The Olympic Torch(ing)

Unless you’re roosting in a cave near Atlanta or Atlantis or Atlantica, you know the Olympic torch is wending its way from Greece to China.

Well, this morning I thought up a “new” term: Olympic torching. But I figured I hadn’t really coined anything new. Good ole Google confirmed I was right regarding one of those statements.

Before I go further, I’ll take two paragraphs for an important disclaimer. I know I should be doing something else. I know I have customer emails to answer, Web pages to fix, and new products to add. I know I have taxes to file, bills to pay, and insurance to investigate. I know I should be writing a business newsletter, updating business records, and posting to my business blog. I know I should be spraying the garden, trimming the trees, and splitting wood.

But when the should‘s in life demand all of my time, I put my foot down (maybe even both). Once a while. And pull my nose away from the grindstone on the butcher’s block. And do something unnecessary. Such as posting to this blog. Or doing a sudoku puzzle. Or playing a game. Once in a while. Such as now.

Disclaimers and excuses aside, how about a little Olympic math?

Of the modern Olympics, which was the bloodiest?

Munich 1972, thanks to the Palestine Liberation Organization or some other Palestinian-Arab outfit. They beat the Israeli team.

How long ago was that?

36 years already.

And what was one of the new things at the Olympic Games 36 years before that one? Munich 1936.

That was the first Olympics that featured a torch as they use it today. And had some other new features apparently, including something to do with priests and rituals and mirrors and stuff.

What else about the 1936 Olympics? Adolph Hitler. You know, that guy that had something to do with Nazis and camps and holocausts. His team beat the Jewish team also. (But as a people, they outlasted him in the long haul.)

So that was the minus-36 side of 1972. And now we are on the plus-36 side of 1972.

I suppose the Tibetans are feeling torched by the current Olympic hosts. What else will China 2008 bring? Will there be an anti-Israeli tie-in somehow?

Meanwhile, you ought to read this article.

As Hank the Cowdog would say, “So there you are.”

A School Bus?

Off to school they go?

Part of the caption over at Yahoo! News Photos:

Law enforcement officials escort members of The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints onto a school bus in Eldorado, Texas, Sunday, April 6, 2008. Authorities took 220 women and children from the compound.

It’s interesting to me to see that school bus there.

At least it wasn’t Waco. (Who will make the Clinton-Bush comparison on that one?)

(Latter, by the way.)

Though I disagree with Mormons (original or revised or fundamentalist versions) on plenty of issues, I am blessed to see the beautifully-dressed, modestly-dressed, femininely-dressed appearance of those girls and women. Frankly, they remind me of the “conservative” branches of “my people” — Anabaptists.

In fact, those dresses look like the kind of wife and daughter sew.

I’m Sorry

When it isn’t enough . . . .

Living I’m Sorry

I know two people, each with a parent who made a choice that severed the parent-child relationship. In one case, a father disappeared from his son’s life for a decade. In the other, a mother chose to stay with the man who was sexually abusing her daughter. All four of these people are now professing Christians, and both parents have asked for forgiveness. So these two relationships should be fine now, right?

Christians are commanded to honor our parents, after all, and further, to forgive those who trespass against us. Something I’ve learned about sin, however, having committed more than my share of it, is that it scars those around us, sometimes even cripples them. If I run over you with my car, it doesn’t matter how repentant I am — you’ll still be in that wheelchair. Likewise, if I abdicate my responsibility as a parent, though I may grieve over it in later years, my repentance doesn’t produce the trust and communion that parents and children are supposed to have. Understandably, neither of these parents is close to his child.

But there are significant differences, and as I observe these relationships unfold, I am learning something about repentance and healing. In one case . . . .

Please read the rest of the article at the link above.

It is excellent!

McCain Vulnerablized

Who would be grateful to know this?

Sen. John McCain travels the campaign trail without Secret Service protection although he is the Republican Party’s likely presidential nominee, the agency’s director told Congress on Thursday.

Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan told a House Appropriations subcommittee that the Arizona senator has not requested his agency’s services.

“Statutorily, he is not required to take protection,” Sullivan said when asked about McCain’s security during a hearing on the agency’s budget. “As far as an actual request, we have not gotten one. We have no involvement at this point.”

And why would a congressman ask the question in a reportable setting?

And why would a Secret Service guy answer it?

And why would a news organization publish it?

And why would I publish it further?

Amazing!

In my estimation, John McCain has been made more vulnerable to attack.

Not so long ago, there was a story about Obama being left unprotected.

Hmmmm!! Conspiracy alert! 😯 🙄 If you hear a talk show host or read a blogger postulate the notion that The Clinton Machine is at work in both of these instances, please let me know.

Beauty and the Beholder

I read this article in World‘s print version. I’m quite impressed by it:

Acquired taste
Beauty is more than in the eye of the beholder

Christians have to battle the mindset that insists “there are no absolutes.” But Christians often do not realize what the absolutes are that they need to defend. The classic thinkers spoke of three kinds of absolutes: the true, the good, and the beautiful.

Often, Christians reject the claims that truth and morality are relative while agreeing with the postmodernists that beauty is relative. But to think that beauty is nothing more than a subjective preference — unconnected to standards that originate in God Himself — is to buy into a foundational principle of today’s anti-Christian worldview.

The Bible tells us to set our minds on “whatever” is “excellent” and “of good report” (Philippians 4:8). Beauty does involve personal taste, but our tastes need discipline. Growing in taste means learning to take pleasure in what is objectively good.

Christianity 101: God defines that which is good. And that is absolutely so.

However, I was disappointed in what struck me as an apples-and-orangesutans comparison in the third paragraph from the end.

There is nothing wrong with an occasional indulgence in junk food, though if all you eat is sugar and French fries, you will be malnourished. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with an occasional indulgence in junk culture. But just as you need the nutrition found in a home-cooked meal, you need the cultural nutrition that comes from enjoying the best.

I submit to you that “there is nothing wrong with an occasional indulgence in junk culture” flies in the face God’s thoughts in Philippians 4:8 (which Mr. Veith even references in his third paragraph above!).

Christianity 101: “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Galatians 5:9) and “approve things that are excellent” (Philippians 1:10).

Despite that, I think you should read the entire article. (It has an interesting challenge regarding music.) Update, October 27, 2012: I see it’s now available only to subscribers; too bad.

Above all, love God!

since November 9, 2005