I saw this news earlier today, and it shocked and saddened me. Abortion provider George Tiller has been murdered by a man whose motive at this time was unknown.
Let me be absolutely clear: I do not agree with abortion, except for extreme emergencies to say the life of the mother. Dr. Tiller's regular practice was disappointing to me.
Let me be absolutely clear, again: I wholeheartedly condemn this murder. I may disagree with Dr. Tiller's actions, but killing someone for that reason is as evil as killing an unborn child. No human being has the right to take the life of another. Even the state, which has the power of capital punishment, has limits in executing that power.
This event is a sad day in our nation, a day that shows how irrational we have become as a society. Instead of using appropriate means to prevent the travesty of abortion, we see some maverick foolishly engage in the travesty of murder. No justifiable reason can be given for such a heinous act.
I am concerned, too, about the backlash that could occur as a result of this tragedy. I can see people who are pro-life being mocked or looked on with distrust after this. And I have to wonder: it is possible that anyone who holds a pro-life position could begin to be consider a "domestic terrorist" and that those who engage in making pro-life statements will be considered guilty of "hate speech?" I don't think that will happen, but given the current political climate, I guess anything is possible.
For now, please be in prayer for the Tiller family as it mourns and for America as a whole as we seem to be careening down the dangerous path to moral anarchy.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
No Excuses...I Forgot
I was supposed to post something yesterday. I didn't. I don't have a good reason, and I'm not going to try to make any excuses. I forgot.
I had a good idea about what I wanted to post my blog. Unfortunately, I forgot it.
I keep meaning to plug up the empty carpenter bee nests that in the roof over my back deck. I keep forgetting.
There's a story that is halfway edited, and once it's done I'll start posting. I said to myself yesterday that I needed to edit it. I forgot.
It may be that there was a time in my life that I could remember everything without writing it down. If there was a such a time, I've forgotten it.
There's a theme to this entire post, but, like everything else, I forgot. :-)
I had a good idea about what I wanted to post my blog. Unfortunately, I forgot it.
I keep meaning to plug up the empty carpenter bee nests that in the roof over my back deck. I keep forgetting.
There's a story that is halfway edited, and once it's done I'll start posting. I said to myself yesterday that I needed to edit it. I forgot.
It may be that there was a time in my life that I could remember everything without writing it down. If there was a such a time, I've forgotten it.
There's a theme to this entire post, but, like everything else, I forgot. :-)
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Remembering Those Who Served
As tomorrow is Memorial Day, I thought I would make a brief post mentioning those in my immediate family who served to protect this country and to secure the freedoms that we now enjoy. My ancestors came from Germany (and Scotland) to seek out a better life and greater freedom in this land, and their descendants served honorably in securing those freedoms.
My uncle Wayne served in the military during the Korean War in a support role, ensuring that the soldiers were able to fight with fewer distractions. He retired from the military and lived a quiet life in Colby, KS, until his death a few years ago.
My maternal grandfather, Marion, served as a cargo pilot during World War II, transporting prisoners, troops, and goods to different places throughout the Pacific Theater. After the war, he returned home and eventually became a pilot trainer and pilot for one of the aircraft companies in Wichita. He died many years ago, and is buried in Wichita, along with my maternal grandmother.
These heroes in my family tree may never have had to endure the horrors of combat, but I know that without them, the brave men who fought to provide me with the freedoms I enjoy today would not have been able to do their jobs as well as they did. Thanks be to God for their years of sacrifice and service.
My uncle Wayne served in the military during the Korean War in a support role, ensuring that the soldiers were able to fight with fewer distractions. He retired from the military and lived a quiet life in Colby, KS, until his death a few years ago.
My maternal grandfather, Marion, served as a cargo pilot during World War II, transporting prisoners, troops, and goods to different places throughout the Pacific Theater. After the war, he returned home and eventually became a pilot trainer and pilot for one of the aircraft companies in Wichita. He died many years ago, and is buried in Wichita, along with my maternal grandmother.
These heroes in my family tree may never have had to endure the horrors of combat, but I know that without them, the brave men who fought to provide me with the freedoms I enjoy today would not have been able to do their jobs as well as they did. Thanks be to God for their years of sacrifice and service.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Thoughts on News
A story caught my attention this morning. It appears that a mother has run off with her son to avoid being forced to allow him to undergo chemotherapy. As odd as it sounds, it appears that the courts have ordered that this boy undergo chemotherapy, something that is apparently against the (slightly unusual) religious beliefs of the mother.
This story raises some interesting questions that I can't fully answer. Where is the line between protecting children from abuse/neglect and the government meddling in the family's personal affairs? Is it right (ethical) for the government to be involved in this family's personal business in this way? Is it right (ethical) for the government to be involved in family affairs, ever? (I think the answer to this last one is "Yes," but I'm having trouble figuring out where its limitations should be.)
While I think it is a bit silly for the mother to refuse her son treatment, it seems to me that the actions taken by the authorities are more likely to make the mother want to continue to run. Issuing an arrest warrant for her and holding her in contempt of court are not actions that would give her motivation to return home or turn herself in. Logically, she's going to see running as her only viable option, since not only will she see her son undergo something that she (I think incorrectly) believes is wrong but she will also have to endure legal penalties for running in the first place. It's a double-lose situation for her. I don't agree with her decision, but I do see that the course taken by the government is more likely to cause harm than good.
As I read through the story, it also seems to me that the government took incredibly strong action in rapid succession. The family refuses to continue chemotherapy, so the government steps in and tries to take custody of the child. That seems a bit authoritarian to me. And it seems to be a bit of dangerous precedent. What's to stop authorities from deciding (say, 40 years from now) that teaching children to believe in Jesus is abuse. Based on this set of court actions, it would appear that it would be legal (not ethical, mind you, but legal) for the court to take the children away from their parents.
That scenario is not likely to happen, I know. I'm considering an extreme case to try to help myself get a solid, logical grasp on where the boundaries should be between the social spheres of government and family. And all I'm left with right now is the same unanswered questions that I posed near the start of this post. I'm going to have to think this one through some more.
This story raises some interesting questions that I can't fully answer. Where is the line between protecting children from abuse/neglect and the government meddling in the family's personal affairs? Is it right (ethical) for the government to be involved in this family's personal business in this way? Is it right (ethical) for the government to be involved in family affairs, ever? (I think the answer to this last one is "Yes," but I'm having trouble figuring out where its limitations should be.)
While I think it is a bit silly for the mother to refuse her son treatment, it seems to me that the actions taken by the authorities are more likely to make the mother want to continue to run. Issuing an arrest warrant for her and holding her in contempt of court are not actions that would give her motivation to return home or turn herself in. Logically, she's going to see running as her only viable option, since not only will she see her son undergo something that she (I think incorrectly) believes is wrong but she will also have to endure legal penalties for running in the first place. It's a double-lose situation for her. I don't agree with her decision, but I do see that the course taken by the government is more likely to cause harm than good.
As I read through the story, it also seems to me that the government took incredibly strong action in rapid succession. The family refuses to continue chemotherapy, so the government steps in and tries to take custody of the child. That seems a bit authoritarian to me. And it seems to be a bit of dangerous precedent. What's to stop authorities from deciding (say, 40 years from now) that teaching children to believe in Jesus is abuse. Based on this set of court actions, it would appear that it would be legal (not ethical, mind you, but legal) for the court to take the children away from their parents.
That scenario is not likely to happen, I know. I'm considering an extreme case to try to help myself get a solid, logical grasp on where the boundaries should be between the social spheres of government and family. And all I'm left with right now is the same unanswered questions that I posed near the start of this post. I'm going to have to think this one through some more.
Monday, May 18, 2009
On Week Left
So, I forgot to post yesterday. Yeah. I was just a little tired and distracted thanks to the end-of-the-year rush. Anyway...
There's a week of school left, a little less, actually. I have three days of Finals to give and grade, and then one work day before the real work begins of summer. I've already talked about all that teachers do over the summer, so I can't decide if I'm looking forward to it or not. It will be a welcome break to have a more flexible schedule, but I know that I will be ready (at least psychologically) for school to begin again in August.
There's a week of school left, a little less, actually. I have three days of Finals to give and grade, and then one work day before the real work begins of summer. I've already talked about all that teachers do over the summer, so I can't decide if I'm looking forward to it or not. It will be a welcome break to have a more flexible schedule, but I know that I will be ready (at least psychologically) for school to begin again in August.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
High School Soccer Rules Thoughts
I just read through the rule changes to high school soccer for next year. As a referee and coach of high school soccer, I need to be a little bit careful about what I say about the rules, since it will be my job to comply with these rules once the season begins.
I am fascinated (and a bit annoyed, sometimes) by the different rules for high school.
Here are some examples of the differences between NFHS (high school) and FIFA (everywhere else) rules.
In NFHS, the clock counts down. It is stopped by the referee for goals, yellow & red cards, and penalty kicks. When the clock reaches 0:00, the half is over, and no time is added. In FIFA, the clock counts up and runs continuously. Time is added at the end of each half to allow for time lost due to goals, yellow & red cards, penalty kicks, and any other stoppage of play.
In NFHS, the home team must wear white jerseys and white socks and the away team must wear non-white jerseys and non-white socks. In FIFA, the home team can wear whatever color they wish, provided that it does not match the color of the away team. In the event of two teams in similar colors, the home team changes.
In NFHS, a throw-in that does not enter the field of play is illegal and the ball is given to the other team. In FIFA, a throw-in that does not enter the field of play is still a dead ball, and the ball is re-thrown.
In NFHS, a player receiving two yellow cards is shown a yellow-red card and is unable to play for the remainder of the game. He may be replaced. In FIFA, a player receiving two yellow cards is shown a red card an is unable to play for the remainder of the game. His team plays a man down for the rest of the game.
In NFHS, substitutions are open and unlimited. That is, players may be substituted in and out as often as the coach wishes. In FIFA, substitutions are closed and limited. That is, a player may not re-enter the game once leaving, and each team may make a maximum of 3 substitutions. (I should note, however, that FIFA allows the substitution rules to be modified for youth games.)
In NFHS, the referee is required to give a signal to indicate the type of foul called in addition to indicating the direction of the kick and whether the kick is direct or indirect. The signals, some of them a bit bizarre looking, are shown in this PDF document. In FIFA rules, the only required signals are the direction of the kick and whether the kick is direct or indirect.
In NFHS, at least 2 ball handlers placed out of the field are required in order to keep play moving. In FIFA, no such requirement exists.
In NFHS, if play is stopped for an injured player and one team is in possession of the ball, play is restarted with an indirect free kick for that team. In FIFA, if play is stopped for an injured player, play is restarted with a dropped ball.
Now, these differences might seem minor. Stopping the clock and adding time, for instance, have functionally the same effect. The effect of this difference, however, lies in who controls the game. In FIFA rules, the referee is in control. In high school rules, he is a slave to the clock. In my experience, I have seen this rule difference cause a team to be denied a goal because they took a shot less than a second after the time expired, creating the need for an overtime period when the game could have already ended. In other words, the quality of the game was detrimentally affected.
I would love to see the NFHS revise its rule book to bring the high school game more in line with the rest of the soccer world. Since that is unlikely to happen, however, I will just have to live with the differences, whatever I think of them.
I am fascinated (and a bit annoyed, sometimes) by the different rules for high school.
Here are some examples of the differences between NFHS (high school) and FIFA (everywhere else) rules.
In NFHS, the clock counts down. It is stopped by the referee for goals, yellow & red cards, and penalty kicks. When the clock reaches 0:00, the half is over, and no time is added. In FIFA, the clock counts up and runs continuously. Time is added at the end of each half to allow for time lost due to goals, yellow & red cards, penalty kicks, and any other stoppage of play.
In NFHS, the home team must wear white jerseys and white socks and the away team must wear non-white jerseys and non-white socks. In FIFA, the home team can wear whatever color they wish, provided that it does not match the color of the away team. In the event of two teams in similar colors, the home team changes.
In NFHS, a throw-in that does not enter the field of play is illegal and the ball is given to the other team. In FIFA, a throw-in that does not enter the field of play is still a dead ball, and the ball is re-thrown.
In NFHS, a player receiving two yellow cards is shown a yellow-red card and is unable to play for the remainder of the game. He may be replaced. In FIFA, a player receiving two yellow cards is shown a red card an is unable to play for the remainder of the game. His team plays a man down for the rest of the game.
In NFHS, substitutions are open and unlimited. That is, players may be substituted in and out as often as the coach wishes. In FIFA, substitutions are closed and limited. That is, a player may not re-enter the game once leaving, and each team may make a maximum of 3 substitutions. (I should note, however, that FIFA allows the substitution rules to be modified for youth games.)
In NFHS, the referee is required to give a signal to indicate the type of foul called in addition to indicating the direction of the kick and whether the kick is direct or indirect. The signals, some of them a bit bizarre looking, are shown in this PDF document. In FIFA rules, the only required signals are the direction of the kick and whether the kick is direct or indirect.
In NFHS, at least 2 ball handlers placed out of the field are required in order to keep play moving. In FIFA, no such requirement exists.
In NFHS, if play is stopped for an injured player and one team is in possession of the ball, play is restarted with an indirect free kick for that team. In FIFA, if play is stopped for an injured player, play is restarted with a dropped ball.
Now, these differences might seem minor. Stopping the clock and adding time, for instance, have functionally the same effect. The effect of this difference, however, lies in who controls the game. In FIFA rules, the referee is in control. In high school rules, he is a slave to the clock. In my experience, I have seen this rule difference cause a team to be denied a goal because they took a shot less than a second after the time expired, creating the need for an overtime period when the game could have already ended. In other words, the quality of the game was detrimentally affected.
I would love to see the NFHS revise its rule book to bring the high school game more in line with the rest of the soccer world. Since that is unlikely to happen, however, I will just have to live with the differences, whatever I think of them.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Summer Approaches
This school year is on notice: there are two weeks left before the grand chaos of activity that is summer begins! Now, most of you who are reading this know that I am a teacher and perhaps can't quite bring yourself to see how my summer could be a chaos of activity. After all, don't teachers have the summer off?
The myth of teachers having the summer "off," like the myth that single people have more time, is far too common. Somehow, people think that because teachers don't have students, we aren't working. I can easily dispel the myth of summers off by simple observation. I'm going to spend half of my summer at school, preparing for the coming school year. When I'm not planning for next year, I'm going to be work on graduate classes, and in my spare time, I'll be working on personal projects and taking a mission trip to Romania. It all adds up to a summer that will be just as busy as the school year, if not possibly busier.
So, my summer is not going to be a summer "off," a summer of sleeping in and relaxing and not accomplishing anything useful. Far from it. I'll be working just as hard as the next man in the summer, perhaps harder. So, enjoy your summer and the relaxation that will come with it. I'll be busy living out proof that teachers do not have summer off.
The myth of teachers having the summer "off," like the myth that single people have more time, is far too common. Somehow, people think that because teachers don't have students, we aren't working. I can easily dispel the myth of summers off by simple observation. I'm going to spend half of my summer at school, preparing for the coming school year. When I'm not planning for next year, I'm going to be work on graduate classes, and in my spare time, I'll be working on personal projects and taking a mission trip to Romania. It all adds up to a summer that will be just as busy as the school year, if not possibly busier.
So, my summer is not going to be a summer "off," a summer of sleeping in and relaxing and not accomplishing anything useful. Far from it. I'll be working just as hard as the next man in the summer, perhaps harder. So, enjoy your summer and the relaxation that will come with it. I'll be busy living out proof that teachers do not have summer off.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Last Caspian Quiz
Because I won't be posting on Wednesday, here are today's post and Wednesday post in one massive bundle. This is the last quiz that relates to the differences between Prince Caspian the book and Prince Caspian the movie. I hope you've enjoyed the quizzes. If not, then they're gone after this post.
85. Why do the Pevensies go through the door? (Choose as many as apply)
A. They are fleeing angry Telmarines
B. It’s time for them to return home
C. They see their mom and dad on the other side
D. To show the Telmarines that it’s safe to go through the door
86. What happens as the Pevensies say goodbye to the Narnians?
A. The wave goodbye and wish everyone good luck
B. The sing a farewell song to the different Narnians, recounting the deeds of each
C. They say farewell to the different Narnian animals, then to Trumpkin, and finally Caspian offers Susan her horn back. She tells him to keep it.
D. Peter gives Caspian his sword, Susan points out that she and Peter won’t be returning, Lucy hugs Trumpkin, and then Susan and Caspian *snog!*
87. How do the Pevensies wind up back in their original clothes?
A. They quickly change in the train depot’s washroom after returning
B. The change into them before the go through the doorway
C. They magically are wearing them when they arrive on the train platform again
D. They don’t
88. What do the Pevensies see when they walk through the door? (Choose all that apply)
A. The train platform
B. The Narnians
C. The island of Telmar
D. The director
89. Where is the train platform located?
A. We don’t have any idea
B. In a city
C. In the country
D. Beside a river
90. Where is Edmund when he realizes that he left his new torch (flashlight) in Narnia?
A. On the train
B. In the bathroom
C. At school
D. On the train platform
85. Why do the Pevensies go through the door? (Choose as many as apply)
A. They are fleeing angry Telmarines
B. It’s time for them to return home
C. They see their mom and dad on the other side
D. To show the Telmarines that it’s safe to go through the door
86. What happens as the Pevensies say goodbye to the Narnians?
A. The wave goodbye and wish everyone good luck
B. The sing a farewell song to the different Narnians, recounting the deeds of each
C. They say farewell to the different Narnian animals, then to Trumpkin, and finally Caspian offers Susan her horn back. She tells him to keep it.
D. Peter gives Caspian his sword, Susan points out that she and Peter won’t be returning, Lucy hugs Trumpkin, and then Susan and Caspian *snog!*
87. How do the Pevensies wind up back in their original clothes?
A. They quickly change in the train depot’s washroom after returning
B. The change into them before the go through the doorway
C. They magically are wearing them when they arrive on the train platform again
D. They don’t
88. What do the Pevensies see when they walk through the door? (Choose all that apply)
A. The train platform
B. The Narnians
C. The island of Telmar
D. The director
89. Where is the train platform located?
A. We don’t have any idea
B. In a city
C. In the country
D. Beside a river
90. Where is Edmund when he realizes that he left his new torch (flashlight) in Narnia?
A. On the train
B. In the bathroom
C. At school
D. On the train platform
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)