but being a diehard Husker, this list really hit a sore spot. Obviously, I believe the '95 Cornhuskers are far and away the greatest team of all time. How they come in at number four on your list is asinine. The three teams you have ahead of them is absolutely crazy.

You're joking about ’94 Penn State, right? They didn’t even win a national title which knocks them off the list. If I remember correctly ’94 Nebraska won that years’ national title. I’ll give you the fact Penn State had a great offense, but if that’s where you’re coming from, then Nebraska ’83 needs to be in this conversation as well. That offense was every bit as good as that Penn State team. Did you watch their defense that year. Twenty points to an Oregon team in the bowl game, who by the way isn’t the Oregon that is known now. They weren’t very good back then. Could you imagine what ’94 Nebraska would have rushed for against Penn State behind that pipeline and what many people consider the best offensive line in history? Now can you imagine what ’95 Nebraska would have done against that defense with their 400 yards a game on the ground…wouldn’t be a pretty sight. Penn State that year got down 21-0 to Illinois and survived a six point win against Indiana (did you just hear me say that, INDIANA). These were back to back games against stellar competition. I laugh at the thought of the ’95 Cornhuskers playing Illinois or Indiana that year, absolutely hilarious. To have a team that wasn’t even the best team that year and who didn’t even win a title ranked higher on a greatest of all time list is a slap in the face to ’95 Nebraska. I believe your list loses all credibility with this pick alone.

’05 USC, I haven’t stopped laughing yet. By the way this was written before the Texas game this year so what happens if they lose? Is Texas all of a sudden on this list, ha ha. Texas needed a Pontiac game changing performance by Vince Young to beat mighty Oklahoma St. this year. Anyways ’05 USC probably isn’t even as good as ’04 USC and ’72 USC. They trailed Oregon 13-0, were down by ten points in the fourth quarter to an unbelievable (sarcasm) Arizona St. team, had an illegal shove into the end zone to beat Notre Dame (that ball should have been spotted at the three yard line and then we’d see how easy it would have been to sneak into the end zone), and had a Fresno St. team hang 42 points on them. Let me remind you, Fresno St. turned around and lost to Nevada right after that, then to Louisiana Tech, and finally in their bowl game to Tulsa. That’s four straight losses, and they hung 42 points on USC. I dare you to say any team could hang 42 points on ’95 Nebraska. However, ’95 Nebraska might hang 42 points on USC’s average defense in the first half. After all, the Huskers hung 63 on Arizona State… in the first half. That Nebraska teams’ power game would smack USC in the mouth so hard, they wouldn’t know what hit them. Ask Spurrier and his Florida team. They’ll tell you the same thing.

I know, I know…’01 Miami had so many first round draft picks. Lets not forget, were talking about the greatest college football team of all time, not the most talented or the team that would turn out the most NFL players later on in their careers. I seem to remember that Miami team escaping a truly outstanding Boston College team (sarcasm again). Didn’t Ed Reed need to return an interception for a TD at the end of that game just to win. Didn’t they also get lucky when a Virginia Tech wide receiver dropped a sure two point conversion that would have either tied or taken the lead in the game with time almost expired.

You can use the argument that great teams find a way to win, but don’t bring that to the table when you’re talking about the greatest team in the history of college football. The greatest team in the history of college football doesn’t put themselves in that position in the first place. College football’s greatest team in history doesn’t need to find a way to win…they just win. The greatest team ever is far and away ’95 Nebraska. In ’95, Nebraska trailed 7-0 to Washington State who scored on their first possession. Nebraska came back to take a 35-7 lead. WSU scored two late TD’s against Nebraska’s third, fourth, and scout teamers to make the final 35-21. That was Nebraska’s closest game all year. Colorado, a top ten team, had the next closest margin of victory. The Huskers beat the Buffaloes 44-21 at Colorado for a final margin of 23 points. They were down to Florida by a field goal early in the National Title game, but we know what happened by halftime of that game. Nebraska never trailed in the second half of a game that year, and they might not have even trailed in a second quarter that season. During the entire ’95 season, Nebraska trailed for less than a quarter. They were behind in a game for less than a total of 15 minutes during the season. The Huskers beat four top ten teams that year. Wait, let me take that back, they destroyed four top ten teams that year, including winning the national title game against a Florida team by the widest margin of victory in a national title game. This was a Florida team who was favored because of their fun’n’gun offense. The Huskers defense wasn’t supposed to be able to stay with this high powered offense, and our offense was too one dimensional to hang with them yada yada yada. Basically the same argument your bringing to the table against this years’ USC team. ’95 Nebraska heard that argument already, please come again. Tell me the last time this happened. Nebraska played top 10 Kansas at Kansas in ’95. Kansas at home as a top ten team was a 24 point underdog to the Huskers. Go find me another time that has happened. That is called respect and dominance. Final Score of the game? Huskers 41, Jayhawks 3. Nebraska had absolutely nobody challenge them in ’95. Fourteen points was the closest margin of victory, pretty remarkable I think.

As far as the NFL argument, there are plenty of Huskers still in the NFL from that team. Off the top of my head, does Ahman Green (by the way, he was really the backup in ’95), Grant Wistrom, Mike Minter, and Mike Rucker ring a bell. How about Tyrone Williams (played for 9 years) and Eric Warfield (still on the Chiefs). Jason Peter and Michael Booker were both first round draft picks. Kris Brown (Houston Texans) was the Huskers’ freshman place kicker. We are talking ten years later, and some of these guys are still dominating in the NFL. All in all, I believe sixteen starters from that team and almost thirty players who were a part of that 1995 Nebraska team went on to the NFL. I don’t know the exact number, but I bet Nebraska ’95 put close to the number of players into the NFL as ’01 Miami did or ’05 USC will. That ‘95 Husker team had a defensive line that had all four players as All-Americans at some point in their career, and a quarterback in Tommie Frazier who some still consider to be the best qb ever in college football history. They had a running back who is the all time performance index leader ever at the University. That means he was like the best athlete ever at Nebraska. His status on the team…fifth string.

Really, when you analyze these teams, there isn’t even a comparison, unless you want to throw in the ’71 Huskers. That team went undefeated and won a national title in a year the Big Eight had Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Colorado finish 1, 2, 3 in the final rankings. Also included was a 32 point Orange Bowl shellacking over Bear Bryant’s number 2 ranked Alabama squad. An argument can be made for them as well. However, I’ll leave them number two on my list. In a sports world of what have you done for me lately, don’t forget the ’95 Cornhuskers. This was truly the most dominating team and season college football has ever seen.

I know you obviously don't agree, but when you actually go back and look at the seasons, I don't know how you come up with your list. For once, I agree with Mark May, and that is amazing. Sorry this is so long and you probably won't ever read this, but it felt good to write this and get it off my chest.

Thank you,

so and so