I'm seriously considering dropping out of graduate school. I'm thinking maybe I'll finish my MS and not get the PhD, but that's still going to necessitate 7 more months of being untrue to  myself. I guess I can handle that...hell, I've been doing it for 2 years now. But when is enough enough?

This presidential election is a pain in the ass.  This is not, however, just because of the empty rhetoric of both sides' candidates, but also because of the idiocy of those who are going to be voting for someone.  Here are a few snippets of conversations I've heard in the last few days:

 

"Palin's from Alaska.  What's she going to be able to do for me?"

"Obama's a Muslim.  He goes to church to cover it up."

"McCain's so old, he'll die right when he takes office.  Then we'll be stuck with a Canadian."

"Biden is a good candidate."

 

So, to cut through the crap, I try to watch the debate(s).  They're horrible!

 

McCain: "This is what I believe and this makes me right.  Senator Obama disagrees, and that makes him wrong."

Obama: "We-we-we-well, what Senator McCain is failing to mention is that he's WRONG!  WRONG WRONG WRONG!  And I want to change things."

Mediator: "Senator Obama, can you answer the question?"

Obama: "Well, Senator McCain, you know...he's a senator, and...well...he's wrong.  You know he voted with the Republicans 90% of the time?  I only voted with Republicans 5% of the time, making me a true, uh, bipartisan."

McCain: "What Senator Obama is trying to say is that I'm a maverick, and he wants to promise empty change.  What we need is a couple of mavericks, like my Vice President and me, to go in there and show Washington what mavericks are really like.  They obviously didn't notice me, but damn!  Palin's hot, so they'll notice her."

Obama: (grins) "My esteemed colleague is a moron because he's not a lawyer.  I'm better than him.  Nah nah nah nah nah nah!" (sticks out tongue)

McCain: "Be careful, Senator Obama.  The last nigger that stuck his tongue out at me didn't survive the Hanoi Hilton.  Let's just say that the gooks were scared of me for a while after that little incident.  All due respect to gooks, of course."

Punish the Jena 6.  What they did was wrong.  Letting them off the hook because Jesse Jackson and 150k Californians are angry is wrong.  Yes, some punk hung some hangman's nooses in a tree.  O.  M.  G.  I once heard a black guy refer to a white guy as a racist.  I guess I should beat the shit out of him as well.

 

Bah. 

Maybe I'm just a moron, but does there really need to be a constant struggle among Americans about whether it was Osama Bin Laden or George W. Bush that masterminded the 9/11 attack?  What amazes me most is that those who would support the theory of Bush's being the mastermind are also the ones who loudly and proudly proclaim that he is an idiot with an IQ of 80.  I personally wouldn't want to broadcast that an "overglorified monkey" had fooled me.

 

If nothing else, let it lie.  By bringing up conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, we will perpetuate this into something much worse than it originally was.

 

Let's pretend for a moment that the attack was carried out by a sect of zealot Muslims with a rather poor understanding of the Koran (this taken from the mouth of a Muslim friend of mine).  If this is the case, then there would be justifiable reason to determine the identity and location of the sect and eliminate it.  Taking out the Taliban is not necessary, but is still a good thing to do.  Taking out Saddam Hussein was not necessary, but it was still a good thing to do.  But if it was a terrorist cell, get the cell, not everyone else around them.

 

Now let's pretend for a moment that it's a vast government conspiracy that was covered up by a Republican government and a bipartisan investigation committee made up of Congressmen and women from all over the country.  If this is the case, then we must completely get rid of all incumbents (because we can't trust them, obviously) and elect an entirely new government.  But nobody wants to do that much work, do they?  They'd rather sit around and complain about how evil and bad the government is for killing its own people, then the people of other nations, and calling it freedom and democracy.

 

Now for a rabbit trail that has nothing to do with this...

 

It's kind of weird to word what I'm thinking right now.  Basically, if genocide, treachery, and ill-conceived wars had not been fought, then the United States would not be here, so we would not be able to sit around and complain incessantly about how bad we are.  I'm not saying that genocide is a good thing, but it's one of those things that we as Americans kind of like to sweep under the rug.  Taking this thought process a step further, why is there not a Native American history month?  Why is there not a Hispanic History Month?  Maybe I'm just a silly racist, but shouldn't all minority groups be treated equally fair?  It's not as if the African Americans were the only minority group treated unfairly; in fact, many groups today are still being treated unfairly by blacks and whites.

 

Bleh. 

My "essay" on a Biblical perspective of marriage is posted on http://clean.i8.com/writings

Please let me know what you think
Thanks!
JW

http://clean.i8.com/writings/

This is a website that I have where I'll start posting my things as I write them up.  Enjoy!

So I keep talking about things I'd like to write or things I've written, you know?  I figured, "Hell, I've got a few websites strewn about the Interwebosphere, so why not toss some of them out there so that goobers who get lost after taking the wrong turn on the road to Google can have something to make fun of?"  Now I'm going to start posting my things on my websites; the URLs will be listed in a future blog; feel free to go, read, and post comments on here to make fun of them.  I will likely do so as well.

I've found that I like to come up with ideas that aren't entirely innovative, but also aren't the same as other things...sort of adaptations of age-old principles to modern-day affairs that many people with whom I have contact don't seem to think about.  I had an idea similar to these last week, so I figured I'd toss a short blurb about it onto Phusebox before I get all in-depth into trying to write about it.  Expect this to come later tonight or some time tomorrow.

Hint 1: it's about marriage, sex, pornography, God, and other such related topics from an oft-forgotten and many times misinterpreted (in my own opinion) passage from the Bible.

Hint 2: 1 Corinthians chapter X

So, when I post, I would be more than happy to have folks comment on it and/or ask questions.  It's not necessarily a full exegetical work, nor is it a staunch matter of my opinion, so things should not be as bumpy as some of my other discussions have been.  If nothing else, I'll enjoy writing the thing.

Okay, so I got back from DC early yesterday morning.  It was a good trip that involved eating snails and squid, as well as many vegetables and rice.  Also, I got to ride in a wheelchair.  But, as I am much more of a ranter than anything else, I will now rant:

While at the Holocaust Museum, we (being my 3 friends and myself) became acquainted with a large group of teenagers and pre-teens who had come as a group.  These kids went throughout the entire museum being loud and obnoxious, talking and laughing and whatnot.  At every floor they came to, someone inevitably cried, "Another one?!?" as if it was such an inconvenience to them that, I don't know, 6 million people were ruthlessly slaughtered.  I'm sorry the Jews couldn't hold out so that these children's lives wouldn't have been so horribly destroyed.

Seriously, though...laughter?  I can understand solemnity, perhaps sadness and tears, but laughter in the Holocaust Museum?

So I had my revenge.  As I said before, I was in a wheelchair.  Whenever I heard them coming up behind me on the last two floors of the thing, I would sit still in the middle of the hallway, then, as they passed by very close to me (so I would know that they were having to move around me), I turned very quickly and hit them hard in the shins with the metal footrests; since I was in the wheelchair, they had to apologize for it.  So I did that three times and felt a little bit better about myself.


Anyway, it was a good trip, and I'm still recovering.  Ciao.

Okay, so we're here at Exam Week, and I'm looking at Exam Day on Wednesday.  I've got my PoliSci exam that I need at least an 80 on in order to make a B; later that day, I've got my Spirituality and Counseling exam that I have no clue about, so I won't study.  Then on Thursday, I can take an optional quiz for Abnormal Psych.  That one's a funny one...

The teacher gave us a grading scale which is as follows:
There are 6 10-question multiple choice quizzes, each worth 10 points.  These points add up to earn certain grades (as many courses do, actually).  An A is 52-60 points; after the 6th quiz, I have 51.  So I'm going to go in and hopefully get one question right on the optional quiz to get an A.  I think I've got it.

I once heard a saying that sounded something like "A man desires nothing more than that which he cannot have" or some such nonsense.  It's not true in every case, just as what I'm about to say: "Nothing is more beautiful than that which you cannot understand."

As I said, this isn't always true, and in most cases for most people, likely isn't.  However, for many people in certain areas, it rings truer than any other words.  For example, a theologian may think that God is the most beautiful thing because God cannot be understood.  I as a musician think that music is incredibly beautiful because, though I can wield it somewhat, I don't think I can every fully understand it.


On a completely unrelated note, I recently got back into writing little fiction short stories, and I'm a little optimistic about what I've come up with so far.  My only problem is that I like to toss in a lot of my own personal philosophical musings, so my stories don't make sense to a lot of people.  They are a nice diversion, though.

School sucks.  On to fun stuff.

I got a keyboard for my birthday, which makes things superfantabulastic if I have free time, which I don't.  So late at night when I should be sleeping or something, I play keyboard and guitar and try to work towards being the awesomest thing since sliced Elvis bread with bananas and iced tea or something.

Anyway, I'm enjoying those fleeting moments of realization that I have lost a lot of my musical prowess (I didn't have much to begin with) since Easter.  EASTER!  Three weeks ago!  I can't have lost it that quickly, right?  Maybe it's because I haven't been sleeping.  And that I'm crammed into a dorm room in such a way that I have to reach a couple of feet (yes, that's about fully-extended arms) to play the piano.

Incidentally, I am improving on the guitar and have written a song inspired by the ongoing crisis in Darfur.  I put together a slide show involving propaganda pictures of children starving to death or burnt and scarred by bombs or such things.  Yes, I am going for an emotional reaction.  Anyway, I'm going to see if my church will let me do the song with the slides; I know they won't, but I can at least ask, right?  So that will be an interesting conversation.

Anyway, I'm tired of blogging at the moment.  Check ya'll later.

So I got a guitar on indefinite loan from my totally wonderfully awesome pseudo-fiance of love, and now I understand why people play them.  They're just fun!  Who knew I'd be playing Elvis songs?

Anyway, I just got it Sunday night, but I've practiced a little bit, and it's really not too hard to do...I still need the diagrams of which fingers go where for which chords, but I'm learning a few of them now so that I don't need all of them.  As for transitioning between them, that's getting easier, too.

Now if I could only stretch my fingers out to play bar chords and an F.

One of the most popular political conflicts this election season is shaping up to be the primary showdown between Hillary Clinton (henceforth referred to as Hill) and Borat Osama (or however you spell his name).  Yes, that's a joke.

Anyway, this article is not about the political showdown, but about a particularly exciting ad that was run on YouTube.  What happened was a guy, acting entirely on his own time (a couple hours, according to him), made a video parodying an '80's Apple commercial depicting a 1984-esque world.  In this commercial, though, Hill was depicted as a Big Brother-type character, with Obama being supported in the end.

First - This commercial was of a much higher quality/caliber than your typical, ordinary political commercial.  You know what I mean: political commercials suck ass as far as quality goes.  It's as if they spend so much friggin money on everything but their most valuable advertisements.

Second - Some political analysts are actually taken aback by the awesome influence that a simple private citizen can work out in a short amount of time.  This is starting to look a little bit more like a government by the people.

Third - The man who made the commercial was employed by a company that does political advertising and is contracted to Obama.  However, he claims that he quit to keep them from being connected to it while they claim that they fired him over it.  What happened?  Who cares?!?  This guy could do work for any political organization and do a hell of a lot better than they're doing now.

--------------------------------------------

On a completely different note, at 6:27 tonight, Memphis tips off against Texas A&M.  This should be a good game.

So I'm hitting what I call a funk, what others call a period of mild-to-serious clinical depression (the level depends on what's going on in my life at the time).  It occurs every so often, but rather sporadically.  Anyway, today I was feeling a bit under the weather, so that + my newfound funk puts me into ultra-pensive mode.

Naturally, being in such a mode encourages me to reevaluate, you know, everything in my life...
What makes me different from anyone else?  Why do I think that I deserve a chance to do something, but that others do not?  Who is it I want to be, and how does that relate with who I'm working to be?  Bleh...I hate self-examination, because I know the questions that are going to come, and I know several answers I could give, but I'm never sure which one is the one I mean.

Oh, well...at least the Tigers will be playing soon.  :D

Memphis won the C-USA tourney today.  Big surprise.  Now they're just gonna have to win the NCAA tourney.  Woohoo!

---------------------------------------------------

I just got back from Memphis where I met up with a few of my high school friends and introduced them to Brittany.  Now, I'm usually not one to balk at another person's spiritual experiences because I have no clue what's going on in their spiritual lives.  Usually.  One thing was said, though, that got me thinking again...

"I've just been so broken by God lately.  I've never felt more humble than I do now; it's like all I can do is praise God all of the time.  I feel so great!"

Sounds nifty, honestly enough.  Except for the referring to the self more than referring to God, that is.  Even that wouldn't be so bad, except that the actions are done by the self.  Rather than "I've just been so broken by God lately," wouldn't it make more sense as "God broke me."?  As I said, I can't judge what others are going through, but I do notice things like that that make me wonder.

Anyway, we had an interesting discussion at the dinner table last night.  A teacher at the Baptist school where I attended for 13 years was reprimanded for referring to Mormons as a cult in a class in which there was a Mormon student.  During my 13 years there, I spent several years being told that my denomination was a cult and my grandparents' denomination was a cult, as well as my aunts, uncles, cousins, and many friends.  We dealt with it.

Anyway, that's not the thing I'm actually a little irritated by.  Mom stated that they (the Mormon family) should not be offended because, by definition, they are a cult.  She then told us that the definition of a cult is a group that doesn't believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.  I knew better than to try to explain that Mormons believe in Jesus (she got pissed at me last time I mentioned something even close to that), but I corrected her definition of a cult, using the Merriam-Webster dictionary defnition.  She told me in so many words that I was wrong, forgetting the conversation from about 20 minutes before when I had talked about having just given a presentation in a class about cults.  I think I have a little bit of an idea about the topic, you know?

Anyway, that's enough for now.  Going to sleep.

I don't have a full opinion on whether or not abstinence-only sex ed should be taught because my school had no sex ed.  What does irritate me is the following argument:

"They shouldn't teach abstinence only sex ed because kids will still have sex."

Excuse me?  Maybe we should stop telling men not to beat their wives because it still happens.  Or perhaps we should stop saying that murder is wrong because it still happens.  This is not an argument to help your case.  Good gracious.

-------------------------------------------

So Mom was fairly unhappy today to find out I had gotten off the meal plan at Tech without first consulting her and Dad because I shouldn't be making these decisions.  This re-raised a question I've been pondering for about a month now - When do I hit the magical barrier at which I am "old enough" to make certain decisions?  I'm going to sound a bit like a whiny teenager here (I am one; why shouldn't I embrace it?), but why is it that I'm too young to make decisions like this?  At lunch today, Mom was lamenting (and mentioned lamenting to various other bystanders at church this morning) about my not studying engineering anymore.  Apparently I'm too young to decide what to do with my life.  I mean, I'm only 19; I know I have tons to learn and tons of experience to gather, but let's face it: I can't learn and I can't experience if I let her live a life through me.  So I'm frustrated about the following:
a. Direct quote - "I keep saying you need to be an engineer."
b. Direct quote - "You can't make decisions like this.  You need us to do it."
c. Direct quote - "Are you really, really sure you don't want to come to Memphis for your degree?"

Is it too much to ask to let me make a few decisions and, likely, more than a few mistakes for myself?

The reason I'm putting this on Phusebox is that if I confronted her about this (as I tried to do before), she gets upset and starts crying, then Dad gets pissed at me, too.  That never turns out well.

So I had an idea for a slightly humorous, mostly satirical essay-ish thing called "WWJD? - What Would Jesus Decide?" in which I would debate different voting methods for the Christ assuming that He was around for the election in 2008.  I think that it shall be fun.

After discussing this with a few people, I also want to write a sequel about in which denomination Jesus would find his "church home."  I figured, "Hey, I spend most of my time complaining about and making fun of politics and Christianity, so why not make a marginally organized effort to create something slightly enjoyable?"

I'll get to it in a few years, I'm sure.

So it's 4am and I'm still awake-ish.  That sucks.  On brighter notes, University of Memphis beat Tulane by 44 points on Saturday, I played my song at church last night (went much better than I expected, plus a few other musicians chipped in), and I've completed/satisfied ~10 of my new year's resolutions.  >:-)

Hoorah!

So I just wrote this as a comment, but it's difficult to read because it's a little long and weird formatted, so here it is again:

Now, for my disclaimer – I am not an Armenian, nor am I a
Calvinist.  I just don't like it when
people say "A is/isn't B" but do not support it in a satisfactory manner.

Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV says "For by grace are ye saved
through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works,
lest any man should boast." Let's dissect this passage:

1. "For by grace are ye saved" - we are saved by God's grace

2. "through faith" - it is because of our faith that we can be saved
by God's grace

3. "and that not of yourselves" - the "that" in this phrase
is a pronoun; its antecedent is the nearest noun "faith." "Faith
not of yourselves" tells us that the faith we have to have in order to
partake of God's grace did not come from us

4. "it is the gift of God" - the pronoun "it" also needs an
antecedent; "faith" is still the closest PROBABLE choice (yourselves
is closer, but just doesn't make sense), so it should then be read "faith
is the gift of God." Do we ask for gifts (if not slightly spoiled; I know
I sure do)? Not typically.

5. "Not of works" - What isn't of works? Time for another switcheroo:
"Not of works are ye saved." We are not saved because of anything we
do.

6. "lest any man should boast" - Since humans don't do anything, we
have no right to brag.

So what do these verses tell us? In a nutshell, Eph. 2: 8-9 say "God saves
you, not you, so don't brag." If God does save us, then, do we have the
free will to choose Him?

Now I'm going to state a few points, then support them afterward...
 

1. Those who are saved are saved by God.

2. To be saved by God is a choice made by God.

3. God made this choice before the creation of the world.

1. As above, my summary of Ephesians 2:8-9 is that God saves us. End of point.

2. Romans 3:10-11 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."
It's pretty cut and dry -  no human in his natural sinful state desires or looks for God. That would mean that, if there is salvation, God comes looking for us.

3. God is perfect and unchanging, not an anthropomorphic God who was created in our image; he is an eternal being (exists outside of the system of Time which He created).  If God is not bound by time, then when He makes a choice "in-time" in 2004, it's the same as if He made it in 1904, 4, 4000, or before time was created. This is because, to Him, there is no time.  It's just our observation of change in our realm; He's outside of it.  Don't like that answer? Here's another one to chew on:

Romans 9:11 - " (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)" This verse is talking about how God had chosen Jacob over Esau to continue the Jewish bloodline. God chose Jacob in a few different ways listed here:

1. "being not yet born" - Jacob was chosen for his purpose before
being born

2. "neither having done any good or evil" – nothing Jacob had done
would have affected/recommended him to God for any reason.

We are then told why: "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" Many people, when I tell them God chooses before they're born say things to the effect of "that's unfair." Paul had the same thing in Romans.


9:14 - "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God
forbid." Claiming that God is unfair is claiming that God is fallible,
therefore non-perfect.  Still, it does seem a bit harsh that a loving God would willingly send billions of people to hell, does it not? The real question we should ask, though, is why a just God would send millions or billions to heaven. We all deserve hell, but He showed some of us mercy. So what is the answer to these questions?

It is a generally accepted principle (due to catechisms from multiple faiths), though I honestly do not have a full scriptural basis on this one at the moment (I'll have to look into it some more, so bear with me on this one) that man's purpose is to bring glory to God.  Anyway, assuming this to be true, then the answer to those questions is similar to this purpose. God is glorified in both sending people to heaven (Romans 9:23) AND sending people to hell (Romans 9:22).

As for Calvinists not understanding your Armenian views, I went to a nice little independent Baptist school for 13 years where I was taught, for 13 years, that Calvinism is wrong and has no Biblical basis.  I believe that for several years, but discovered through my own study of the Bible that this isn't entirely true.  I asked teachers about it and the typical reply was "I think you should make sure of your salvation."  But, yes, I do understand where you're coming from, possibly even more than you do.

Now, I want to address the last post…

Reasons against Calvinism:
1. Westboro Baptist Church
2. Abuse from Calvinists
3. Issues with the beliefs themselves

1. Forget Westboro Baptist Church.  Every Calvinist I know (and I've met quite a few) wishes those people would fall off the face of the planet because they're not what the Church is supposed to be.

2. Just because you're berated by people of a particular ideal doesn't mean the ideal is wrong.  If so, from what I said above, then Armenianism is stupid and wrong.  If there's no free will or election, then what is there?  ;)

3. As for the issues…

(a) God is sovereign to the extent that He mandates everything. 
Now, for those of you who really don't understand what that means,
according to the Calvinist, God not only created man, and created good, but He also created evil, suffering, and the whole lot.

(b) On top of that, God makes people sin.  (Yes, I'm serious.) 

(c) God can choose to save all but instead He chooses to save some and condemn those who can do nothing else to change their fate.  Before God calls those select few, those people were totally rebellious to all things good (in theory) and would never have turned to God.  Thus, the elect are basically robots, seeing as how the love I know is predicated upon choice.

(a) Let's assume that God does not know everything.  Then you make sense.  Now, I'm going to work off of the assumption that God does know everything (part of being eternal, see above) because that's what I believe is supported by scripture.  If God knows that something will happen, then it will happen, no?  Let's look especially at prophecies – God says that they're going to happen, so we'd better assume that they will.  This is God setting things in stone (as if they weren't already).  Because of his vantage point, everything about human existence is set in stone; we can not change the fate of the world because God already knows what it is.

Now, if God is omniscient, then it stands to reason that He would know of Satan's rebellion and Man's Fall.  Now let's use an analogy.  If you know that if you light a match in a room filled with natural gas that the room will explode, and, being in a room which you know is filled with natural gas, you light the match, did you destroy the room?  It is very hard to argue that you didn't as you very intentionally did.  If God knew what would happen with His reation, did He not destine/fate/elect/doom His creation to this state?  Sounds very intentional to me.  He knew what would happen, He knew what the repercussions would be, He knew exactly what He was doing.

Now, for a little physics – cold = absence of heat; darkness
= absence of light; evil = absence of good; suffering = absence of…well…non-suffering.  These opposites exist in a realm in which
they are allowed to exist.  There was no suffering until God came down after the Fall and said "Now you're gonna suffer; now you're gonna die," in effect.  I'm tired of this train of thought.  I'm moving on.

(b) Depending on how strongly one holds to Calvinism, they may or not believe that.  You are making a generalization.  Either way…

Exodus 7:3 – "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the lands of Egypt."  God controlled Pharaoh's reactions directly so that He would be more glorified (see far above).

Exodus 7:13 – "And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said."

Exodus 8:22 – "…and Pharaoh's heart was hardened…" and so on
and so forth until Pharaoh died.

Romans 9:15-23 – "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.  So then it is not of him that wileth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?  For who hath resisted his will?  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?  Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why has thou made me thus?  Hath not the potter power over the
clay; of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory."  I'm not going to say anything else on this one for now.

(c) As I said before, there is the whole "none that seeketh after God" verse.  Also, we've got the nifty verse talking about how "many are called, few are chosen" and such things.

Frankly, I'm a little burned out at the moment.  I just got up about half an hour ago and still need to take a shower and such, so I'm off for now.

Sorry...usually I don't get too irritated by people who are irrational about certain religious belief structures, but there is one that kind of got to me - a post saying, simply, that Calvinism is stupid.

Calvinism, being an organized structure of ideas, can not be stupid.  Either (a) the ideas are stupid, or (b) Calvinists are stupid, but never (c) Calvinism is stupid.

(a) the ideas are stupid - the ideas contained in Calvinism are some of the most logical and Biblically-supported religious ideas we have today.  Many of the greatest theological minds agreed with many or all of the tenets of Calvinism (like, say, John Calvin, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, etc.).  To say that these ideas are stupid is to say that the scriptures from which they were derived are stupid.  Now, if someone says that the Bible is stupid, then that's their own thing; this, however, is not the case with this monologue.  I am directing this at a Bible-believing Christian (whether or not you are one is irrelevant; I'm simply not writing to you).  So, either the Bible is stupid or Calvinists are stupid.  I'm going to assume that it would be decided that the Bible is not stupid.

(b) Calvinists are stupid - I'm sorry...what?  The tenets of Calvinism are supported with more or less strength by exegetical study of the Bible.  The tenets of Armenianism (the relative opposite of Calvinism) are not - they are derived from eisegetical viewpoints.  If you'd like a Biblical discussion, I'm fully open to that; I haven't had one in a good while.  Otherwise, don't even try pulling this one; I'll flat out tell you that Calvinists are not stupid.  Not to say that some aren't...I know a few stupid Calvinists, and I know some brilliant ones.  'Nuff said.

(c) Calvinism is stupid - as outlined above, no.

That's all I've got for now.  It's 3:30 am, and I've got church in a few hours.

Okay, so I was looking at American Idol information tonight to see what the basic schedule is like; I was completely wrong about how the auditions take place.  What they make look like a 2-day affair for the auditions is actually a week-long process.  I can't take a week off of school for this, so my only option would be to take a semester off in anticipation of the tryouts.  I can't do that, either.  So I'm either going to have to do one of two things I can't do or figure something else out.  Time for some more of one of my favorite things: re-evaluation.

So Phusebox is all crazy lately.  I mean, things, they be a-changing.  Kind of exciting, yet, at the same time, I'm wondering if the Phuse experience will be the same.  It'll probably be better, though this is already what I would consider the best blogging site of the whole Interwebosphere...net...thing...

+

The whole girl situation is going great.  I'm actually a bit surprised at how good things are going.  Now, those of you that really know me know that I have issues with commitment - within a few weeks of dating a girl, I'm thinking about the possibility of a wedding.  Well, this one is no different, except for the fact that we're still together after 2.5 months.  This matches my college record of time spent dating a girl, so I'm both excited and nervous as this is when poopy things would tend to start happening.
At the same time, I'm a little bit more confident in our abilities to tolerate one another due to a recently discovered situation - time spent together is not a constant, but a variable.  What I mean, in effect, is that, mathematically, I've spent more time in conversation/presence/whatever...I've spent more time with her than any other girl I've dated.
Mathematically: I spent x hours per day with Kari for 6 months on average (this includes time spent on the phone, etc.).  I've spent approximately 4x hours per day with Brittany for 1.5 months (not including time on the phone or instant messenger, which makes up the month of Christmas break).  Already, I've spent more time with Brittany than with Kari.  If this rate continues to be maintained, one year with her would be comparable to four years with Kari, except happier since it's with Brittany instead of the angry ho.

Anyway, that's all I've got for now.

I'm going to try to try out for American Idol this fall, and I'm trying to figure out which song to practice to death for it.

Anyway, I've got it narrowed down to 4 choices, and I'd like the two or three of you that will read this to share your opinion on which song and why I should use it:

1. Bridge Over Troubled Water (Simon & Garfunkel)
2. Yesterday (Beatles)
3. Only the Good Die Young (Billy Joel)
4. Your Song (Elton John)

Thanks!

I'm taking American Government (POLS 1000) this semester, and I just happened to remember one of my systems of government I created in the 9th grade.  You see, my family took a vacation to the beach, which I detest, so I sat on a chair under an umbrella all day long and read and wrote.  I remember writing out three different representative-style government organizations that I thought at the time would be particularly interesting to witness in implimentation.  I only remember one of them, however:

It's more or less a single branch of government made up of judges.  Each town (i.e. Cookeville or Murfreesboro) or city section (i.e. Manhattan) would elect a judge.  Every town/city section judge in a county would get together and elect one among them to be the county judge.  All of the county judges would get together to elect one state judge.  The state judges in each region (NE, SE, NW, and SW US) would meet to elect a regional judge.  These four judges would elect one of themselves to a sort of chairman position; each judge has the same power, but this one dude just sort of takes care of administrative matters in relation to the nation.
Now, every judge is responsible for everything below him.  So, let's say that I was elected the judge of Cookeville, then elected the judge of Putnam County, then of Tennessee, then of the SW US, then head judge of the country.  If a problem arose in Cookeville, I would have authority over it.  If a problem arose in an area of Putnam County whose judge could not handle it, it would be reffered to me, and so on and so forth all the way up the chain.
The most major flaw (there are many; I was a freshman, give me a break) is that the workload would be enormous, so I made a change to allow each judge to appoint deputy judges beneath himself at every level in order to allow duties to be delegated.

I'd still like to see how this would work in the real world (probably not well, but since when has a government been worth half a fart?).

Okay, so I'm back in Cookeville.  I've got a single room in Murphy now (hallelujah!) that is well stocked with Ramen (36 cups, meaning over a month of sustenance) as well as other nifty edibles.  I'm on the fifth floor, so now I can get a little bit of exercise every day by using the stairs (it's rather sad, but I woke up with sore legs this morning).  Here's hoping my classes go well!

Anyway, the new season of 24 begins in just over 6 hours, but I've got a meeting in 2, and it may go long and I may miss the beginning or (*shudder*) the whole thing.  Either way, I'll watch a recording.  It's like sitting on nails waiting for it to begin.