Saturday, January 12, 2008
In fact, liberals are so smart, a "progressive" in DC knows just the program to help my situation here in Redville, Ohio.
The one thing I don't get... If liberals/"progressives" are so smart why won't they use science when they come up with all these "progressive" ideas.
But Gordon, they do use science, they are using the science of global warming to legislate curly light bulbs, smaller toilet tanks, CAFE standards, etc.
Good point, but let's look at the scientific method once again.
Hypothesis, Theory, Law
Liberals love to claim global warming as a theory but they lack one huge piece of information to become scientific law, namely the ability to predict future results based on the theory.
So while liberals are out in force governing based on a theory, they totally ignore other scientific law such as
1) Law of Supply/Demand
2) Law of Diminishing Returns
3) Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility
Sure, "progressives" govern using a cost/benefit analysis, but only from their side of the equation.... "we think taking money from "A" to pay for "B's" medical insurance provides a bigger benefit than cost". That's because it "costs" liberals nothing.
They never want to look at it from the perspective of all the parties involved. It's why "progressive" cities and states are so surprised when moving vans continue to load up in their cities for a better life in 'burbs.
It's also why they cannot conceive that a tax cut often means more money for them to spend than a tax increase.
So when my "progressive" friend loves to tell me that conservatives like status quo, I'd like to offer this. Conservatives govern using science, namely the principles learned in Psychology 101, Sociology 101 and Econ 101, or the common sense that comes from living life and truly seeing people operate.
Here's an excerpt from this article
The same change that Progress City sees as people flock to the 'burbs, where it's nice and red.
"In 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free."
"That was the moment we realized the game was completely up," an EMI exec told the magazine. In the United States, album sales in 2007 were down 19 percent from 2006. Don't blame me. I still buy plenty of CDs. But that's because I like Doris Day, and every time I try to insert one of these newfangled MP3s into my fax machine it doesn't seem to play. But if you're not Mister Squaresville, and you dig whatever caterwauling beat combo those London hep cats are digging on their iPods, chances are you find the local record store about as groovy as the Elks Lodge.
Now there are generally two reactions to the above story. If you're like me, you're reminded yet again why you love capitalism. It's dynamic. And the more capitalist your economy, the more dynamic it is. Every great success story is vulnerable to the next great success story – which is why teenagers aren't picking their CDs from the Sears-Roebuck catalog. There's a word for this. Now let me see. What was it again?
Oh, yeah: "change." Innovation drives change, the market drives change. Government "change" just drives things away: You could ask many of the New Hampshire primary voters who formerly resided in Massachusetts.
Fed up after a man was gunned down 90 minutes into the New Year inside of an Over-the-Rhine nightclub, Thomas said he will introduce legislation that could clamp down on potentially violent incidents.
Never mind that it's already against the law to carry a firearm into a bar or night club; this is exactly the law the city's been waiting to curb senseless violence.
Once again, ask yourself this question, do the "Redville" city leaders in nearby Mason, Loveland, Milford, etc. have to introduce legislation to "clamp down on potentially violent incidents" or is it just "progressive" cities like Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc.
I notice that the Highway Patrol rarely, specifies the number of arrest on these, I assume because they rarely get any.
This post is going to be a education to some of you explaining how governments helped precipitate this subprime mess.
Many years ago, I worked for a large super regional bank. My job was in an area called "community" lending which was for all intents and purposes loans to small businesses. At that time, banks were under pressure from various political groups to lend to inner city businesses and mortgages.
The vogue term at the time was "redlining", the myth that banks would not loan to people who lived in certain zip codes.
As a result of that pressure, the feds passed, what was called at the time, the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA essentially gave "points" to banks for doing at risk loans in certain zip codes.
Our bank, along with all the other banking players, did all kinds of "outreach" programs to increase our loans to minorities. We would spend all kinds of money to set up booths at shopping centers, job fairs, the Black Family Reunion, etc, etc. All in an attempt to increase our loans to minorities.
While most of these were geared to the mortgage business, our particular group was also assigned to attend these events to generate small business loan applications.
Now it doesn't take an Einstein to realize, if you give a mortgage application to any Tom, Dick & Harry at a shopping mall, you will have a higher rate of rejection than you would have using a normal lending process.
As a result of these efforts, the banks started getting reamed for higher than usual rejection of minority applications.
As a result of this problem, our bank put together a committee that had a representative from every area of the bank. Our job; review every minority application that was rejected.
I can tell you this. Nearly every application that our committee reviewed was rejected for one reason; poor credit. Most of the applicants that were rejected never paid on one damn bill, let alone a mortgage. All you have to do is look at lending practice 101 and you'll see DON'T LEND TO PEOPLE WITH BAD CREDIT.
Again, banks were under increasing pressure to do deals to minorities so what did they do? They dropped their credit criteria. Now we really had a code word; we called it a CRA deal, which meant, this loan is a piece of shit but were going to do it as a cost of doing business.
Many times, if our bank wouldn't do a deal, a competitor would.
Which brings me to the perfect case study I was a part of.
A young woman came into my office with a loan application. She wanted to build a car wash on McMillan Ave right near a particularly bad part of Cincinnati called Peebles corner. Now the loan request was somewhere around $300,000 to do the car wash.
Believe it or not, I liked the deal, but this borrower had no down payment and no experience in putting together a project like this. I told her I could do the deal but I could not and would not be able to do more than that, so if there were cost overruns she had to come up with the money to get it done.
Since she had none, I had to turn it down. I told her at the time I was doing her a favor. Because, if this deal would go bad it would kill her credit rating.
Well, she ultimately found another banker who would do the deal (a guy who was known as a local minority loan huckster). I use to drive past the project site wondering if I made a bad decision. I saw the shell to the car wash go up and nothing; she ran out of money.
That shell is still up there on McMillan Ave, a total eye sore; spray painted with graffiti, busted beer bottles over it. Drive down McMillan some day (I wouldn't do it at night) and you'll see that dump for a property still sitting there.
Now who did the bank help in this instance? So now we have an applicant with a bad credit rating and piece of real estate that doesn't enhance an area, it detracts from it.
How does this apply to the sub prime mess? If the politicians had just kept their damn noses out of the banking business, none of these loans would ever had been made.
I think the banks in Cleveland should sue the city for forcing them to do deals they didn't want to do in the first place.
As an aside, do you think this lawsuit makes it more likely for businesses to locate in the city of Cleveland or less likely?
Friday, January 11, 2008
Months ago, Jones was stripped of her Olympic medals. Do you know who won the golds in her place? Yeah, no one does.
I'd bet a lot of money that Jones would do it all again to receive the glory and endorsements the silver medalist will never experience.
For the record, the BBC still shows Jones as the winner of the event, the same with SI.
I was shocked to go to their op-ed section to see this headline
States spend anti smoking money on everything but
You're kidding me right? Politicians, especially the "progressives" that brokered this deal, would never bait and switch the American public right?
All together, the states took in over 22 billion in tobacco money and spent a whopping 590 million in anti smoking programs.
To make matters worse, Ohio (along with MI, RI, and WV) sold their portion to a private company for 5 billion (even though the receipts were projected to be over 10 billion during a 24 year period).
Once again, I throw it out to all those "progress" types. How do you defend this? You call this a government of progress?
Aging boomers to strain OhioReport: Impact to hit economy, governments by '12
The headline in this morning's Enquirer.
How could anyone have seen this coming. I mean, we've all heard of the term "baby boomers" since it was coined in 1963. What did the politicians believe that term meant? Some kind of diaper deposit?
That's OK, it probably won't matter anyway. Greg at Red Hawk Review has a clip from an economist who explains that the social security system is 58 trillion dollars in unfunded liability. I guess even the feds were caught off guard by the sudden influx of old people into this country.
On a related note, Moody's is considering dropping the US Bond rating from AAA unless the government does something about soaring health care and social security costs.
Now that we know we can't pay the medical and retirement expenses of all our countries seniors, we need to add a comprehensive SCHIP program so everyone can have something the government can't pay for.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
It's no coincidence that Hillary's staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary's rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern. And let's not forget Hillary, the governor's wife, pulling out a book and rudely reading in the bleachers during University of Arkansas football games back in Little Rock.
Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem's fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.
How does all this affect the prospect of a Hillary presidency? With her eyes on the White House, Hillary as senator has made concerted and generally successful efforts to improve her knowledge of and relationship to the military -- crucial for any commander-in-chief but especially for the first female one. However, I remain concerned about her future conduct of high-level diplomacy. Contemptuous condescension seems to be Hillary's default mode with any male who criticizes her or stands in her way. It's a Nixonian reflex steeped in toxic gender bias. How will that play in the Muslim world?
After all, how could the actual results be so dramatically different from the polling data. We all know that only republicans have the capability of stealing elections.
From Americablog.com to Crooks and Liars to several news blogs, readers posted their concerns – drawing the gleeful eye of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday morning, who pointed to a debate raging on Democratic Underground.
That site, which has more than 100,000 registered users, was alive with debate throughout the day – mainly between Obama supporters and Clinton fans.
"Please come back to your senses," one commenter wrote. "What is most disturbing is the fact some people are accusing the fellow Democrats of fraud. Please, dear reasonable Obama supporter, tell those people to stop."
Some of the nation's most prominent bloggers sparred over the issue as well. Markos Moulitsas, who runs the popular site DailyKos, called the allegations "a load of bull" from "a bunch of cranks." Mr. Moulitsas, who has said he'll vote for Mr. Obama, also said it was typical of the blogosphere to host a "tiny minority" who pose "wild claims."
In the wake of Hillary Clinton's surprising win Tuesday and all the wrongheaded punditry leading up to it, there has been much discussion about why women voters rallied en masse for her in New Hampshire. Some believe she benefited from a powerful backlash against her many eager naysayers in the media. But whatever the reason for her campaign's resurgence, I still don't buy Clinton as the women's candidate.
I'm a lifelong feminist activist. In this crucial election, I am supporting John Edwards, whose economic policies I think will best serve women. Barack Obama is a close second, with Hillary Clinton a distant third. At first, as a feminist, I felt strange, almost embarrassed not to support Clinton, but it wasn't a tough decision. I did some soul searching, and in the end there were too many issues of principle on which she was willing to compromise. Her commitment to practicality over principle made it hard to be enthusiastic about her candidacy.
If you are a feminist you would, of course, support Edwards for president. Who is the most feminine of the three? Women can relate to Edwards. They know how hard it is to choose hair care products. The joy of a pedicure. Botoxing those age lines around the eyes.
So if you are a woman, Edwards can feel your pain. If he would just cry and show his softer side during his next public appearance, the other camps would just fold up.
Yeah. John Spirko is one of those "wrong place at the wrong time" kind of guys. Well, Until you read this.
Strickland based his decision on the lack of physical evidence linking John Spirko to the 26-year-old murder and "the slim residual doubt" about Spirko's responsibility for the Ohio slaying based on a careful study of the case.
Those factors make "the imposition of the death penalty inappropriate in this case," Strickland said.
On Feb. 16, 1970, Spirko was convicted of willful murder in Kenton County for the July 3, 1969, strangulation of Myra Ashcraft, 73, a Covington widow.
Ashcraft was found dead in her home by a neighbor, lying in her bed, her hands tied behind her, with a pillow over her head. Jewelry had been taken from her house.
According to a 2005 Cleveland Plain Dealer series on Spirko, the vote of a single juror spared him the death penalty. He was sentenced to life in prison, but got out on parole in 1982, having served 12 years.
Spirko was paroled from the Kentucky State Penitentiary at Eddyville just 13 days before the Mottinger kidnapping.
Society can breathe at ease of wrongfully killing some innocent person. Another reason I believe in the death penalty.... Because life in prison means twelve years in prison code.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
There he will be able to take a course called "How to be Gay".
Now I know how those SEC football teams are able to get Big Ten teams to bend over and squeal like pigs.
The "progressives" carried this area 70-30 (for Kerry) in the last presidential election.
Funny, all of us "redville", gun nut, types who live in the suburbs somehow don't find the need to go shootin' up a cemetery after a funeral, we go out to eat. But then I'm not a "progressive" type, so I wouldn't understand.
I'm going to throw out my Nostradamus like ability here and predict that no one in this cemetery had a concealed carry permit.
I know I didn't. That why I read such intellectual heavy weights like Naomi Wolf, who keep me informed about the "real" things going on in this country.
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemyMore.....
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
How can you take these people seriously? I'm guessing she'd call herself a progressive. I think she is in an alternative reality. But then she's also the one who thought Al Gore should wear earth tones. So who am I to say.
Children often have fantasies about a Good Parent -- one who loves you and takes care of you forever and ever, who forgives your transgressions whatever they may be, who demands nothing, and never, ever hurts your feelings. Obama is now the Good Parent of the childish Left -- a good majority of the Dems, it would seem.In a child's mind the Good Parent is often played against a complementary fantasy, the Bad Parent -- call them Republicans in this case. The Bad Parent stands for the sterner aspects of reality. Since Leftism is basically an infantile protest against adulthood, Republicans represent what Sigmund Freud called the Reality Principle.Reality is the part of the world we all need to come to terms with in order to earn a living, to deal with losses in our lives, and still be productive and moral adults. Interestingly, most of the GOP candidates look like adults with real records of accomplishment. But then GOP voters are also more adult.
The Bradley effect in reverse?
I don't think this works in this instance. The presumption is blacks poll higher because people don't want to be perceived as racist. But once they get into the booth, they'll vote white.
Polipundit expounds that because the Iowa Caucus is not a secret vote, Obama may have benefited from a reverse "Bradley".
But in this case, if I was truly a closet racist and would not vote for a candidate because of their race, I would caucus at all. In addition, there were many other alternatives to choose from.
Come to think of it, if you are a closet racist & sexist, your only choice would be Edwards. Maybe that's why he did so well in Iowa. Clearly no one wanted to be labeled a metrophobe.
California state and local governments are facing liabilities of $118 billion or more over the next 30 years to fund promises of generous health-care benefits for retired public employees, according to a state commission report released Monday.
You see, if you run the Enron Pension plan you go to jail. If you make the Enron scandal look like a bounced check, you get to run a government pension plan.
And we want these people to run our health care?
Apparently, Michael Hilton agreed to cooperate with police and disclose the location of Meredith in order to avoid the death penalty.
Now on it's face the death penalty did nothing here. However, what leverage would the police have over this guy to find this woman's remains without the death sentence? This guy would be facing life in prison regardless. Finding this woman's remains only ensures his prosecution and sentencing. He would be an idiot to tell the police where her remains would be.
How often does a guilty murderer plead guilty to a crime in order to avoid the death sentence? Especially in Cuyahoga County where they plead out nearly every capital case.
Once again the formula is simple, if you don't commit aggravated murder, you need not worry about the death sentence.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Man, I know I feel better.
But here are some apologies I'm still waiting for.....
1) the Huffy Corporation to apologize for me racking my balls on their bicycle in 6th grade.
2) the Reds to apologize for trading Frank Robinson
3) my 7th grade Literature teacher to apologize for being hot.
4) the post office to apologize for their horrible service.
5) Italians to apologize for making pizza taste good.
6) the free masons, the trilateral commission, skull & bones and the jewish dominated media to apologize for ruling the world.
7) the moon to apologize for tides.
8) newspapers to apologize for getting that ink crap all over my hands.
9) Larry Craig to apologize for making me paranoid in public johns.
I'll be sure to add to my demands as they come to mind. Please add your own in the comment section. It's about time the people rose up and received the respect they deserve for all the injustices in the world.
I am running for leader of the free world, seeking to replace a deeply unpopular president. I am the spouse of his very successful predecessor. To the extent that my opponents want to make this election a referendum on the 1990s and my husband's administration, we've thought we'd be in good shape. My chief opponent is an unvetted neophyte colleague of mine in the Senate, who probably couldn't tell the difference between Kyrgistan and Uzbekistan. And yet he trounced me in the Iowa caucus, and now some of my advisers are second-guessing my decision to deploy my husband on the campaign trail and tap into people's warm, fuzzy memories of his time in the White House.
Time is running out, and I am not sure what to do. What do you think? My husband was very successful, and I was part of his team. On the other hand, people want change. But there is a personal issue here, too -- I mean, how can I tell my husband he is a liability and needs to lie low? Our marriage has been through a lot, and I don't want to hurt him.
-- Anonymous in New Hampshire
This is the beginning of a piece in the Washington Post.Guess what? Billary's not going anywhere. I don't care if she loses the next 14 primaries.
Ask yourself this question. Is there anything in the Clinton DNA that would indicate they would be willing set aside their own raw ambition for the greater good of the party and/or the country?
It's why I've been waiting for this election for four years. Everyone has known since her carpet bagging New York senate entry that this time was coming. The only thing that's predictable about the Clinton's is their single minded purpose to always satisfy their self interests. Everyone else be damn.
So don't look for them to bow out gracefully. It's going to look more like Freddy Krueger. You're going to have to shoot them, stab them, set them on fire, throw them off of a 50 story building, maybe even employ a nuke. And when you look over the edge, they'll still be moving, waiting to come back to indulge another one of their appetites another day.
The Clinton's have the audacity to claim that Obama and Edwards have been given a "free ride" by the media.
Are you kidding me?
"You know for both Sen. Edwards and Obama, they've been given pretty much a free ride and that's fine," Clinton said. "I don't mind having to get up there and take all the scrutiny. But at some point the free ride ends, maybe it ends now, maybe it ends in a month maybe it ends in the general election. You cannot be elected president if you do not withstand the tough questions."
What scrutiny? After your debate performances, you've refused to talk to the press and answer questions. Has the press even made that public? Nada. This on top of the arm twisting of the media to spew your spin. And the press just gobbled it all up.
It took the NY Times and all their fact checkers exactly how long to come to the plate and realize that your experience was barely above Obama and Edwards. Remember the "inevitable" candidate?
In all seriousness. There is one thing an overwhelmingly liberal media does for republicans. They treat their candidates with kid gloves and the campaigns, surrounded by all this media adulation, are not prepared when the body blows start coming in. And now the press senses an Obama movement, so they're going to lay off reporting any Obama warts; just like they did with the Clintons when she was "inevitable".
But don't worry about Billary. I'm sure all their private detectives will come up with some dirt on Obama at some critical juncture. After all, they did squeeze that poor kindergarten teacher for Obama's essay.
Monday, January 07, 2008
1) I always thought Jim Tressel was a good coach, but when Les Miles is putting it to you, you have to wonder. What the hell is the deal; you're down by two touchdowns and it takes you over three minutes to move the ball 20 yards. TIME was not your luxury.
2) The announcers of this game were absolutely horrible. Thom Brenneman is normally a good
but who was that other ding dong in the booth?
3) Five personal foul/unsportsmanlike penalties; where's the composure?
4) It's probably a good thing the Bucs didn't play USC. The Trojans would still be scoring.
5) Maybe the Buckeyes will start scheduling some games against teams that don't come out of the local parish directory.
6) Once again, the Big Eleven finished with a sub .500 bowl season (3-5). When will people get that this conference is totally overrated? Two national championships in 40 years.
7) WVU #1?
I don't know why I even watched the game. After all, it's not even a sport.
It's annoying to me when someone says something like "he literally chewed my head off".
Really, how are you able to speak.
Apparently, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Check out Literally a web log.
It was May of 1987 when Walter Pooley's daughter Deborah was kidnapped outside her
The Barleycorn's assistant manager was then raped and murdered.
A jury convicted Gregory Wilson of the crimes and sentenced him to death."This guy that killed our daughter has been on death row in
Kentucky since 1988. He's had several reviews. Like I told you before I would take care of it myself if I could get to him," Walter Pooley said.
THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.More.....
But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.
In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.
Here's a paper from the US Department of Treasury (HT Taxprof) detailing who actually pays and it's not the rich.
Who ultimately bears the burden of the corporate income tax plays an important role in the distributional analysis of tax policy. Distributional tables often assume that the incidence of the corporate income tax falls on the owners of capital but there is considerable uncertainty amongst economists about who bears the burden of the corporate income tax. This paper reviews the evidence on the incidence of the corporate income tax, especially in light of recent empirical studies that focus on the relationship between the corporate income tax and wages. While further research is necessary to draw definitive conclusions, these studies suggest that labor may bear a substantial burden from the corporate income tax. These empirical results are consistent with computable general equilibrium models based on an open economy in which a single country sets its tax policy independently of other countries; in these models, assumptions that capital is mobile and consumers are willing to substitute tradable goods produced in different countries imply that labor can bear more of the incidence of the corporate tax than capital bears. Evidence on the degree of capital mobility across countries and the sensitivity of corporate investment to changes in tax policy also corroborate the possibility that the corporate income tax lowers wages by reducing the productivity of the work force. In addition to changes in productivity associated with changes in capital intensity, labor may also bear part of the corporate income tax if wages are determined in a bargaining framework since the corporate income tax may change the equilibrium wage bargain. Overall, the recent empirical evidence, the open economy computable general equilibrium models of tax incidence, and the sensitivity of the amount of capital investment within a country suggest reconsidering the assumption that the corporate income tax falls on the owners of capital; labor may bear a substantial portion of the burden from the corporate income tax.
If you want to read the report click here.
THERE'S A TRUTH THE Democratic presidential candidates can't handle: the success of the "surge" in Iraq. The addition of American troops and the adoption of a new strategy of protecting the civilian population has now dramatically reduced the level of violence in Baghdad and pacified other parts of Iraq as well. But the Democratic candidates insist on pretending otherwise.
It isn't clear whether they were uninformed, out of touch, mistaken, politically fearful, or knowingly dishonest when they were asked to comment on the surge during an ABC television debate Saturday night in New Hampshire. In any case, their refusal to acknowledge success in Iraq marked a low point in the Democratic campaign.
If you've been around me enough, you've heard my theory on sports. If you have to judge it, it's not a sport. That effectively wipes out figure skating, diving and, in my mind, boxing unless a knockout is the final outcome.
Well, a friend of mine called me out on my theory a couple of weeks ago. "What about college football?"
Ouch, he's right. What other sport decides a championship, not on the field, but by a bunch of journalists and coaches who "judge" the "best" teams in the sport. It's patently ridiculous.
So tonight we'll at least be treated to a title game between the two best teams in the nation, Georgia and USC. No? it will be a game between OSU and LSU.
In my mind, everything says LSU except the fact that they've struggled to beat to many teams this year. They will be at home (Louisiana) and have played a much tougher schedule to be in the game.
For OSU, LSU is no MAC school, for that matter they're not a Big -11 school either. They also won't be playing this game in the horseshoe. OSU is 0-8 against the SEC in bowl games (the only time they would ever play an SEC team). The fact is, OSU hasn't been tested all year by a real team but they will be tonight.
Despite all that, I'm picking the Buckeyes. I think Tressel's a smart guy and won't make the same mistakes this year that he did last. Regardless, after the demolition USC put on Illinois and Georgia on Hawaii, they should both put their names on that trophy after the game.
After all, it's just a judgment call.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
As Christians, we are all supposed to be "evangelical". While the news media likes to make the term negative, all "evangelical" means is "spreading the 'good news' ".
Jesus tells us this several places in the gospels
In Mark, Jesus instructs us.
"When these things begin to happen, watch out! You will be handed over to the local councils and beaten in the synagogues. You will stand trial before governors and kings because you are my followers. But this will be your opportunity to tell them about me.[b]10 For the Good News must first be preached to all nations.[c]11 But when you are arrested and stand trial, don’t worry in advance about what to say. Just say what God tells you at that time, for it is not you who will be speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
Many non-believers have always interpreted evangelicals as trying "push their beliefs" on them. But consider this..... If you've watched the best movie you ever seen, been to the best restaurant or club you've ever been to, or have a passion for a particular sports team, you will naturally share that with others.
So why wouldn't you share the best thing to ever happen to your soul?..... receiving Christ as your savior.
The one thing Christians have to recognize is that our enthusiasm for God needs to be tempered. We need to be responsible for our audience because we don't want non believers to get defensive. When people are defensive, they can't hear the "good news".
A few years ago, I invited a woman to church and she told me "I've pretty much given up on God" and I responded "That's cool, just know that God hasn't given up on you".
She was actually dumbstruck by that pithy little quote, but it gave me an opening to let her know that God will meet you anywhere, anytime; you just need to say the word.
So let's go out and be "evangelical" and bring the light to those who need to see it.