Thursday, November 27, 2003
...TELL OUR MOMS WE DONE OUR BEST
Ofc. Pavelka's (alleged) murderer was captured today in Tijuana, Mexico and returned to the U.S. Marshal's Office. He wll probably be remanded to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to await trial. According to the Burbank Police Department, they made over 60 arrests of David Garcia's gang, many for aiding a furgitive from justice, including Garcia's twin brother.
For nearly even associated with a Southern California police department, today is a good Thanksgiving.
Saturday, November 22, 2003
Well, it finally happened to me tonight. One of the best feelings on earth. I had...
a straight flush in poker :)
I was dealt the queen and ten of spades in the hold in a low 50c/$1 Hold 'Em table in the big blind. No one raised, and 5 people folded, so I checked, and 4 people saw the flop. Flop came 10 of diamonds, king of spades, and nine of spades. I had middle pair, and flopped a gut shot straight flush draw. Small blind bet, I raised, hopefully to drive out the ace, or make it more expensive for him to contiue his flush draw, and everyone else folded. Now, twice before I flopped open-ended straight flush draws, and both times, didn't get the straight, didn't get the flush, didn't even pair a card. So, didn't even think twice about a straight flush with a gut shot draw.
The turn card came jack of spades. I hit it. :) The small blind bet, and I called. Didn't want to raise him.
The river came ace of diamonds, putting four to a straight on the board. small blind bet. I raised, hoping he'd have a queen and reraise me, or he had the ace of spades with another spade. He didn't, he only called. Won $9.50, which is pretty good for a low limit game.
Hey, straight flushes are rare. Gotta share it when you finally hit one,. Hopefully, the next get I get a straight flush, the other guy will have the ace high flush and keep raising me. Oh yeah :)
AND IF THEY LAY US DOWN TO REST...
Here are a couple photos from Ofc. Pavelka's funeral. I couldn't make it, but our department was represented and expressed our condolences to his family and the Burbank Police Depatment.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Officer Matthew Pavelka
Burbank Police Department
Length of appointment: 10 months
End of Watch: 11-15-2003
On November 15, Officer Pavelka responded to a backup call to a fellow officer who had stopped an SUV that the officer had believed to be stolen. A gun battle ensued, and Ofc. Pavelka was struck several times and died at the hospital. The other officer is still in critical condition. One of the gunmen was killed by the officers, but the other person got away.
If anyone has seen this man, please contact the Burbank Police Department or your local police department immediately. He is to be considered armed and dangerous. Burbank P.D., or alternatively, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, will extradite from anywhere in the U.S, and Canada will deport back to the U.S.
May God grant compassion and mercy and strength to Ofc. Pavelka's family.
I am not affiliated with the Burbank Police Department...I just hate cop-killers.
Saturday, November 15, 2003
It seems like the Universities of Washington State in Pullman and Idaho in Moscow are going wacky. How dare Christ Church challenge the establishment. Read all about it here. I said in another post that everything Biblical about this country has to be revised to fit the modern religion of humanism today. One of those things that has been successfully revised is the War Between the States...the Enlightenment, statist, secular North and the Biblically Calvinist South. At least Rev. Wilson and Christ Church refuse to knuckle under to the revisionists.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Considering I was between the ages 9 and 18 during this era, you'd think I'd have done better on this test.
Sunday, November 09, 2003
THE PROBLEM WITH PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITIONS
This is a blog entry in response to one of the comments in the 10/22 entry. I'm posting it here cause it's easier for me, mainly.
The problem with philosophical definitions is that sometimes they do not carry the precise definition of things that they attempt to decribe. As anyone who has been following this blog know, the God of the Old and New Testaments is not "all powerful" in the traditionally philosophical sense of the word. Usually, the definition of "all powerful" has come to mean that God can do everything and anything, but one simple verse from Hebrews refutes this notion that God is all powerful in that sense.
Does this mean that God is not all pwoerful? Well, I just happened to run the words "all powerful" in the the four standard major translations (NIV, NASB, KJV, and ESV) and some of the more egregious translations and paraphrases of the Bible, and none of them ever use the phrase "all powerful." It seems that the Bible never uses the phrase "all powerful" to describe God. It does use the phrase "Almighty" to describe him, and what is particularly interesting about that description is that apart from a reference in 2 Corinthians and scattered references in Revelation, it is primarily an Old Testament word. Now, the question is whether or not the Jews would ever have thought of God in the way that modern philosophers so. Given that this is clearly not the case (again, they know God cannot lie, they know he cannot break his covenant, etc.) then whatever "Almighty" means, it does not mean all powerful that way modern philosophers mean it. The Jews simply did not seem to have any problems with, nor would they give any serious credence to, the semantic word games that modern (mostly) atheists use to try to disprove the existance of God.
So what does this mean now? It means that is one continues to apply the modern definition of the word "all powerful" to the triune God, then one is ultimately using a straw man. Someone, somewhere in some time used the phrase "all powerful" as a convenient label for God. However convenient this may be, if one must ascribe the modern meaning of a word to an ancient text that never uses the word, then one is simply raising a straw man. As I mentioned earlier, the Euthyphro problem is non-existant against the Christian God because of its cultural implications. Semantic word games are furthermore not a problem. This seems to be the exact same problem that is going on in Reformed circles over the use of the term "justification," "regeneration," and "saved." If it was one's belief about God that He could do anything and everything, then it is simply an unbiblical belief.
If some Christians wonder why they're not taken seriously in the public realm, then this story should clear up any confusion. With brothers like this...ah well, that was uncalled for; I know his heart is in the right place, but why not just take your kid out of that school?
Thursday, November 06, 2003
THE CRIME OF JUSTICE JANICE ROGERS BROWN
I'm going to try to blog at least weekly. It's been a little with school and work, but I do enjoy this, and I hope to be able to keep it up.
Most people who read this blog may not know who Justice Brown is, unless you've read this story that was linked from WND. She is President Bush's nominee to the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court in Washington D.C, and she is currently an Associate Justice on the California Supreme Court. Man political insiders consider the DC Circuit to be a stepping stone to the a United States Supreme Court justiceship. Indeed, Justice Clarence Thomas sat on this very Court before being appointed by the first-President Bush to the Supreme Court. And she has committed the same crime that Justice Thomas has created:
She's black, and she's politically conservative.
Now I am not necessarily a straight up and down the line politically conservative. I try, and I do mean try, to formulate my political opinions according to what the Bible says. For instance, you can ask my friend Burkeley about my position on gun control. It wasn't based on politics...it was based on what I believe the Bible says about having weapons for self-defense. However, more often than not, I find that I do fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum even if it is not because of the justifications that political conservatives give.
I don't know much about Justice Brown's personal life...whether she is objectively (in the Acts sense) a Christian. However, I do know that she is a political conservative who authored an opinion that upheld Proposition 209, which banned the use of race based factors in most State functions. She also appears to be a political conservative in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, who currently sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. She is also villified by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee because of this.
Now let's get one thing straight: judicial activism is wrong regardless of which side of the political spectrum does it. Liberals and conservatives and moderates who make law from the bench are all equally wrong. However, the curious factor with Justice Brown's nomination is that these same people who decry the conservative judicial activism have no problem with liberal activism. In my letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, I asked her if she was willing to impeach Judge Harry Pregerson from the 9th Curcuit Court of Appeals. This is one of the three judges that had temporarily delayed the California recall election because of alledged voting discrepancies in minority discticts (does he still think Hispanics are too stupid to know how to use a voting machine?). This judge who now sits says that if the law went against his conscience, he would vote his conscience. This is something that political conservatives would never get away with. Inded, Sen. Feinsein said she was troubled by Justice Brown's views, and that they would influence how she votes. This is just hypocrisy, but what else is new.
Jusice Brown is simply not towing the line. She's allegedly out of the mainsream, but what really is the mainstream? This is the same problem that is going on in Reformed circles today. People who claim to represent "mainstream" Reformed theology and villify others are doing the exact same thing that the Democrats are doing: they are gerrymandering a canal so that it runs right through them, and they are exactly in the middle of the canal. Anyone who deviates from this artifical line is out of the mainstream. The same Reformed theologians and laypeople sound like the deviously hyporcritical Democrats...so all those people are also deviously hypocritical people. (I'm joking, but others have used this argument to some success).
And of course, Justice Brown is black. She therefore is even more heretical. Unles she tows what the Democrats believe a black person should think, and what their lapdogs in the NAACP and others say, she is unorthodox. Consider that the NAACP calls her hostile to "civil rights." Of course, their definition of "civil rights" usually means affirmative action and other race-based initiatives. Can no black person believe that the concept of affirmative action is wrong? I know they're still steamed with her opinion upholding Proposition 209, which forbids the State to use most race-based initiatives in its business. She certainly believes that the government can become intrusive, and that when the family breaks down, the government is all to ready to help. Of course, to people like Sens. Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Shumer, government is the omnibenevolent Messiah to the people. It is the government's obligation to ensure that every American is taken care of from cradle to grave, and they will enforce that at the end of a gun pointed at wealthier Americans. And of course, since the Federal Government is the Messiah, there can be no other gods before It. Hence, Christian history throughout the country, such as the factually true Christian origins of the country and the factually true struggle of the Calvinist South against the Enlightenment North prior to 1865, must be revised. The Founders, we are now told, wanted a secular state because of religious persecution; and the Civil War was to eliminate slavery from the evil Southerners and to promote true equality for the black slaves (sorry, but...BARF! GAG!! VOMIT!!! They wanted no such thing. The North was anti-slavery, yes, but they were hardly pro-black.)
These unorthodox views that I am espousing, too. I am Hispanic, and as such, I have to support all immigrants who come in (or so I am told) and bilingual education,a nd driver liscenses for illegal immigrants. Too many Hispanics fall for it, and it's sad that many cannot see that the Democrats in the Legislature want to keep them in the fields rather than in the workplace...I guess it's because, as the Los Angeles Times wrote, when Hispanics start making money...they tend to start voting Republican and start to reject the socialist agenda that Democrats propose.
It's too bad for Justice Brown. She is truly a capable judge who understands the original meaning of the Constitution, and hopefully, she will be appointed to the bench in D.C. If she is, I hope she remains consistant in her beliefs. The Democrats are wrong fundamentally in this sense: everyone's beliefs will shape their view of the law. It's a fundamental fact, and for the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to even think this is not the case is simply absurd. They are taking people as fools. Unfortunately...in today's society, a lot are.
note: I know some of the caricatures of Democrats that I have shown are not true of all Democrats. I used to be one, too. However, since Clinton's election in 1992, the Democrats have been held captive by the extreme left and socialists in the party. The moderates and conservative have since left, or are silenced (such as former Gov. Robert Casey, who dared to defend Pennsylvania's restrictive abortion law in the U.S Supreme Court, and was denied speaking at the 1992 Democrat convention for doing so). Recapture your party, and maybe some civility in politics will prevail.
note 2: This is not to say that the Republicans are angels. Far from it. They can be just as bad as Democrats, if not worse. Why/ At least with the Democrats today, they're honest and tell you they're whacked-up. Repulicans aren't, and then they betray their values when they get power.