Quotes of the Day

Last night, President Bush gave his annual speech to the Radio and Television Correspondents' Associations dinner.  These speeches are typically full of jokes, and last night was no different.  A couple of good ones...

A year ago my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn, and my vice president had shot someone.  Ah, those were the good ol' days.

Speaking on the recent controversy about the firings of several federal prosecutors...

I have to admit we really blew the way we let those attorneys go. You know you've lost it when people sympathize with lawyers.

Quote of the Day

John forwarded me an email a few minutes ago that contained the text from this article by Newt Gingrich.  Below is a quote from it that I think is exactly RIGHT...

The news report came about mid-week. Maybe you saw it.

The Associated Press reported that terrorists in Iraq have passed an unthinkable threshold: They used two children to disguise a car bomb.

The car was waved through a checkpoint by American soldiers who could not imagine that children would be in a car filled with explosives. When the terrorists got to their target, they got out of the car and ran. They left the children behind in the car, and then blew it up.

There is a word for people who put children in a car to be blown up. The word is evil.

Another one!

From this article:

"As the world’s warmest winter on record drew to an end with a weekend snow storm, a group of religious leaders started walking across the state Friday to bring attention to global warming."

...

"The Rev. Andrea Ayvazian of the Haydenville Congregational Church said the snow was so deep, it felt like she was breaking trail."

I suspect that the number of "global warming" marches will significantly decrease next winter.  :)

Monday thoughts

A few things on my mind today...

 

You'll probably never hear me say this again, but...

...I actually kinda agree with the ACLU on something.  And at first it seemingly contradicts my beliefs as a Christian.  From this article:

"The Supreme Court examines Monday a case raising questions over free speech rights in US high schools as it hears arguments over a student's unfurling of a quirky banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

Basically, a student waived a banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" when the Olympic torch was being carried through his town in 2002.  Since he was there with his school, his principal suspended him for 10 days.  The ACLU is saying the school violated the student's free speech rights, while the school system (with the backing of the federal government) says the suspension was purely for disciplinary reasons, because the banner advocates drug use.

First thought - why the heck has this case been in court for five years??!!

On to the matter of the case.  I will first say that I don't necessarily disagree with the school disciplining the student.  He did this without their consent and the punishment probably had a lot to do with that.  But at the same time, this case could have effects that Christians and non-Christians should fight.  Freedom of speech should be protected even if the message is one that we don't agree with.

I'm in pretty good company though.  From this notebook entry on the Christian based American Center for Law and Justice's website:

"The high court should uphold the long tradition of protecting the free speech rights of students – even when it’s a message most would disagree with. While we strongly disagree with the student’s message in this case, the fact is that unless student speech is protected, a message considered appropriate today could be deemed offensive tomorrow. We want to ensure that students who hold pro-life and pro-family positions will continue to be able to present those messages without censorship. That is why the Supreme Court must reject the school board’s argument in this case"

 

Same ole American Idol nonsense

Just like every previous year, some contestant on American Idol is clearly not talented enough to be in the final twelve, but yet they make it because of some emotional attachment that some voters have for them.  This year, it is Sanjaya, who has now made it to the final eleven.  I don't think they've had a candidate as bad as him go this far.  I've heard that there are some websites and radio personalities that are asking people to vote for Sanjaya out of hatred for the show.  While I admit that is pretty funny, it is also potentially hurting the careers of the other contestants and of course making him think he actually has talent.  Hopefully he'll be gone soon.  It's getting pretty old seeing him up there.

 

Customer service woes

The last few months has been crazy with customer service issues for me and my friends\family.  Comcast recently took over the Time Warner market here in Memphis and I don't think anyone I know has been unaffected by this.  From rolling outages that supposedly can't be explained to crazy billing issues, it's just been a big mess.

My sister-in-law recently received a bill that was much more than her previous bill and they said it was because Comcast does not offer the internet product she had before, so they moved her to the (more expensive) one that they do offer.  Without telling her.  Isn't that nice of them? 

Her satellite provider (DirecTV) offers a bundling package with DSL, so she called them to find out more about that.  And someone in a foreign country picks up the phone.  I'm sure I don't have to state here how horrible it is to troubleshoot support issues with someone who doesn't speak the same language as you very well, so you can imagine what it was probably like to figure out how to communicate that you just want information on something, not necessarily that you want to buy it.  Based on my own experiences with support, here is what I bet the conversation was like...

sis-in-law: "I'm a DirecTV customer and was wondering about the internet service that's offered with DirecTV."

Habib (who says his name is Jeremy): "Yes, you have DirecTV service."

sis-in-law: "No, I want to know about INTERNET service."

Habib: "Yes, we offer internet service."

sis-in-law:"Can you tell me about it."

Habib:"Yes, we offer internet service.  Would you like to buy?"

Don't read too much into that.  Being about as capitalistic as you can get, I do kinda maybe potentially understand why companies are outsourcing certain areas of their phone support to other countries, but this is something my sister-in-law actually wanted to PAY FOR, not something that is offered for free along with service she already had.  I do not understand why a company would not bend over backwards to help a customer find out the best way to BUY SOMETHING FROM THEM!!  Surely this is common sense!

Argh!!

Something's got me all fired up this morning.  I bet my coworkers can hear me beating on my keyboard right now.  But articles like this drive me crazy!  A few quotes...

Jemima and Ricardo Sanon, 30 and 29, saw the possibility of trouble before they ever signed their mortgage documents in 2004.

The Sanons had diligently saved $5,000 in preparation to buy their first home, but the sum was just enough to cover the closing costs. So to finance the $290,000 purchase price of a Waltham, Mass home, they took one loan for $232,000 and also a piggyback loan for $58,000, both from New Century Financial, a subprime lender.

...

The smaller of the two mortgages didn't worry them. The terms were fixed for 30 years at 10.7 percent, and the monthly payment of $538 was something they felt they could handle.

But the larger loan was fixed for just two years. After that, the rate would adjust every six months, which is typical for subprime borrowers.

"I worried about how we would make payments when they increased," said Jemima, a medical assistant. "The mortgage broker [at New Century] told us we could refinance."

...

Fast forward a couple of years, and the Sanons, like so many other subprime borrowers today, are struggling to keep their heads above water. As the housing market boomed, refinancing or selling your home was a simple solution for borrowers who had trouble making the mortgage payment. Now that the housing market has stalled, subprime borrowers are stuck with loans they really couldn't afford in the first place.

You should read the whole article, but I'll paraphrase the rest.  As you can see, they financed a $300,000 and knew on the front end that they could not afford it.  But the article doesn't put any blame on them.  It blames the lender for saying refinancing later would not be a big deal.

Now, I completely agree that the lender was being very short-sighted and dishonest.  And if you are following the news lately, you'll see that sub-prime lenders are in deep doo-doo right now because of all the late payments and foreclosures that are happening right now.  They are reaping what they sowed, which is a good thing.

(Note:  just for those who may not know - a sub-prime lender is one who figures out loans to give people who may not have the income or credit to get the loan otherwise.)

However, the couple really needs to take a little bit of personal responsibility here.  All they had to do was run a calculator to find out what a "normal" payment would be and determine could they afford it.  If not, then the loan is a bad idea.  Period.  As a matter of fact, I'd almost bet the couple did run calculations on that.  And I'd bet they found out they could not afford it.  And I'd bet they wanted the house so bad that they were willing to risk not being able to afford it later.  THIS IS NOT THE LENDER'S FAULT!!!!

As I mentioned earlier, this is becoming a major problem.  And the lenders are going to end up being the "bad guys".  Laws will be passed to stop this type of loans.  This is probably a good thing, but it isn't the only solution.  WAKE UP AMERICA!!  Just because we want something doesn't mean we need it right away!!

UPDATE:  Just wanted to give a shout-out to my uncle Mike for posting his own take on this subject.  His very first blog post!  Awesome!

More Global Warming Irony

I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to.  From this news story

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite.

Awesome.

Thoughts on the "Tomb of Jesus"

By now I'm sure you've probably at least heard something about the documentary that the Discovery channel is airing on Sunday night called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus".  And you've probably heard some of the skepticism that has resulted from it.  Just in case, here are a couple of links to summarize.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070226-jesus-tomb.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-jesus-tomb.html

The documentary was put together by James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici, both of whom I have some respect for.  While I do not know their religious leanings, I do not think they are out to attack the Bible or Christianity.  They did a special for the History Channel last year called "The Exodus Code Decoded" that I thought was very good.  In it, they showed evidence that backs up the Biblical accounts of Moses and his role in delivering the Jews from Egypt as recorded in the book of Exodus.  So I will not immediately question their motives anyway.

I do have a couple of things I'd like to bring up before watching the show though.

1.  The idea that Jesus Christ still could have been resurrected and his bones still be in an ossuary.  The argument being that the accounts of his ascension into Heaven could have been spiritual instead of physical. 

Here is what the Bible says about his ascension...From Acts chapter 1...

"9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

I find it quite a stretch to read that and assume a spiritual ascension.  Also, the Christian faith is much more based on Christ's resurrection from the dead than it is on a physical ascension, so I see no reason why Luke (author of Acts) would have left it out if it was spiritual.  I see no harm in saying something like, "His body dropped to the ground and his spirit was raised into Heaven."  But he did not say that, and therefore again I think it's quite a stretch to believe it.

 

2.  The idea that the odds are 600 to 1 that this is the tomb of Jesus Christ.  Go to this link and click on "Enter the Tomb"

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html

Notice that five of the members of his family as recorded in the Bible are missing. How can the odds be 600 to 1 that this is Jesus' family tomb if 5 out of nine family members is missing? Are the odds based on the idea that he married Mary Magdalene? If so, they are quite skewed in my opinion.

Also notice that they have nothing solid to base the tomb of Matthew being related to anyone in Jesus' family. That brings into question why he would be there if it is Jesus' family tomb.  Which again brings into question the 600 to 1 odds.

 

Anyway, just some thoughts that have crossed my mind over the last few days.  I do plan to watch the documentary and will report back afterwards if I find anything else of interest.