I’m experimenting with Dropbox, a free file sharing utility.  If you store anything in your Dropbox folder on your c: drive it will be copied to the web for access from any computer.  2GB for free, plus an extra 250 MB for signing up through that link.  Very easy to use.  Handy for sharing files with others or accessing files from remote computers.

Envision Jesus with His disciples. If you cannot picture Him teasing them and laughing with them, you need to reevaluate your understanding of the Incarnation. We need a biblical theology of humor that prepares us for an eternity of celebration and spontaneous laughter.
—Randy Alcorn, from his award-winning book “Heaven”, on whether we will laugh on the New Earth

Hat tip: David

Pro-aborts will really, really hate Pampers’ “Hello baby” iPad app.

Great piece on the 50th anniversary of The Pill by the Other McCain.  Other than the bad health side effects, the rampant increase in venereal diseases and their impact on romance and reproductive capabilities, the increased odds of marrying a loser, missing out on your most fertile years, etc., it was a terrific invention.  Read it all.

Can atheists trust the truth-detecting ability of their own minds? — Not if naturalism is true, because it prizes survival value over truth value.

Reason #87 government should not be trusted with more, let alone what it has: The DMV charges $1 extra if you mail in your registration or $3 extra for doing it online.   Sure, it is much better to drive to the DMW and wait for an hour to be treated by surly employees.  Isn’t that kinda anti-Green of the government to promote more driving?  Any remotely efficient enterprise would encourage online transactions.

Arizona native Stan on illegal immigration — this isn’t as complicated as the ill-informed open borders folks make it out to be.

Great response to the “Los Suns” (Phoenix Suns) who were pandering to the illegal alien / open borders crowd: On May 11th, everyone demand free admittance and free food at the Arizona Suns game.

How would the Arizona Suns react if everyone decided to behave like illegal aliens — and demand everything from the Suns for free.

Do the Suns enforce proper admission procedures at their basketball games?

If so, then they are racists.  They’re Nazis — according to what the illegal aliens and Leftists say.

If the Suns are enforcing their admission policies, and are requiring people to complete paperwork, stand in line, wait their turn, and produce documentation allowing them entry into the stadium, then the Suns are racists…the Suns’ management are Nazis.

How dare they refuse entry to anyone who wants to come in?

How dare they not give free food and beverages to the hungry and thirsty?

Net neutrality is a horrible idea — typical marketing spin by those trying to eliminate competition and increase government control

NYC premiere of movie exposing abortion industry canceled allegedly due to threats — Pro-choicer want the choice to kill innocent human beings but don’t want you to have the choice of what movies to watch.  Please watch this trailer — it is a great overview of the abortion industry.

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. Neil,

    Thank you for posting this trailer! I had not heard of this film. Unfortunately, I don’t think the people who need to see it will have the courage to.


  2. I think the statement by the Phoenix Suns made it very clear that they were taking a stance against the unfair treatment of Hispanic people in the state, many of whom are citizens. Simply looking foreign is enough to demand papers from someone, and that’s not fair.

    Interestingly, the statement came from an immigrant himself (a guy who I played against in high school, by the way), Steve Nash, who, I’m sure would never be asked for papers no matter what situation he might find himself in.


      1. You really don’t think they will profile?

        Even if enforced without profiling, this law will prevent people who are illegal, or are worried about being perceived as illegal, from reporting crime, and acting as witnesses.

        National police groups have condemned the law on these grounds. It is very important for the police to gain the trust of all law abiding people in a community.


      2. > “You really don’t think they will profile?”

        That is irrelevant. They could profile with or without the new law.

        > “Even if enforced without profiling, this law will prevent people > who are illegal, or are worried about being perceived as illegal, > from reporting crime, and acting as witnesses.”

        Please think carefully about what you just said. I’m supposed to be worried that lawbreakers won’t turn in lawbreakers?

        If you have proper ID you don’t have to worry about misperceptions. >

        Sent from my iPhone


      3. Yes, they can profiles with and without the law. But the law makes them feel better about it.

        Police need to spend their time enforcing the rules they are paid to enforce. There are tons of “laws” that police do not enforce, and that is because enforcing other laws that do not involve the safety of the public are not in their domain, and are a detriment to their job.

        Perhaps we should also have the police measure the distance from your house to the curb to make sure you are within regulated municipal offset guidelines. Or maybe they should ensure everyone at a stop sign has paid their income tax.

        Giving the police free reign to monitor activities not directly related to public safety is a step towards a police state, and I don’t think you want that.


      4. Gibberish. You are speculating on the motives of the police. Pathetic.

        These are serious violations of the law. Go to any other country without paperwork and demand free food, clothes and education then get back to me.

        Sent from my iPhone


      5. Perhaps we should also have the police measure the distance from your house to the curb to make sure you are within regulated municipal offset guidelines. Or maybe they should ensure everyone at a stop sign has paid their income tax.

        Bad examples. The zoning commission, not the police, have the authority over that; it’s a civil, not a criminal, matter.

        Likewise, the police CONSTITUTIONALLY need a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before investigating for possible harm. Even if the police had the authority to detain people for not filing income taxes (since that is committed to another branch of government), they would need a reasonable suspicion that the particular motorist had not paid.

        Under the Arizona law, the police need a reasonable suspicion that the person is not here legally. Now, imagine this: the police stop a car after it engages in a hit-and-run, find out that the driver does not have a driver’s license for the state, lacks a permanent address, and is driving a car that is registered to another human being. Prior to this law, the police were legally prohibited from investigating whether or not that person is legally in the country. The Arizona law does not allow the police to stop people on the street, in a coffee shop, or in their homes, and ask for papers; it only enables them to do it when it becomes pretty obvious that the person is here illegally.

        It’s not racial profiling; it’s common sense.


      6. Opposition to this law is silly and political correct racism and profiling itself: Deliberately not enforcing laws because of the skin color of the criminals.


  3. The one problem that I have with Randy Alcorn’s statement is that laughter is the ONE emotion never recorded of Christ. It’s left out for a reason. I have no idea why, but we have to stretch our imaginations to get to Alcorn’s point. When you start making statements like Alcorn’s, saying we need a biblical theology of laughter, it sounds innocent and all. But there is untold damage that can be done by doing so.

    i.e. If you don’t think that Jesus dated some of the hot mammas he healed and forgave, then you don’t understand the incarnation. We need a biblical theology of dating… blah, blah, blah.

    The Bible doesn’t record either, and it’s best to leave the subject alone.


    1. Timothy,

      You bring up a good point. I don’t think we can say Jesus NEVER laughed, because the Gospels don’t definitively say so either way, but I read a commentary on this issue not too long ago. The author (and I wish I could remember who it was – it MIGHT have been John Macarthur, but I’m just not sure) pointed out that the ONLY time we see God laughing in the Bible is when He is mocking the proud in the Old Testament. It is a derisive, dismissive laughter – scorning the evil for thinking they are something they are not.

      He furthermore said that it is incongruous for laughter/humor to have been part of Christ’s ministry, because of the tremendous burden He had for the lost all around Him. Continuously, people were dying and going to hell (and still are). He was saying that the gravity of Christ’s ministry, death and resurrection would have precluded much, if any, laughter and joking – it would have been like laughing at a funeral. If I can find that source, I’ll post it.

      I’m not taking sides either way or saying Jesus, by necessity, was somber all the time (I’d personally find that somewhat doubtful, because children were drawn to Him and he was always others-centered), but we do have to be careful not to read something into the Bible that is not there. I am sure there will be much laughter and spontaneous joy in heaven, however.


      1. I find myself in agreement with Timothy here. Not that I think Jesus never laughed, although for the reasons Marie stated it would not be terribly surprising to learn that he did not. My concern with this trek is that it does not counter the spirit of this age of man-centering seemingly everything, i.e., Jesus is just alright with me, Jesus Christ Superstar, The Shack, and most emergent church thinking.

        Furthermore, laughter, something I love and cherish, and is indeed medicine to my soul, could quite possibly become obsolete, or make no sense in heaven. Because It is impossible for us to comprehend the extent to which sin has soiled our existence, to then project aspects of that soiled and sin stained existence into the heavenly realm in order to make a Holy and Righteous God more palatable to a fallen world seems a little misguided to me for some reason. The real draw ought to be through the revelation of our condemned, helpless, and hopeless condition; not, incidentally, at all a laughing matter considering the ultimate stakes of that condition, and to our only Hope. Not a real draw I’m sure, at least not in man’s limited ability to reason through God’s plan, but still it is the narrow path God made available, a path to which all the watering down and sweetening up in the world will not add one inch.

        Having written this I hope I am not seen as anti-laughter and such, for the opposite is true. I am simply agreeing with Timothy that anytime we begin to project attributes onto Jesus about which scripture is silent, this is probably a hazardous road to tread.


      2. Dan and Marie,
        I wrote a blog post on this that will appear on Monday, which echoes points that you two brought up. The weight of His ministry was truly heavy for Him, and He was seeking to do God’s will at all times, therefore, not free to be carefree, so to speak.


  4. The article on the anniversary of The Pill by The Other McCain was superb! The propaganda provided to women at most colleges is long on how frequent, casual sex is empowering to women and short on facts about the long term effects to their reproductive health. The decision to make personal sexual freedom a higher priority than long term reproductive health is obscene. Politics triumphs health.

    I have always felt that both men and women are being shortchanged by the rise in the hook-up culture. “Friends with benefits” jumps singles directly to the end point of growing a relationship (sex) without any taking the time on the intermediate steps. But when you want to settle down with someone, it is those intermediate steps that grow and nurture a relationship and make it last. When they are ready for a long term relationship they lack the skills to sustain it. Sad.


    1. Additionally, the untold emotional harm from letting men treat you that way is nothing short of devastating. (I know how bad it is to only be asked if I would allow myself to be treated like dirt; I have no desire to figure out what it’s like to actually go along with that plan.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s