chipperfarley.net - Just some internet site

This is hilarious and awesome at the same time. Despite being a full-grown man, I now want a Lego set for Christmas. The best part of this video is the music.

So Lendale White popped off to the media over the weekend about not getting enough carries in the loss to the Jets. To Lendale I say, “Quit whining and do something about it on the field!” It amazes me how childish these NFL players can be sometimes. Whether it’s Vince Young basically saying, “I’m taking my ball and going home!” when he was booed earlier this season or now Lendale complaining that he wasn’t on the field enough to know anything about Sunday’s loss, I think we’ve got some players on the Titans that need to grow up. Vince, you’ll have more money before you turn 30 than most people will ever see in their lives. Deal with the boos and do something to get rid of them on the field! Lendale, you had a great season last year and now have another back to offset the load this year. That means you have a better chance at staying healthy and you’re on a team that has a real shot at going all the way this year. Quit whining and acting like a kid, especially while on camera.

Sheesh…

Well, if you read this blog you know I like to try to keep a balance between “Our government is terrible” and “That was hilarious!” So, here’s a funny video I saw on YouTube. I don’t know how these guys got people to keep walking into the glass but it cracks me up. Hey, what’s not to love about people unwittingly smashing their faces into a window?

So here we are in a recession. The prices of everything are going up, or to be more accurate, the value of the dollar is going down. Yes, gas prices have come down but does anyone actually think they’ll stay down? I don’t. We’re in the most significant economic downturn since the Depression but all anyone seems to be proposing is doing more of what got us here. There’s one reason we’re in this mess:

OUR ENTIRE ECONOMY IS BASED ON DEBT.

Let me say that again…

OUR ENTIRE ECONOMY IS BASED ON DEBT.

We’ve been lead to believe that our government can spend endlessly, that we can spend endlessly, that debt is a good thing. Well guess what…that’s all wrong. Debt is bad. Now, sometimes it is a necessary evil but it isn’t something we should base our economy on. If you read this blog much, you may have heard this before: Every dollar in our economy is borrowed. This is by design. The Federal Reserve System controls our money and they create all of it through lending. The beauty (for them) is that they lend something they never had. They don’t have the money they lend. They create it out of thin air! It’s an ingenious design that allows private banks (which is what the Fed is) to siphon wealth out of our economy without doing a single thing of value. All they have to do is keep the books.

So now the system is starting to fall apart and once again, Ron Paul is out there telling us the truth. I’m sure no one in government will listen but hopefully you will. Here’s what he has to say…

So what do we do? Well, I will tell you what we shouldn’t do…everything that’s currently being talked about in Washington: spend more, ignore deficits, print more money. In most cases, if you just let a market correct, it will and everything will straighten out. In our case, that would hurt, no doubt. It would be the same experience a family that is wildly overextended experiences when they commit to getting out of debt and returning to a sustainable financial way of life. That’s what we need to do here. To me, it seems so simple that I just can’t understand why there’s not more pressure to do it. It just amazes me that our government’s solution to an inescapable debt model is…yes, you guessed it…more debt!

A friend of mine recently posted the following video on Facebook and I felt like I should comment on it as this seems to be one of the most contentious issues running right now and one about which I feel there is much misunderstanding. Watch the video and then read on…

Okay, now let me give Kieth his props…he makes a very thoughtful and compelling plea for those who support gay marriage. I would like to respond in a manner similar to Kieth’s approach, first with a full disclaimer:

I am not gay. I do have some gay friends. I have no gay family members. I am a Christian. Were I a Californian, I would have voted against gay marriage.

Now bear with me here as I try to explain my position and address Kieth’s comments.

First, in his video, Kieth asks those who voted against gay marriage, “Why does this matter? What’s it to you?” These are reasonable questions as this certainly can be painted as a bunch of Christians trying to deny gays basic rights. But that’s not what’s happening here. You see, the fundamental difference here is that Kieth is arguing (very capably I might say) from the naturalistic, pluralistic perspective that is becoming so prevalent in our society. This perspective views ultimate truth as a variable in the universe, something that is defined by individuals rather than something that is fixed. It says that there are multiple paths to God. It says that right and wrong are at least partially defined culturally rather than universally. It is a world view that is guided largely by emotion rather than careful, critical thought. And from that perspective, it certainly must feel wrong to deny marriage rights to gays. After all, they’re not hurting anyone. They just want what all the straight people have: the right to marry someone they love.

So, why are Christians almost universally opposed to it? I’m sure you have discerned that I hold a Christian world view. I think that the major error that Kieth and others like him are making is that they are not appreciating the fact that Christians don’t embrace a pluralistic viewpoint. Rather, we believe that there is an ultimate truth in the universe. That good and evil, right and wrong, are universal and not variable. We believe God, not man, sets the boundaries on these issues and that we have the responsibility in this life to make our best effort to honor God and live within his framework. As such, if we are true believers we must try to emulate Christ. We must show love to others. And we must not support things that detract from God’s plan for us. Certainly, few topics can strain the ability to be true to those principles like the issue of homosexuality.

So, let’s break it down.

First and foremost, the Christian is told to love and honor God with all his or her heart. Kieth points out that we are told to “do unto others as you would have done unto you”. What he doesn’t mention is that that guideline is secondary to loving and honoring God. Our first objective in this life is to love and honor God. Everything, including the Golden Rule, must follow after that. Therefore, we are compelled to love that which God loves (people) and refuse to love that which God does not love (sin). The Bible is clear when it states that homosexuality is sin. Let me be clear though that God does love the homosexual. Christians are to do the same. I’ve heard it summed up as loving the sinner but hating the sin. I would advise Christians to maintain perspective on this. Homosexuality is a sin just as heterosexual lust is. So just as God loves the Christian despite the fact that he may be inflamed by heterosexual lust, so too does he love the homosexual who, whether due to genetic reasons or learned reasons, is attracted to members of the same sex. Again, Christians must do the same.

So we Christians then are compelled to walk a fine line on this issue, one that honors God first but still shows love to our fellow human beings. Can this be done? I for one say it can. Firstly, we must be true to God’s position on homosexuality; it is a sin and is therefore against the will of God. As such, we can not support gay marriage as it is an implicit affirmation of homosexuality and places that affirmation into law. Our intent here is not to deny people legal rights. It rather is to avoid affirming things that are contrary to the ideals of God.

After that though, we must be willing to show love to those who would ask for gay marriage to be affirmed. This means that we must never slight them or show them any form of hostility. It also means that we must treat them fairly, just as we would want to be treated. As such, we can ensure gay partnerships have legal standing in things like power-of-attorney. We can recognize gay partnerships as having rights in taxation matters. We can do these things in good faith while staying true to our beliefs. But should we go so far as to say that gays can be married? How can we? A gay partnership, no matter how committed and loving, just isn’t a marriage. Just as only sodium and chlorine can combine to make salt, so too can only a man and a woman combine to make a marriage.

And there is logical reasoning for this view. Christians believe that men and women were created different on purpose. Each betters the other. A union of man and wife is greater than the sum of its parts for countless reasons, the most obvious of them being that it is able to produce a child. This is what marriage is and it is something that a gay partnership can never be. Yes it can be loving and committed. But it can’t be a marriage.

So, if you’re still with me here, thanks for reading this far. This is the longest post that I’ve ever written. The reason I’ve done this is so that hopefully you can see that Christian opposition to gay marriage isn’t necessarily hateful. It’s not always bigoted. It is frequently a good-faith attempt to remain true to God, a God who we believe has made his will for us clear. Obviously, if you’re not a Christian, some of this isn’t going to resonate with you. But I do hope that, if you’re not a Christian, you will at least see that there is a thoughtful and even compassionate side to this opposition. Too often it is masked by those who lose their way and let anger or hate infect their thinking. But that isn’t all of us. And it’s not me.

Thanks for reading.

Chipper

Well, I thought this election might not ever end. As you probably recall, we’ve been suffering through campaigns and primaries for two years now. I have to admit that I’m glad it’s over. This election was tough for me because I really didn’t have a candidate. I don’t agree with almost any of Barack Obama’s ideas. And, while I did vote for John McCain, I really didn’t see him as a true agent of change.

If you read this blog, you know that I am a free-market conservative. I believe that, for the most part, an unhindered free market is capable of turning people’s inherent greed for wealth into something good. The free market produces the best products for the lowest cost. It forces innovation due to competitive pressures. It naturally eliminates waste in the name of increasing profitability. Now, I will admit from time to time the free market needs a little intervention - when monopolies arise or when regulation is necessary, for example. But I do believe that, in general, when people are left alone to produce their goods and services in a competitive environment and are rewarded when they succeed, we all do better.

Unfortunately, that isn’t the way our government is shaping up. We’ve elected a group of people, including Obama, who believe that those who fail to succeed should be assisted by those who do. I think this belief comes from an admirable desire to help people. My disagreement though is that assisting people means giving them the opportunity to help themselves…taking away obstacles to their own success. I also recognize that there are some out there that just won’t succeed. That’s a fact. I just don’t believe that handing out money to less successful Americans simply because they are unsuccessful is helpful. It’s the old give a man a fish/teach him to fish thing. Rather than funding handouts as the Democrats are proposing, we should improve education. We should remove impediments to small business, like higher than average business taxes. And last but not least, we should reduce the size of government. Imagine if we eliminated a big chunk of the government. All the money tied up in inefficient governmental bureaucracy would be released into the economy. That would help everyone.

So, from that perspective, I’m pretty bummed about the election since it looks like we’re going to head far from the direction that I feel would be best. Even though, I’m still proud about what happened in the election: we elected our first black president. If there’s anything positive I can take away from this election, it’s that. To think that only a few years ago, the US was still largely segregated and today has a black president elect is amazing. And I for one am happy that it has happened. I have long felt sympathy towards the struggles of black Americans and have longed for a day when we could make a significant step in the direction of racial equality. And while I don’t think this elections has made race relations perfect, I have to believe it is a huge step in the right direction. I for one am happy for black Americans and for the US in general.

So, I guess I would encourage all you disappointed conservatives out there to take heart. At least we as a country can claim a race relations victory. And now we’ll get to see if all those liberal policies we’ve always disparaged actually do mess everything up like we expect they will.

Okay, I asked for something funny and my brother Ben delivered. This video is hilarious! My favorite part is when the tour guide says, “We don’t party any harder than any other school.”

This bailout is a terrible idea for so many reasons. Now, I know there are many that say it is a necessary evil but surely there’s a better way. To understand what this bill does, you only need to read one sentence in it. The following sentence is from the bailout bill before Congress and refers to the Secretary of the Treasury:

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

So, it gives the Secretary unlimited power to do whatever he wants to deal with the debt problems of Wall Street and no one can challenge him at all.

How’s that sound?

On another note, someone email me something funny to put up here. This is all getting too heavy!

Ron Paul is right on the financial mess we’re in. Listen and learn!

I think this question is pretty simple but I doubt my idea will happen. I don’t believe Vince has the ability to play in the NFL at a high level. Yes, he is super-athletic. But, he doesn’t seem able to make good decisions quickly in the pocket and doesn’t seem to be able to handle the mental/emotional rigors of being an NFL quarterback. So, if it were me, I’d play him as a dual-threat quarterback, letting him run the ball and run it a lot. As much as is realistic in the NFL, let him play the way he did at Texas and quit trying to change him.

Now, I know what you’re thinking, “Yeah, he’ll get hurt doing that.” Yes he will. But let’s look at the big picture here. First off, as a person, I don’t want anyone to get hurt and I sympathize with Vince’s situation and the difficulty he’s having right now. But, Vince will probably make more money before he’s 30 than I and most other people will make in our whole lives. Let’s say he can play for 4 years like this after which he’s too banged up to be effective. Well then, he can retire at a young age and live the rest of his life filthy rich.

In the meantime, we have Kerry Collins to lean on for a year or two more. We need to recruit a good quarterback - a diamond in the rough - and have him ready when neither Vince nor Kerry can be effective anymore.

This all seems pretty simple to me. Leave a comment and tell me why I’m wrong.

Thanks.