Pee wee herman and anti bush dude

dont you hate it when you write a whole blog and you try to post it, and it all gets lost!

so anyways, i was talking about peewee herman...

i was in ottawa this past week, at Carleton University and the protesters had a table trying to recruit people to join their noble cause. As i was walking through the hall this one guy put a flyer in my hand and told me to join them. i responded by saying that i liked George W. he responded by saying, " Well he doesn't like you!". I shruged it off and went on with my day.

Later that same day i walked by their booth again, and the same guy tried to recruit me. I responded by saying that i would rather shake Bush's hand than protest him. He responed by saying, "Yah, but he doesnt want to shake your hand!"

this brings me back to peewee herman. see, peewee used to love saying "i know you are but what am i?"

childish responses like what i recieved from that anti-bush dude, and "i know you are but what am i?" belong on peewee's playhouse.

now i am sure that there are many intellegent people involved with the anti-bush stuff, but a word of advice if any are reading... maybe next time pick a different person to recruit for your cause... anti-bush dude and peewee herman arent the best prepresentatives of your cause

im jamie strickland

We better be nice to our mothers!!!

So Scott Peterson was found guilty of 1st degree murder of his wife, and 2nd degree murder of his unborn son.
Did everyone hear that, or am I the only one who caught that? He was found guilty of murder for the unborn child that his wife was carrying! I see this as one of the biggest precedent cases for the abortion issue that there is.
According to Courttv.com, “at that time of death the fetus had a gestational age of 33 weeks and one day, almost seven weeks short of full development.”*
So, let’s ask the question. If on the same day Laci Peterson and unborn child were killed, a woman, with an unborn child with the same gestational age as Laci Peterson’s child, had walked into a clinic and had an abortion that would have been legal. But, when Scott Peterson ends the life of his unborn child, he gets 2nd degree murder. In one case, we say that the unborn child’s life is protectably human, and give the murderer 2nd degree murder, but in the other case, the person who ends the babies life gets paid for a days work.
What is the difference you ask? The mother’s choice. In one case the mother didn’t choose to have her unborn child killed, and in the other case, she did choose to have her unborn child killed.
This is quite odd to me, that this is the difference. With logic like this, it should be perfectly legal for Lois Strickland (my mother), to kill me, and to claim that this was her choice, so it is okay.
So when someone claims to be pro-choice, to me what they are saying is that it should be the mother’s choice whether the baby should live or not live. It doesn’t matter whether the baby is in the mother’s womb or not. This Scott Peterson trial proved that even if the baby is in the mother’s womb, it is still a life that deserves to be protected by the law.
I guess we should all be a little nicer to our mothers now, eh?

* http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/092204_ctv.html

Lets lay our cards on the Table!!

It seems like everyone around me is talking about absolute truth. I was once taught to call it objective truth... something about the way it comes across. I can see that. But I'm an old dog. I can't learn a new trick, can I? Its like Christmas Conference. Everyone tells me to call it Winter Conference, but I am so used to calling it Christmas Conference... anyways, thats basically a pointless rant.

Objective truth... I believe it. I also apreciate guys like Graydon, of the I agree with Graydon campaign at Guelph. Now theres a guy who makes no bones about what he beleives. Some Christians would rather disguise our beliefs in order not to offend anyone. I'm more along the lines with Graydon... lets lay our cards on the table.

I also had an interesting meeting with the staff guy, and student leader from another supposedly evangelical christian group @ Guelph. If you want to know about it just ask... I was disappointed to say the very least.

Preach on Larry King!!

As i am watching the CNN's coverage for the Presidental election, I ran across an good future sermon illistration for absolute truth. A Panel from CNN, including Larry King was interviewing at the same time the Chairman for both the Republican national convention, and the Democratic national convention. As the panel asked them questions, and asked them if they were worried about anything. the republican said, " no, im not worried, we are already doing well in ... blah, blah, blag...looks like we will win again" and then the Democrat resonded by saying, "no, im not worried either, voter turnout is up this year, which is a good sign for us, blah, blah, blah, so it looks like Kerry will be the new president". Larry King responded by saying, "Well, both of you are saying that your candidate will win, and they both cant win, so one of you has to be wrong!"

It just occured to me then that it seems so obvious that if 2 things contradict each other, they both cant be true. yet in our society, if you claim that there are absoulte truths, people will say that is arrogant. I dont get it....

All i have to say is preach on Larry King...

I agree with graydon, dave, and byron

well, it has been a while, but here it is....

after many long days of planning and making sure these events would happen, the I agree with campaigns are finally upon us. the tshirts have arrived, the posters are now up, and the campuses are a buzz!

and many people hate it!

its funny, i knew that many people on campus would not like a bunch of posters and banners,etc, asking them if they agree or dont agree with a Christians beleifs, but some of the responses still surprise me.

Like so many people attacking byron and graydon and dave personally. that shows a real lack of maturity. i mean just because you dont agree with someone doesnt mean you attack them personally. this is how many wars started in the past. and it is funny, because this is the exact thing these same people are accusing CCC of.... not respecting other peoples beliefs!

the whole idea of the campaign is to get people on campus to decide whether or not they agree with a Christian's (dave, graydon, or byron) beliefs. from there, we hope to start discussion on campus about it. but unfortuanatly, the same people who are accusing us of not respecting other peoples personal opinions are making personal attacks at graydon, dave and byron.

its sad to me that people just dont see that they think they are fighting for religious tolerence, when in reality they are fighting for, "people can beleive what they want, unless it is Christian".

for me this is both discouraging and encouraging. it is discouraging, because it makes it so hard to talk with people who have so many pre-concieved notions about what Christianity is, and wont give it a fair hearing. It is encouraging though, in the sense that Jesus himself said that this sort of stuff would happen. "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved" Mark 13:13. so while all these Graydon, dave and Byron haters are trying to prove a point.. they are... they are proving that what Jesus said is true, and ironically proving the exact thing they are fighting against!!!

God is so cool when he does stuff like that. Using something that people meant for evil for good.

I love it!

3 or 4 blogs for the price of 1!!

Tonight, watching the Republican National Convention, there was a section dedicated to the familes of victims of 9/11. One women talked about her husband who died that day at the hands of the terrorists, and also mentioned that she was now giving her son to her country to fight in the War against Iraq. This got me thinking. That women said that she was willing to lend her son to her country, knowing full well that there is a chance that her son will not return to her. In essense , she has thought it would be tragic, but worth it for her son do die for her country.

This got me thinking about one of the major differences between Canada and the United States. There are very few of us north of the border that are willing to die for our country. Why is that? There are probably many reasons why people will sign up for military service in the U.S., but not here, so I will list a few ideas:

1. In the U.S. there are far greater incentives to join the military. Many of them will have school fully paid for, and in a country where Post-secondary education is so expensive, this must be a very attractive offer. Here, there are not the same bonuses for joining war.

2. In the U.S., the military is avery noble and honourable service. The military is looked upon as the countries heros. In Canada, the military is mostly regarded as a joke, will little more than water guns, and out-of-date equipment.

3. The reason I believe to be the biggest however, is that there is great pride in the U.S. that is not evident in Canada. Some people may say there is great Canadian pride, but besides rallying around our beloved hockey team, I see little evidence of it. The U.S. believes that it has something great to offer the world, democracy. I don't think that Canada here in Canada we want to be known as democratic. I don't think we want to be known as much, besides the occasional inspiring beer comercial and hockey. It seems that these are the only things we can rally around. Is beer and hockey worth dying for?? Some may joke and say yes, but I would like to see them do the same with a gn pointed to their head. But for many americans, they absolutly believe that democracy is worth dying for.

For me, I don't know if I would die for democracy. Is it a noble enough cause to die for. I think it would be easier for me to consider dying to end some sort of tyranny (like Hitler, Stalin, or even Saddam). Is dying to stop this kind of tyranny just the reeverse of dying to further the cause of democracy? I'm not sure.

I know that there is one thing worth dying for though. I absolutely agree with the apostle Paul in saying, "To live is Christ and to die is gain". There is nothing that is even close to being as important as the cause of Christ. You can fight to end the reign of Hitler, and save many lives here on earth, but if they are still dead spiritually, in the whole scheme of things how much has been gained? I'm sure that I would rather die a martyr for Christ in some village where they have never heard the gospel, than to die ending the reign of a dictator. Both deaths are honourable, there is no question there, but saving a person's eternal soul is far more important than saving someones temporary life on this earth.

Well, I probably could have written about 3-4 separate blogs about the stuff I covered in this one, but one thing just seem to lead to another.

Let me know what you think on any of these issues...

kidcube??

so we just invested in a kidcube (aka nintendo gamecube). vanessa really wanted it, and that was the major factor in the purchase. but i also purchased it for these reasons:

1. i figured it would give us something to do as a couple. she doesnt really enjoy many xbox games, and gamecube has a lot of multiplayer games that we can play together. its more social that just sitting and watching tv!

2. some of the mario-type games are pretty fun. my dear friend steve got a degree at strickland university in mario tennis. we loved playing that for the 64, and so there are many mario type games that are just as fun for the cube, with better graphics

3. it was only 40 bucks. there is a deal at eb games where if you trade in 5 xbox, or ps2 games, you get 100 bucks off the system. so i traded in 4 games i never play anymore, and fifa 2003. the only reason i parted with fifa 2003 is because fifa 2005 is coming out in sept, so i now i have an excuse to get it!

4. there are a few star wars games that only came out for the kidcube, so now i can play them

all in all im happy for those reasons, plus the main reason, that vanessa is happy :)

Christians and politics

heres a touchy one for sure. how should a Christian vote?? is there one right why? (no pun intended). again, i am not going to claim to have a ultimate answer, but here are some thoughts...

why do Christians vote right-wing (ie conservative or republican). many would vote this way because of their stance on social issues, like gay marraige, and abortion, etc. we clearly know that God does not want gay marriage and abortion, so they vote for these parties who will hopefully stop them from happening.

why do some Christians vote left wing? probably because they would tend to take care of the poor better, single mothers, and all these other groups that need help. a left wing party is way more likely to support these people, the same people that Jesus sought to help when he was on the earth.

then there are other, non-Christian reasons for voting a certain way...ie the specific candidate in your riding, whether you value less taxes or more programs, etc.

but based on the 'Christian' reasons, i will tell you why i am a crusty old right-wing type of dude. i believe that it is more important for the government to fight agiants abortion and gay marriage, etc, than it is for them to spend more money on programs. i am not saying that the programs are bad... but when i have to choose between the two, i value the social issues more than the programs. my reasoning is this... i think that taking care of the poor, the single mothers, etc is something more for the church to do than the government. (church being churches, Christian organizations, and individual Christians). i know that in a lot of cases this is not happening, so there is a place for govt. programs. but also keep in mind, even the conservatives have programs. not as many, but they still have programs.

another thing is that left wing parties not only do not try to stop abortion, and gay marriage, but they advocate them. so not only are they not doing something that i want them to, but they are doing exactly what i dont want them to. at least with the whole programs thing, right-wing parties do make an effort to help, but just dont do as much as lefties.

now that i have rambled on (get used to it, i just ramble, i am not looking for a published work here, but just to say a few things of the top of my head about issues, some big, some small), when it all comes down to it, i dont think that there is any one way that a Christian should absolutely vote. as long as they are voting according to their conscience, and what they beleive, go for it. although i do beleive that we will be held accountable before God for everything, so dont just go out and vote for the marijuana party or anything....

canada in athens

why does canada suck at the olympics?? is it because of funding? probably has a lot to do with it. if athletes were given more money though, would that take away from the innocence of the non-professional idea of the whole thing? but then again, our beloved 2002 olympic gold hockey team were all professionals. i dont know the official rule about professionals in the olympics, maybe i should find out. or maybe someone reading knows the answer and could let me know. obviously there are no professionals in certain competitions. like shot put. is there a professional tour going from city to city for shot put? like 50,000 people fill the skydome and watch a shot put compitition with the grand prize 1,000,000? i dont think so. but if athletes, say, were paid by the government, say like 40,000 per year to do their event, so they dont have to work at the grocery store in addition to their training, that would definatly help. but then they would be paid solely to train for their events, and therefore it would be their profession, thereby making them professionals. and alas we are back at the begining of the loop. so i guess it is not necessarily lack of funding that hurts our athletes. somebody please tell me... why do we stink?