That's a really big stretch

Researcher: Faint writing seen on Shroud of Turin

She asserts that the words include the name "(J)esu(s) Nazarene" — or Jesus of Nazareth — in Greek. That, she said, proves the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have mentioned Jesus without referring to his divinity. Failing to do so would risk being branded a heretic. "Even someone intent on forging a relic would have had all the reasons to place the signs of divinity on this object," Frale said Friday. "Had we found 'Christ' or the 'Son of God' we could have considered it a hoax, or a devotional inscription."

OK so the hypothesis is that a medieval forger would be incapable of completing this elaborate hoax because he would not risk being branded a heretic by leaving off the divinity.

In other words the fact that he produced a fake cloth in an effort to get people to believe that it was the burial cloth of Jesus and the image was that of Jesus would be nothing compared to mentioning Jesus without referring to his divinity.

Misleading people into believing the forged image is Jesus - no big deal.

Leaving off the divinity part when you forged the name of Jesus - Heretic!

Please...please do not call this woman a researcher.

Fear of the word complacent

I was listening to Casey Kasem on Serius, The year - 1978. He was disusing the death of co-founder Terry Kath and how the band was forced to change because of it. The story was not about the death but about the band understanding that they had become complacent.

Now for me, words have taken on a whole new emphasis in my life. I cannot spell, I have very poor grammar (In fact I just misspelled it grammer), and I mispronounce words. All of this, especially when it is pointed out to you, takes a toll on one's confidence. But lately I have realized that those are just my faults, that's all they are and everyone has something they do worse then someone else. So I have begun a journey to write, learn, read, and try to better myself. So when I write this blog, I write it for me as well as anyone else that reads it that may be unaware of what the particular "word of the blog" is.

So on to today's theme - complacent:

Contented to a fault with oneself or one's actions.

Well what's wrong with that? But I always understood complacent to be kind of a bad thing to let happen. Then I find:

A feeling of contented self-satisfaction, especially when unaware of upcoming trouble.

Now that one fits the meaning better, at least for me. So why all this fuss over over this word? Well it comes down to having to face your fears. Now some folks fear death, or financial ruin, and others loss of standing, for me - I fear becoming complacent.

The reason for this is that I know that it can happen to anyone who lets down their guard. Complacency is the path of least resistance, the easiest road to follow. You become complacent because you do not challenge yourself. I fear it because it wants into my life and as much as I want to keep it at bay, external issues out of my control are helping to create a fertile media for it to take root.

Why be so afraid? Because complacency leads to stagnation, non-growth, lack of innovation. What makes it bad comes down to "especially when unaware of upcoming trouble." Upcoming trouble is your competition that has not become complacent. Complacency stifles creativity and causes one to become stale and boring. It's the one's that offer something new that capture the attention.

But complacency is also very cheap to maintain. No risk in failure because there is nothing new being developed. No added cost because its a fine oiled machine - don't fix what aint broke! Why change it when it is working - it's good enough.............

Complacency happens when you when you realize that you can put lipstick on a pig and they buy it. At some point I will be handed the lipstick, my fear is that I will pick it up and use it

Muslim Sympathizer

As heard in College Station, Texas, 10:30ish Central Time on a christian radio station 89.9:

Caller: Isn't he (Obama) a Muslim?

Host: Well he is not an admitted Muslim, but he is a Muslim sympathizer.

So Obama sympathizes with Muslims....OK, and as our President this is somehow seen as bad because....???

So what does it mean to "sympathize"?

1. to be in keeping, accord, or harmony
2. to react or respond in sympathy
3. to share in suffering or grief : commiserate ; also : to express such sympathy
4. to be in sympathy intellectually

So what the christian radio host was saying is that the President of the United States should not participate in any of the above if it is directed towards a Muslim. There are an estimated 5-7 million Muslims in the United States, does he think Obama is not living up to his oath to defend the Constitution? Is unsympathetic behavior what God would instead condone?

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. How one behaves is what's in question here. Because some Muslims want a jihad is no different than some Christians wanting to kill abortion doctors. I should not paint everyone with the same brush. And the President has not only a moral but a constitutional obligation to do the same. As Thomas Jefferson stated:

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship......" (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

To be critical of the President for being in "keeping, accord, or harmony" with all religions is not very American like. Come to think of it, it's not very Christ like either.

Lying for God

“How many observe Christ’s birthday! How few, his precepts! O! ‘Tis easier to keep holidays than commandments.” Benjamin Franklin

On my way to 89.1 the radio stops at 89.9, a christian radio station where two hosts are taking calls. I have searched for the name of the show and their names but can find noting. It was about 10:30ish on Friday Central Time.

I hear the tail end......

Caller: Isn't he (Obama) a Muslim?

Host: Well he is not an admitted Muslim, but he is a Muslim sympathizer.

Hmmmm, that doesn't sound very Christian like to me, I mean these guys are on a christian radio station professing how much Jesus loves us. But then I am struck with what just took place here. The host knowingly lied. Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. Apparently the host doubts Obama's Christian faith, which only God really knows, so stating that he is "an admitted Muslim" is making either a direct lie or stating a belief that one knows what God knows.

But this is war, so it is OK to be dishonest, elusive, and misleading. "I did it for you God! I killed the truth to further your Glory, just like I killed those abortion doctors, just like I gave you the crusades, just like I massacred that wagon train in Mountain Meadows Utah, just like.......I did it all for you God!

The inability of those that proclaim themselves to be Christians to transcend above the simple-mindedness of basic human foibles, is disapointing. Don't they read their Bible? And those that lead them, those like the radio hosts that I'll bet told themselves that they were "called by God" to speak, have a responsibility to God and their audience to be truthful. Because if you lie about something then you can lie about anything.

So is what the host said lying? First what is a "Lie?" Websters defines it as:

1. an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
2. is untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
3. something that misleads or deceives
4. a charge of lying

Second, is telling a lie something that God would have an issue with?

Leviticus 19:11-12 "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another"

Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Am I casting the first stone by pointing this out? No, just shining a light on another liar.

The crowd went crazy as Palin hit the stage....

On NPR this morning:

In the meantime, Palin is a hero to the GOP's "Tea Party" base — that portion of the party that is passionately and vociferously opposed to President Obama's policies. "She will play a tremendous role in the activist and the conservative movement," says conservative blogger Ed Morrissey. It's a constituency that views Palin "as someone very much like" them, he says. "Not somebody from the elite, not somebody from academia, but somebody who's a conservative mom — coming out of that same mold."

And in the Eagle:

(Texas Gov.) Perry, who is stoking populist fires with antiestablishment rhetoric, has dismissed the Cheney endorsement as the usual dealings of Washington insiders. He is also reminding supporters that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has cast her lot with him.

I have in my previous postings called Palin and "Empty Suit." I have not changed my mind. I should read her book, but she just turns me off, not just because of the hype that has now been built around her, but more so because she just does not come across to me as very smart. Which, come to think about it, is why she is well liked by the tea baggers - she is just like them, not very smart.

Now the nuttiness that passes itself off as conservatism is not what I am talking about. There are conservative ideas and liberal ideas that hold water on their own, but this new movement to define a "true conservative" is sophomoric and reflects poorly on the Republican party who has catered to it and is now afraid of offending it. . It is extremely difficult to be analytical and logical in one's thoughts while also espousing ultra-conservative views. Unless, of course, you don't believe them and only profess them to keep yourself "in."

In a nut shell, those "elite" and "academia" folk that are not like them, those are people with what we call brains. Smart people, intelligent people, learned people, circumspect, pragmatic. Smart people do not buy into hype. Not-so-smart people, do. So if she is "just like them" and "them" are folks who do not see themselves as smart, why the hell would we want her leading us or think she has anything of value to say?

The idea that the best person to run a country is an average Joe type is scary. I want brilliance, intelligence, knowledge in my leader, just like I want the smartest doctor, the smartest lawyer, the smartest investment advisor. Why would I want someone who is less than that?

So when Kay Bailey Hutchison - who is running against Perry - starts to believe that she too must cozy up close to one of the poster children for perfect conservatism, something is really going wrong with the Republican Party. Hutchenson is a smart lady - smart is OK, even in the Republican family. Stupid is as stupid does. Lets be smarter than a tea bagger, birther, or a Sarah Palin.


......Little Kay Bailey was lost for the price of a touch and a gash across her face! Oooooh.

(with apologies to the Who)

Its Called a Conjecture

Conjecture: a proposition which is presumed to be real, true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds.

Two items struck me as a little bit misleading.

Police report says wrong-way driver a pot smoker

Hasan linked to 9/11 hijackers

So one would resonably conclude that:

1. Pot was involved
2. Hasan was involved with the 9/11 hijackers

Oh...but not so fast:

The report says Diane Schuler's husband told police his wife "smoked marijuana once in a while to relieve the stress of work and the kids."

The alleged Fort Hood shooter apparently attended the same Virginia mosque as two Sept. 11 hijackers in 2001, at a time when a radical imam preached there

What is not in the report is:

1. Was Schuler under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident?
2. Did Hasan meet with the hijackers? Has anyone else who attended that mosque done anything similar?

Here's the problem. Smoking pot may or may not have anything to do with the accident. There is no evidence to report that it did. What one has done in the past has nothing to do with what one does now. These things are independent of one another. The probability may increase but the reality is that it either did or it did not contribute. Without evidence that it did, we have a paper guilty of conjecture.

The same holds true with the company one keeps or the places one attends. Didn't we learn anything from McCarthyism? The probability that his attendance at this mosque may have fueled his agression, but that was eight years ago. If the only "link" to 9/11 is attendance, then lets go after anyone that also attended that mosque at that time.

What is truth and what is hyperbole is lost when the media does not keep its self in check.

Fun With Numbers

I heard on TV (and dang if I can recall what show) this guy making the case that Wal-Mart could pay their employees a better wage. The guy based this on the profit that Wal-Mart made. When the TV host posed this question to Wal-Mart, the answer was no, if they raised wages they would have to raise prices and the consumer would not go for that.

Mmmmm I thought, the Wal-Mart guy did not address his question, that is, with the profit Wal-Mart makes, why can't some of this go back to the employees?

Now before y'all start brandishing me a socialist-profit hating-share the wealth guy, here me out.

Profit - The positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting for all expenses. opposite of loss.

Net Income - In business, what remains after subtracting all the costs (namely, business, depreciation, interest, and taxes) from a company's revenues. Also called earnings or net profit.

So if I have my understanding correct, there is profit and then there is net income which is profit less all these other costs. So net income is truly what is left over after all expenses have been taken out.

Now lets see what will happen if Wal-Mart were to give every one of their 2.1 million employees a bonus of $1000.00 each. OMG! That totals to $2.1 Billion Dollars, there is no way they could afford to do that without raising prices for me the shopper.

What was their net income? $13.59 billion

Which means that if you took $2.1 billion away from this (15%) they would still have over $11 million to do with what they want.

So the way I look at is not spread the wealth but spread the benefit. They could improve 2.1 million peoples life or day and all it would cost is 15% of their net income.

There is something wrong with how we share success. Why so few reap the rewards is upsetting, but then when you realize that this net income often comes at a real price from those they use to obtain it, it makes you wonder why we support this model so unequivocally.