Cheap Shots Holiday Edition

Most of these will have absolutely nothing to do with "the holidays."

• Y'all know about Canada? That country north of here we all pretend to like, but as soon as they're out of earshot we immediately go back to assessing how fantastically irrelevent they are? Yeah, well, their Prime Minister is awesome--the lone voice of sanity in a sea of diplomatic posturing. See why here. Soundbite: Stephen. Harper. Is. My. Hero.
• Youth Specialties gets noticed by CBS. Last time a packed Christian event was in the mainstream media news (reference GodMen in the previous Cheap Shots), it wasn't so pretty, and it looks like another comment war arose at CBS. The chase: To my fellow Christians: will the real apologist please stand up; the rest of you, just shut up--it's kinda embarrassing.
• ThinkChristian has an interesting letter from God about the "War on Christmas." Fascinatingly, the author apparently wasn't quite as inspired as St. Paul. Otherwise, he may have known that putting Christmas in place of a pagan holiday is one of many theories about the date's origin. For next time: Wikipedia is your friend.
• The bookstore at which I am employed sold a book to Anne Rice. Yes, that Anne Rice. But, in case you don't know, she is now this Anne Rice. For the gossip page of People: she ordered a 1908 edition of the classic Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ.
• It is now 2:30 AM on Friday, December 22nd which means the Uganda mission team is on their way home. So far as I've heard, there have been no deaths, Tanner (unfortunately) is not returning with tribal tattoos and extended ears and 'Dra did not get to adopt her foreign child.

This concludes this edition of Cheap Shots. Tune in next time (whenever that is) to find out about the things you already learned from the local news channel.

Miscommunication in Tips

I was at Starbucks today and left a $0.96 tip for the baristas. I had ordered a grande white chocolate mocha, totalling a bill of $4.04 and thus the $0.96 was my change. Therefore, when you consider that you tack gratuity before tax, I had tipped nearly 25%. No. I had tipped more than that. This is a ridiculous percentage, especially for those drink monkeys at Starbucks who aren't waiters at Black Angus.

Ah, and here is the point of this whole thought process: tipping is not gratuity. There is a grave misconception in the service sector that a person who does not leave a tip is a dick. But, frankly, why should he leave a tip? He has paid for his order and has every reason in the world to believe that his server (barista, waiter or whatever) is being reimbursed for services rendered by the establishment. That is to say, the server is an employee and therefore paid for the work they are doing by the employer.

The word "gratuity" is derived from the Latin word gratia, which is literally translated as "grace." Any hack can define grace as "unmerited approval." Nothing merits "gratia." You don't earn grace. You do not earn a tip. A tip is something given out of the genuine compassion of an individual.

Why, then, do we have a "customary" tip level? Because somehow grace became a social institution. For some bizarre reason a person is expected to be kind with his money even if he can bark at a waitress for getting his order wrong. Getting an order wrong earns no tip, but getting an order right--something the waitress is already paid to do--earns her extra cash. There is something wrong here.

And I think I know what's wrong. The whole idea of customary tipping is based on a--wait for it--Christian view of society. For 1500 years in Europe, Christianity was the unquestioned supreme religion. Islamic imperialism knocked on the doors a few times, even overran a good deal of Christendom (it's Istanbul, not Constantinople), but Christianity remained at the heart--both physically and metaphorically--of Europe and therefore the Western world.

Central to the worldview cultivated by this society was that a person, Christian or not, lived in a state of perpetual grace. They were given life that they did not deserve, got a day of life-giving rain they did not deserve, and a day of sunshine to dry the wet land that they did not deserve. The response to such divine benevolence was to respond in kind by imitating that grace and bestowing on others that which they did not deserve, such as a tip for services rendered.

And then came this strange age in which the whole of Christian philosophy is swept aside, but the social institutions it left behind are gobbled up by the secularists.

I am not sure what this all means, but it is thoughts I have on "tipping." I never calculate a tip because I think it's an insult to the concept of gratia.

Advent Song of the Week

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

O come, o come, Emmanuel
And ransom captive Israel
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear

Rejoice, rejoice
Emmanuel
Shall come to thee
O, Israel

O come, Thou dayspring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night
And death's dark shadows put to flight

Rejoice, rejoice
Emmanuel
Shall come to thee
O, Israel

O come, Thou wisdom from on high
And order all things far and nigh
To us the path of knowledge show
And teach us in her ways to grow

Rejoice, rejoice
Emmanuel
Shall come to thee
O, Israel

O come, Desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind
Bid our sad divisions cease
And crown Thyself our King of Peace

Rejoice, rejoice
Emmanuel
Shall come to thee
O, Israel

"Biblical" Dating

Mere Comments has a post concerning the concept of dating in the Bible. It links to and quotes from a series of articles in the Boundless webzine (published by James Dobson's Focus on the Family) by Scott Croft which posit that the modern concept of dating is foreign to the Bible and we should return to the implied option of "courtship," though Croft himself never uses this term, instead falling back on the euphemism of "biblical dating."

Far be it from me to disagree with Croft's premise. The modern concept of dating is foreign to the Bible, but I disagree with his conclusions. For one thing, the Bible encourages us "to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men" (2 Corinthians 8:21, emphasis added). We should therefore recognize that many of the habits of the classic Church were instituted to keep them above the reproach of the Roman populace, so that by being like them in practice, they might win some to Christ. This doesn't mean that the Church didn't think classic courtship rituals were wrong--if they did, they wouldn't practice them--but that it was chiefly a cultural concern and not an ecclesiastical one. Maybe if the Church were founded today, in order to remain above the reproach of the populace, they would practice our dating methods without the sex. Who knows?

I, for one, don't like the Catholic categorization of sin--venial, mortal, et cetera--but it does carry some weight to it. Namely, it aids adherents in recognizing specifically what the sin concerns. Does it concern a sin against ourselves and our bodies, which are temples of God? Does it concern a spiritual practice and direct refutation of God's commandments that do not concern physical acts? This taxonomy may indicate what dating is concerned with. It is not concerned with God's admonition of man as a Spiritual creature, but about how man interacts with the fairer sex (and ladies with the more gruesome one, who, in a perfect world, they wouldn't have anything to do with because we're a bunch of idiots) and how that reflects on Christian morals. Dating outside of the courtship concept (e.g. through the family and supervised by the church) does not indicate any sinful transgression, for there is no commandment regarding it. We simply know how we should act in a relationship, not how we ought to pursue that relationship in a romantic fashion (see 1 Corinthians 7 on marriage and sexually charged relationships).

All that said, do I think the modern dating scene is proper? As a single male, I have no vested interest in saying that it is. (It obviously isn't working out for me.) On the other hand, I have no real interest in saying that it isn't--as a male, single or otherwise, the sexual norms of modern dating attract me. I think my view of dating is best summarized by a comment on the original post:

I recommend that we return to the courtship regime that reigned during the Victorian era in America, and put women back in charge of asking men out. (For those unfamiliar with the history I recommend Beth Bailey's wonderful book From Front Porch to Back Seat.)

It was merely through the blind force of economics that young men moved into control of courtship in the first place: once entertainment moved out of the home and into public spaces like concert halls and restaurants, money was suddenly necessary to courtship, and men, as the partner with income, found themselves in a position from which to issue the invitation. Some writers at the time noted that the new regime of "dating" resembled prostitution, since only young men with money could now afford the company of young women; and, of course, it put the young woman in the vulnerable position of feeling at the end of the night that she now owed the young man something — he had, after all, just spent money on her.

I beg of you all to remember that the sex which we designate as the active agent, who gets to issue the invitation for a date, is put in a position of immense power — for each member of the passive sex must then become, in essence, billboard, an advertisement, an attempt to draw the attention of one of the askers. Please take a moment to glance at what a typical forteen-year-old girl wears — and what she reveals — today, and you will see what happens when the standards of young men are allowed for decades to pressure the standards of young women and what they must do to earn attention.

We should end this madness! Put the young woman back in charge, and make the young man jump through her hoops, earn her attention, just as his great-great-great grandfather did in the nineteenth century. Little girls being of fallen nature too, of course, the result will not be perfect; but by letting the naturally far more predatory young male take charge of courtship, we have put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Why I am a Lutheran Part I: Abstract Deities

In order to lay a foundation for being Lutheran, we must start at the bottom. Without Christ, there can be no Christian denomination, Lutheran or otherwise. Without Judaism, there can be no Christ, for there is no promised Messiah. Without monotheism, there can be no Judaism. Without theism, there cannot be monotheism. Therefore, the first reason I am a Lutheran has to be that there is in the great beyond some abstract deific force. I do not at the point mean to say that there is one god or that there is any god at all in the conventional sense of an active personality.

But why god at all? There are a myriad of differing views, among them atheism which completely denies the existence of a deific force. And among the myriad of differing views, there are even more arguments to support those views. But for the sake of thinking of an abstract deific force, I only care about one: the argument of beginnings.

Let us say that this universe had a beginning point. Some scientists say it was the big bang, others say that the universe has always existed. Theists, however, claim that a god of sorts willfully crafted the universe into form. I am partial to this view, and not just because I am Lutheran--it is one of the reasons that I am Lutheran, not vis versa. How do I mean?

Let us accept the Big Bang Theory for the moment. At the very beginning, all matter in this universe was concentrated into a minute singularity with a density of infinite value. That is to say its practical volume was zero. Due to the amount of stress from gravitic and electromagnetic forces, this condensed matter exploded in a "big bang," scattering its make up across the vast ocean of empty space. Over billions of years, this matter concentrated in certain areas and began to condense into planets and stars and all other sorts of heavenly bodies.

This is an interesting series of events, and given the trillions of stars among the thousands of galaxies, even the low probability of one planet being capable of sustaining life is bound to be fulfilled. If the odds were 1 in 1000000 (and the odds are even less than this), after 1000000 tries, we have reason to expect that at least one of those trials would result in a planet capable of sustaining life. Repeating the trial 1000000 times may not alter the odds of the individual trials (that is to say that if I flip a coin twice, even if it landed heads the first time, it is still 1:1 odds that it will land heads, rather than 2:1 in favor of tails), but multiple trials will carry out the probability.

Thus we have come to this simple conclusion, namely that a planet capable of sustaining life is expected to a rise despite the ridiculous odds simply because there is the given of so many trials. Now that one planet (and there may well be more) is capable of sustaining life, but then we have to say that life arose against all odds (which, given the number of trials that occurred, is still possible) and then that this rudimentary life became, eventually, you and me.

I do not intend here to deny macroevolution--though I do--but I want to go back to the first issue: the inital "bang" that started it all. There is a very simple argument to be made against this, and it is one that we can all appreciate. The classical philosopher Aristotle introduced the concept of the prima causa or "First Cause" (also "Prime Mover") to the world and science through the ages has borne out this concept as an observable and verifiable "law." Newton explained that every action has an equal an opposite reaction, which assumes, of course, that there is an initial action, which will of course cause the reaction. That is to say every action is caused by some other action. (A reaction is an action that will start something else.)

So, we come back to this issue: what is the prime mover of the singularity? What thing caused the matter? One school of cosmology suggests a cyclical universe, which is constantly expanding and the contracting again into a singularity regularly and then re-exploding to create a whole new universe. So for all we know, the universe is a googol years old instead of the customary few trillion. But this begs the question: there must be matter to initiate the cycle. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (Evolutionary answer: duh, the egg; the chicken was the uniquely adapted life form that emerged from the egg of a long lineage of ancestors.) Okay, so there was a singularity before there was a universe. Or was there a universe that condensed to cause the first singularity?

And even given the matter, as if it appeared out of thin air (a bad analogy, as matter is what makes up the air), from whence did the laws of gravitic forces and electromagnetics come? Gravity and electromagnetism are caused by matter, but why is it following this strict pattern, any alteration of which--to the 1/1000000000th of a unit--would cause the universe to collapse from this order into chaos?

The universe is fine-tuned beyond human comprehension. It has not been explained by science. Richard Dawkins, debating Francis Collins in the most recent issue of Time hints at the fabled "unifying theory" that ties all these things together, but there's a catch: this unifying theory is built on the back of the theories under it. In other words, all these laws may be subject to submolecular units called strings (the predominant "unifying theory" candidate today) but these calculations are only possible given that science sees the theories under it. It's a bottom-up function. Take away science's understanding of gravity, and there is no way to unify that physical reality with electromagnetics. And even the unifying theory came first (strictly speaking impossible, given that there would be nothing to unify), where does this universal law come from?

It comes back to a prima causa: there must have been something before the Universe that determined how it would function among the infinite number of ways possible. But you say "wait, wait, then who created this prima causa?" And there is a very simple answer to that: since the prima causa initiated the Universe, it does not necessarily exist within it. And therefore, it is not necessarily bound by physical laws such as the Prime Mover principle.

Wait, that's not fair; it's a cop-out. Why can't the Universe simply be? Again, a simple answer: the universe can simply be, save for the fact that we know there are laws upon which the universe rests. And the universe cannot create its creator. The laws themselves may simply be, but that is more of a cop-out than the abstract deity. Why? Because it does not conform to the rules of science, materialist science, upon which they are observed. Scientists who say "just because" are no scientists. They just stop with no further scientific inquiry because maybe, just maybe, the evidence leads to a place they don't want to go.

Why I am a Lutheran: "Bibi wo soro"--there is something in the Heavens.

The Cross

Marc of Purgatorio posts frequently on the Cross and its role in our culture, harping especially on the kitsch of Christian commercialism. I praise him and his blog often and not just for the creative and origianl method of the blogging (via the medium of pictures, rather than paragraphs of text), but also for the attention drawn to the devaluing of Christianity into what C. S. Lewis called "Christianity-and-water...a boys' philosophy." However, many of his commenters, and even Marc himself, take on a role that was abandoned in the middle ages: iconoclasm.

Somehow, because the cross is a symbol in the Christian faith, the case is made that modern-day Christians are a bunch of idol-worshipping morons. Because, you know, with the cross at the front of the church, clearly we're focused on this pagan instrument of torture and death rather than Christ Himself. On his latest post on this subject, I finally got fed up with the accusation and replied thusly:

While diamond-studded crosses of gold adorn secular stars and kids play with toys made into the shape of the cross (and eat sugars molded into the shape of the cross), it makes these baubles indeed “trite.” But don’t think wearing the cross makes one an idol worshipper. It is ignorant of you, who would blast people for playing down the value of Christ.

I don’t wear a cross to show my faith or because it’s fashionable or even because it was a gift from my earthly father. I wear it because what use is Christ without the cross? The cross is the instrument by which His sacrifice was carried out. Without His death, there is no forgiveness, for there is no redeeming sacrifice for the sins of the world. Rising from the grave demonstrated His victory over death, but His death is our salvation.

What would you say to Paul, who in 1 Corinthians wrote that he was sent to preach the gospel "not by human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power" and in Galatians wrote "May I never boast except in the cross of Christ"? The cross is a vital element to orthodoxy, not as a thing of reverence or worship, but as the reality by which we are saved.

Knowing the cross was an instrument of torture makes this symbol all the more valuable and real: for what man intended for evil, God worked for good. And I won’t even bother going into the literary connection between the cross ("tree") of Christ and the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden.

We do not focus on Christ as a man. Christ is useless as someone who was merely human. Christ was God in flesh, and without the cross, that point is lost. Christ's atoning work on the cross was only possible as God.

Political Party Quiz

Xanga Migration Post 3

You scored as Anarchism. Anarchism 92% Democrat 67% Communism 58% Republican 50% Green 50% Socialist 42% Fascism 25% Nazi 8% What Political Party Do Your Beliefs Put You In?created with QuizFarm.com

Anarchism!? Anarchism!? Well, okay, yeah. Sure. Believe it or not, anarchism is not the complete absence of authority. It's the absence of a centralized state. The premise of political anarchists is that individuals clump with likeminded people to form communes wherein the rules of the society are agreed upon and thus it is set. Meanwhile, 5 miles up the road is a separate commune, with separate rules, and between these two communes is a "live and let live" agreement.

I don't think anarchism is a realistically viable political option, but I do believe that people have the free will to submit to a moral code, even if it's the wrong one, and that we ought not to legislate morality. I guess that makes me an anarchist. Of course, there's multiple catches in this, such as: if not legislate morality, what do we say to the man who takes supreme pleasure in murder? Certainly if he arises from a commune where he knows the rules, he comprehends that murder is against the rules, but does he realize it is morally reprehensible? That morality is something beyond a simple human construct?

Ultimately, I think politics cannot help but be tied to morality, and frankly, I'm a Platonist. The few, the wise, the judicious ought to rule: Philosopher-Kings, baby.

That is all.

Defending the Galaxy Far, Far Away... part 1

Xanga Migration Post 2

I was making the rounds on the philosophy/religion blog circuit last night and came across several interesting posts. For some reason, looking to comment on IrContent by Doug Beaumont, I could not log in to Blogger (with my Google account), so I sought out other means of contacting him through his webpage, which ended up bringing me to some movie reviews he had written.

Admittedly, his movie reviews are not comprehensive evaluations of the quality of the film-making, the acting, the script, et cetera, but rather a rating system based on the message the film conveys via its in-story worldview and how well such "preaching" is executed. Its score, therefore, is based mostly upon how much the movie is in agreement with Christianity and/or solid, rational philosophy. But all the same, I had to jump in protest when he maligned the greatest series of movies ever made. Yeah, that's right, Star Wars. Not counting Episode I. He can bash that crappy piece of cinema all he wants.

While Beaumont is content to slam moviegoers and our current culture with not being able to spot the obvious logical fallacy in statements like "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" (in the words of Beaumont: "Really? Is that absolutely true?"), he doesn't seem to swallow the same pill and look a bit deeper or look at what Bible scholars would call "parallel texts," instances of the same event or expressed ideology in other parts of the Canon. In the Star Wars universe, such exposition is deep and woven throughout the story. Like the Bible, you can quote millions of different instances as "proof texts" while missing the big picture, leading to horrendous theology.

While I submit to the general view that both the original and prequel trilogies (or, as Star Wars geeks call 'em, the OT and NT--old trilogy and new trilogy, which is a parallel to Old and New Testament) are Western archetype stories with an Eastern worldview, this doesn't necessarily lead to such terrible things that Beaumont sees as he reads between the lines. For example, putting the above-mentioned quote from Obi-Wan Kenobi regarding absolutes into context, during the ensuing lightsaber battle with his former apprentice Anakin Skywalker-turned-Darth Vader, he states "The Sith are evil, Anakin. Can't you see that?" As Anakin responds that he views the Jedi as evil, Obi-Wan quips in a defeated, angry voice "Then you are lost!" Such a statement indicates that evil and good aren't nearly so relativistic as Beaumont seems to think Star Wars suggests, but more accurately that Obi-Wan's statement regarding absolutes was in response to Anakin saying "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." This is clearly not true. A disagreement regarding how the Galaxy ought to be run does not insinuate sides of moral realities, but political ideologies, which can be overcome for the betterment of such a Galaxy.

On top of this, Beaumont criticizes the Jedi for such sage wisdom as "fear of loss is the same as greed." This is most certainly true. While it is not a bad thing to have, it is unhealthy to fear lack. Fear leads to building up security, and the primary way to do this is, especially in a material realm such as our own, to have more of whatever it is you are afraid of losing. As you gain more, you start to have what's called a "hoard" and seeking out only your security leads to trampling over others. This is what we call greed. It is not at all beneficial. I think Beaumont equates a desire to maintain stability with a fear of losing such stability, which is categorically false; I do not want to lose my Star Wars movies, but I will live just fine without them, and I do not particularly fear losing them nor my extensive collection.

And it keeps getting worse! Somehow the reviewer thinks Anakin's only two options for worldviews in the Star Wars universe were either "stop caring about Padme and let her die" or "use the Sith ways to attempt to save her." Come now; how many times does Padme suggest asking Obi-Wan and the Jedi for help? Three times in Episode III. Or how about looking at the fact that Anakin seeking to save his wife is what ultimately leads to her death? Or the notion that, perhaps, if he had simply renounced ties to the Jedi and the Force, he could go off and live a normal life? Anakin had a myriad of choices, just as we do. The only problem is that he doesn't see them. It is perfectly practical for a Jedi to love. Indeed, in Episode II, Anakin says, "...compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is central to a Jedi's life. So you might say we are encouraged to love." The thing Beaumont doesn't see is the problem with attachment. When you are attached to something, rather than accepting that some things may occur, it leads to fear, which leads to anger, which leads to hate, which leads to suffering. It is perfectly plausible to deeply love someone without being attached to them. You can desire them, but as soon as you start needing them, it's called a problem. As Christians, we are told to marry "for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Reading the grammatical construction here, we can see that this "burn[ing] with passion" is equivalent to desiring the other person. However, we are also told that all we need and ought to focus on is Christ and Him crucified for our salvation. It is good for a man not to marry, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for a man to marry: just don't marry out of need, because it's unhealthy.

Stay tuned for a defense of the original trilogy next time...

Cheap Shots

Xanga Migration Post 1

I have decided to start keeping a semi-regular series on the things that I'd love to blog about but either don't have the time for or feel that another blogs treatment will do it better justice anyway. The issues in these "cheap shots" (cheaper because they're shorter, and because I'll do my best to entertain you by injecting my sarcasm into it) are linked to in the form I first encountered them--whether in a blog or an actual news article or (in some cases) because everyone knows about them.

• Stand to Reason's got a post on Ob/Gyn's in the UK arguing for infanticide. Literally. The short of it: if it ain't speakin', stop freakin'. We'll handle the messy work.
  Some ID advocates over at Intelligent Design the Future have once again shot some holes in evolutionary theory and defended the philosophy of science behind ID. All the ID-ists need now: less talking, more science.
• Logos wants you to learn Ugaritic. No, seriously. The good, the bad, the ugly: put some cultural context to better understand the Word of God, put some more cash into a coporation's pockets, give some more ammo to cultural evolutionists.
• It's a bit late, but I do have some Halloween spirit: Johnny-Dee finds a guy who claims vampires don't exist. The short version: all of us who believed in vamps yesterday are totally convinced otherwise after this mind-boggling mathematical formula.
• Crux Project reports on some tragic irony in the U.K. Apparently, it's all good when you kill an unborn child, but then you gots to give them a proper funeral. All you need to know: fetus coffin-hucksters will soon be opening up next to your local Planned Parenthood office.
• Democrats take Congress. The proof is in the pudding: having no coherent worldview or plan is more desirable than having a failed plan with an arrogant worldview.
• Some (God)Men in Texas seem to think being a Christian male involves tacky concert lighting and much ensuing comedy. Conclusion: Oh, how we miss The Daily Show's "GodStuff".
• Newsweek is at it again, pigeonholing Chrisitanity and Christ into political viewpoints. What to expect: Jesus for President in '08; Republicans tremble in fear, and Democrats insist He doesn't exist.
• Five billion people are suffering from mass delusion. Richard Dawkins says so. Too bad he can't defend it. The moral of the story: God may or may not exist, but when arguing about it, stick to your specialties.
  
  Shortly after this cheap shot was aired, a bolt of lightning flashed outside. The second moral of the story: correction--God really does exist.
• Jon Stewart calls evangelicals "gay-hating" because they're opposed to same-sex marriage.
  
  Segue into me ranting for a second: I love The Daily Show, from back when Craig Kilborn was hosting it up through the present. But for the last year or so, Stewart has become so overtly political that it really rubs me the wrong way every once in a while. Like this episode clip I linked to. A note to everyone out there: TJB, RT, CH--these are the initials of three people. Guess what. They are gay. (I chose just these three because, whereas I know other LGBTQ people, I consider these three friends.) They're an awesome three people with dynamic personalities and great senses of humor. But does that mean I approve of they're active choice to be actively gay? No, of course not. And these three know this. To Jon Stewart--fantastic comedian and ("fake") reporter that you are, I highly recommend that you stop throwing around rhetoric labels. If you're gonna bash Republicans for labeling all Dems "Cut-and-Runners" (and by all means, bash them hardily for it), then swallow the same pill and recognize that you can't label people opposed to a certain political issue as oppressive/hate-mongers/insert-negative-aphorism-here simply because they disagree with your (arrogant) view.
  
  Ahem, the punchline: The Colbert Report now tops The Daily Show in ratings. Watch another recitation of the Nicene Creed.
• Google buys YouTube, Becomes God. (I originally picked this up in ye ol' Door, but putting you straight to the site seemed better.) The divine simplicity: yeah, it's run by an atheist.
  Cheap Shots will be an ongoing series.

Welcome

Greetings, kids! Figuring the Xanga is no longer the social networking site it started out as, and seeing as my blog has moved beyond the typical teenage stuff that birthed the Xanga in the first place, I figured it was time to move to a right propper blog spot.

I'll be migrating some old posts over to this site, but for now, welcome to my new permanent location. The Xanga shall be scrapped and the only social networking place to remain will be MySpace. (Plus, to comment on Freddy's blog I had to sign up for a blogger account with my Google s/n.)