Tuesday, October 18, 2016


What We Need to Know About Evangelizing Catholics

With Reformation Day fast approaching and people starting to gear up for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, I thought I would share some insights I have about sharing the gospel with Catholics. I'm no one in particular or of note, but I had the privilege of helping to organize an evangelistic outreach in Philadelphia last year (2015) at the World Meeting of Families and later during the pope's visit to Philadelphia.

I believe my experiences during this evangelistic campaign gave me a little bit of insight for those of us who believe that Rome does not have the gospel and that Catholics need to hear and believe the gospel. I hope in this post to impart what I think is worth sharing for those who would like to spread the gospel to Catholics. I'm just drawing on my experience and from what I heard from my fellow laborers.

First, a little bit about the people I interacted with. From Monday to Friday, we were in Philadelphia's Center City area at the conference. On the weekend, we were in the transportation centers, largely in the suburbs. So we definitely got a mix of Catholics. During the conference, we had more time to talk with a crowd that could safely be said to be religious and on the more conservative end of the spectrum of Catholicism. On the weekend, less talking and more Catholics who were there just to see the pope. But they were still, as far as I personally could tell, more religious than your average suburban Catholic.

On top of that there were quite a number of Spanish-speaking Catholics I was unable to interact with. Our literature was bilingual, but we were not.

1) Many Christians are most likely not on board or don't think differences on justification matter.

Unfortunately, even in relatively conservative or even conservative Reformed circles, you will run into people who do not believe that Rome's doctrines of adding works to faith for justification destroys grace and the gospel. This is just the reality.

One other thing we ran into consistently are churches and people who fear street evangelism (i.e., the public proclamation of the gospel). This is true of many churches that agree with us on the need of Catholics to believe the gospel.

That could be a whole series of blog posts, but for the purposes of this one there is one takeaway. People fear non-personal evangelism will rock the boat and burn bridges in the community. So be aware of this if you wish to organize an outreach for the 500th anniversary. If you do want to go down that road (and I fully encourage you), pray. And I mean pray and keep praying. And then pray some more.

2) Majority of even religious Catholics have no idea there is an issue regarding justification.

The reactions here ran the gamut, but I remember some typical responses. Things like "we believe the same things." Lots of appeals to that joint declaration between the liberal Lutheran body and some Catholics. (For a good response please see here.) Some think the Reformers and the Catholics were just talking past each other.

I met literally no Catholic who thought I was in spiritual trouble, at least none who told me so. I met a handful that thought we had a disagreement on justification.

3) Of the few that did think we were wrong on justification, the most I got out of them was a passing remark about James. (Sometimes in street evangelism the people you are reaching don't want to stop and talk, but you do what you can.)

My advice here is that you absolutely have to be prepared to harmonize Paul and James if you want to talk to Catholics. For some of them, it will absolutely come up. Also be able to talk about Matthew 25 and the judgement that is according to works in that passage.

When it does, I found flipping the problem works. Don't just know James well. Know Paul well. I told a few people passing by "I can harmonize Paul & James. Can you?" They have an interpretation of James. Make them work through Romans and Galatians.

Use God's law. Ask them if they ever love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength and their neighbor as themself. Ask them how they plan to stand before a holy God?

I also go to Galatians 3:10 to show that there are no half-measures. "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.'"

I suggest this approach with everyone, not just Catholics who quote James 2.

4) Directly telling someone they are wrong actually helps.

We prepared four main tracts, all were written with Catholics in mind. All had justification by faith alone as a theme. You can find them here. Two of them did not specifically mention that Rome had erred in its teaching on justification.

At the World Meeting of Families we began the week with the two tracts that didn't specifically mention Rome. A few Catholics put two and two together, but not that many as far as I could tell.

Once we introduced a tract that specifically stated we had a disagreement with Rome, we got a much bigger reaction. There were so many more conversations. People were came to us.

Let's remember who the audience largely was at the World Meeting of Families. The vast majority were rather religious Catholics.

When we gave them a tract that told them that trusting in their own works was futile and only faith alone could save provoked a small reaction. Telling this same audience that the same message plus that Rome tells them the opposite got a big reaction.

Maybe having a presence that wasn't directly confrontational in the beginning of the week helped us later in the week. (And by "confrontational" I do not mean angry or yelling or anything like that. Just letting them directly know that Rome has a problem.) But telling them their church was wrong had an impact.

The lesson I learned here is that we can't assume everything is completely clear in even the Catholic with above average commitment levels. Trying to avoid differences can also be a way of avoiding clarity. That doesn't mean that you have to be a jerk when you are discussing your differences. But not bringing up substantive differences is, in my estimation, a bad idea.

5) Sometimes you have to be really, really patient and persistent.

Let me give just one anecdote here. I had a long conversation with a priest. I was explaining my position on the gospel and justification. He kept telling me that Rome believed the same things. However, at one point he stopped and told me something like "You mean you can believe and sin and still be saved." (It's over a year later, this is a paraphrase.)

I became so happy. "You know what you just did? You gave me Paul's anticipated objection from Romans 6:1. This means I gave you the message of Romans 1-5 and you understood it!"

It may take a while for some Catholics (even a priest) to grasp that Rome does indeed teach differently on justification, why relying on any works destroys grace, and what the seriousness of that is.

6) Catholics I talked to were essentially an "unreached people group".

From all of these experiences, including talking to Catholics apart from the World Meeting of Families, I'm convinced many Catholics are an "unreached people group" living in our own backyards.

They don't necessarily know they have to trust in Christ apart from any goodness that resides in them. They aren't aware of what their church is teaching.

When I was growing up Catholic, the impression I got that if you are "in the system" you are OK. Yes, we were told to go to confession, etc. But for many Catholics I believe they exist in a place where it is like a heavy fog is residing. Things aren't clear. By the Lord's mercy, I believe some are trusting in Christ alone.

But I came up with an analogy for that as well. If you knew a bar existed that was poisoning the drinks, would you comfort yourself that some customers weren't imbibing? Or would you do your utmost to get them out of there?

I know this critique is not unique to Catholics. Many Protestants of all stripes belong to churches where the gospel isn't clearly preached.

This poses a problem. We have people in churches who don't know they are Christians. They have some Christianity which makes it harder to get the message across. They don't know they have a need.

7) Why do we want to reach Catholics?

Let's visit the real possibility that Pope Francis and the more theologically liberal elements of Catholicism are gaining control of that church. What happens if Rome retracts (for all practical purposes) the anathemas of Trent?

Are we evangelizing Catholics because they need the gospel or because they put us under an anathema?

I hope that we are evangelizing because they need the gospel. If they remove the anathemas that doesn't automatically mean they have the gospel.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Book Interview: The Cell's Design by Fuz Rana

Dr. Fuz Rana, the author of The Cell's Design, kindly agreed to answer interview questions about his new book via email. Dr. Rana has a Ph.D. in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry from Ohio University. He currently serves as the vice president for science apologetics at Reasons To Believe.

There are some formatting irregularities due to the process of copying the text received from Dr. Rana. For that, I apologize, but it is still pretty readable.

1) What is
the central thesis of your book?

In the last decade or so molecular biologists, biochemists, and biophysicists have developed a wide range
of new techniques that give us an unprecedented view of life’s operation
at a molecular level. In my opinion, these new insights provide some
of the most compelling evidence that life must stem from the work of
a Creator.

The Cell’s Design
is my attempt to communicate the breadth and depth of these discoveries
and organize them into a formal argument for intelligent design (ID).
To make my case, I utilize a form of analogical reasoning called pattern

I attempt to define an intelligent
design pattern using the behavior of human designers as a guide. Remarkably,
the defining characteristics and features of life’s chemical systems
closely correspond to the intelligent design pattern.

In my view, this analogy compels
the conclusion that life stems from a Creator. It’s not that life’s
chemistry appears to be designed. But it appears to be designed
in the same way that a system or object created by a human designer
appears to be designed. 


2) Why did you feel The Cell’s Design needed to be
written at this time?

In my opinion, the scientific
evidence for the work of a Creator and the reliability of the Old and
New Testaments abounds in all areas of science. As a biochemist, I think
the most compelling evidence for ID is found in biochemistry, the study
of life’s most fundamental systems.

I find that very few people
appreciate the power and extent of the biochemical evidence for ID.
Most science apologetics works are quick to jump on the problems with
evolutionary explanations for life’s origin, including the information
content of living systems. These works might make some mention of Behe’s
concept of irreducible complexity (IC), but that usually is about it.
A small number of apologetics works give the appropriate attention to
the case that can be made for a Creator’s existence using biochemistry.

Of course the two chief exceptions
are Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and his new work
Edge of Evolution. Both of these seminal works focus
on the biochemical case for ID. Still, much of Behe’s attention is
focused on explaining why evolutionary processes can’t yield IC biochemical
systems or trying to define the boundaries of biological evolution at
a molecular level.

The two goals I had for
The Cell’s Design
were to:

  1. Make a positive
    case for ID from a biochemical perspective—without spending a lot
    of space discussing what evolution can and can’t do. Without question,
    this discussion is critical, but I felt that there needs to be a work
    that focuses on the evidence for ID, not the problems with natural process
    molecular evolution.


  1. Communicate the
    broad range of biochemical evidence for a Creator. Behe’s concept
    of IC is powerful, but in my view, it is only one category of biochemical
    evidence that can be marshaled in favor of ID. Oddly, I feel that
    The Cell’s Design
    is incomplete. I could have written volumes
    and still not exhausted the examples of intelligently designed systems
    in life’s chemistry. The Cell’s Design
    is just a sampling of the evidence for a Creator’s handiwork observed
    at the biomolecular level.


3) How does your book use, go beyond, etc.
irreducible complexity?

In many respects, Behe pioneered
the biochemical case for intelligent design in Darwin’s Black Box.
In The Cell’s Design I continue the journey started by Behe,
and hopefully make the biochemical case for intelligent design that
much more pronounced.

Though compelling, irreducible
complexity does not necessarily represent an iron clad case for the
intelligent design of biochemical systems. Many skeptics feel that they
have an objective basis for rejecting Behe’s argument. Even though
Behe does an admirable job responding to his critics, many remain unmoved.
Their objections motivated me, in part, to write my book.

Irreducible complexity stands
as just one of an ensemble of biochemical features that individually
and collectively evince design. In The
Cell’s Design
I attempt to go beyond irreducible complexity and
communicate the full range of amazing design features that characterize
life’s chemistry and use them to extend the biochemical case for intelligent

By looking at the weight of
evidence, I hope to convince the reader that it is not a single piece
of evidence that points to intelligent design at the biochemical level.
Rather, it’s the collective body of data. While skeptics may not be
impressed by the irreducible complexity of biochemical systems, I hope
that they will respond differently to a growing collection of evidence
that points to the same conclusion—a supernatural basis for life.


4) Could you give an example of some of the design patterns we find
in the human cell and how they support your thesis?

One of the things I find absolutely
mind-boggling is the recognition that the salient characteristics of
biochemical systems are identical to those features we would immediately
recognize as evidence for the work of a human designer. In The Cell’s
I argue that the close match between biochemical systems
and the artifacts produced by human designers logically compels the
conclusion that life’s most fundamental processes and structures stem
from the work of an intelligent agent.

For example, biochemists have
discovered that many of the proteins that operate in the cell function
as molecular-level machines. Remarkably, many of these molecular machines
bear an eerie resemblance to man-made machines replete with drive shafts,
cam shafts, turbines, clamps, lever arms, bushings, stators, and rotors.
As I argue in The Cell’s Design, these discoveries re-invigorate
William Paley’s Watchmaker argument.

The production of these molecular
machines resembles a manufacturing process with the proteins produced
in an assembly-line fashion. I find it astounding that the manufacture
of proteins employs quality control checkpoints at key points in the
process. (For a preview of the chapter that discusses this in The
Cell’s Design
check out this link,

Even though the biomolecular
pathways responsible for protein synthesis are well-designed, mistakes
inevitably creep into the operation because of the inherent nature of
chemical and physical processes. This makes quality control procedures

Biochemical quality assurance
further highlights the remarkable ingenuity that defines the cell’s
chemistry and reinforces the conclusion that life has a supernatural
basis. Effective and efficient quality control procedures don’t just
happen. Rather, intentional foresight characterizes them. Sound quality
control systems require careful planning, a detailed understanding of
the manufacturing process, the product, and the way that the product
will be used. All of these features are evident in the quality control
activities in the cell. In protein biosynthesis, the placement of quality
assurance checkpoints occurs at strategic stages in the production process
in a way that ensures reliable protein production while generating manufacturing

The close correspondence between
the quality control operations designed by human engineers and the quality
control procedures found in the cell strengthens the biochemical intelligent
design analogy. In this context, the cell’s quality assurance systems
logically compel the conclusion that life’s chemistry emanates from
the work of a Divine Engineer.

Protein production is also
a chicken and egg system. Proteins are needed to produce proteins. Chicken
and egg biochemical systems add to the biochemical intelligent design
analogy. Human designers and engineers frequently face chicken and egg
problems. These problems can only be resolved by the strategic and simultaneous
implementation of interdependent components. In like manner, the biochemical
chicken and egg systems must have come about through the work of a Creator.



5) Do we find or do we expect to find software design patterns (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns) in the cell's genetic code?

I’m not a software engineer,
so in many respects I don’t feel fully qualified to address this question.
Having said that, my sense is we will find software design patterns
in the cell’s information systems.

In The Cell’s Design,
I propose what I call the Watchmaker Prediction. Accordingly, as human
designers develop new technologies, examples of these technologies,
which previously went unrecognized, will become evident in the operation
of the cell’s molecular systems. In other words, if life stems from
the work of a Creator then it’s reasonable to believe that life’s
biochemical machinery anticipates human technology advances. The Watchmaker
Prediction applies to software design.

Something quite interesting
along these lines is recent work by a chemist from Trinity University
(Dublin, Ireland). It turns out that when adenine, guanine, thymine
(uracil), and cytosine are incorporated into DNA, they impart the double
helix with a unique structural property that causes the information
contained in this biomolecule to function like a parity code. Information
scientists and technologists use parity codes to minimize error in the
transfer of information. None of the other nucleobases that could have
been used to build DNA impart this biomolecule with this special quality,
only the specific combination of A, G, C, and T/U.

Every time the cell’s machinery
transcribes a gene or replicates the DNA molecule information is transmitted.
Transmission errors have disastrous consequences for the cell. Error
minimization during information transfer, and consequently, DNA’s
parity code, exists as a critical structural feature of the cell’s
information systems.

This extraordinary structural
property of DNA indicates to me that a Mind bears responsibility for
the cell’s information systems. The even parity code found in DNA
is identical to the ones used by information technologists. It as if
an intelligent agent carefully selected of the nucleobases, A, G, C,
and T (U) to optimize DNA’s structure so that errors can be readily
detected and minimized when information is transmitted.


6) What are evolutionary explanations for those patterns and why
are they insufficient?


Most evolutionary biologists
would evoke chemical selection as a way to explain the origin of information-rich
biomolecules, (proteins and nucleic acids, like DNA and RNA). As astronomer
Hugh Ross and I show in Origins of Life, chemical selection seems
to play a minor, almost negligible, role in the formation of information-containing

Because of the limited role
that chemical selection plays, the formation of biochemical information
systems, for all intents and purposes, appears to be a probability problem.
And based on what is currently known, it appears to be astronomically
improbable for the essential gene set to emerge through natural means
alone. Still, this probability analysis is incomplete, since the fundamental
relationships among sequence, structure, and function are still not
known for proteins and DNA.

When these relationships are
better understood, it may turn out that it is much easier for mechanistic
processes to generate information-rich molecules than anyone thinks.
But these future insights also could make the probabilities of producing
functional biomolecules more remote. The bottom line: Current knowledge
about the capability of evolutionary processes is insufficient to either
establish or rule out an evolutionary origin of biochemical information

While it is not completely
possible at this point in time to calculate the probability of functional
proteins emerging through natural means, it is possible to rigorously
access the likelihood that the genetic code arose through natural processes.
The genetic code is the set of rules the cell’s machinery uses to
translate proteins from the information stored in DNA.

Simply put, there does not
appear to be enough time for evolutionary processes to stumble upon
the universal genetic code—a code which displays exceptional levels
of design in terms of its error minimization capacity. As I describe
in The Cell’s Design, biophysicist Hubert Yockey has determined
that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 1070
different genetic codes to discover the universal genetic code found
in nature. Yockey estimated 6.3 x 1015 seconds is the maximum
time available for the code to originate. Natural selection would have
to evaluate roughly 1055 codes per second to find
the universal genetic code. On this basis alone, the universal genetic
code, which defines biochemical information, can’t have an evolutionary


7) How does the evidence you mention point to the God of the Bible,
not just evidence for design?

The significance of the argument
I make for biochemical intelligent design extends beyond the notion
that life’s chemistry stems from the work of a Creator. The close
analogy between the characteristics of human and biochemical designs
points to a resonance between the human mind and the Mind responsible
for creating biochemical systems.

This connection finds explanation
in the biblical text which declares that humans are made in God’s
image. The Genesis 1 creation account (and Genesis 5) teaches that God
created human beings (male and female) in His image. This declaration
implies that humans bear a similarity to God, at least in some ways.

Just as God is a Creator, so
too, human beings, which bear God’s image, are mini-creators. This
implies that the hallmark characteristics of humanly designed systems
will mirror those of divinely designed systems, if, again, the Divine
Artist is the God described in the Bible.


8) If Darwinism is defined as all life is descended from a
common ancestor by means of blind natural forces (natural selection)
acting on random mutations for variation in a step-by-step process,
I see major significant negative critiques in the greater ID and Creationist
movements. The first is that life can't get off the ground in the first
place, best exemplified in your Origins of Life book. The second
is that you can't explain a lot of structures with a blind step-by-step
mechanism (irreducible complexity). The last major critique I see is
William Dembski's concept of Complex Specified Information. If life
has it that means life can't be brought about by blind forces. Do you
see your book complementing these negative critiques?

As I mentioned in response
to an earlier question, the primary focus of The Cell’s Design
is to present a positive, comprehensive weight-of-evidence case for
ID. Still, I do raise questions about the validity of evolutionary explanations
for the origin of biochemical systems. For example, I argue (with some
mathematical rigor) that the universal genetic code—the set of rules
that the cell’s machinery uses to make proteins from the information
harbored in DNA—can’t arise on Earth at any time in its history
through undirected processes. I also argue that the origin of cell membranes
is inexplicable through chemical evolutionary processes. I also point
out that the widespread occurrence of molecular convergence fits awkwardly
within an evolutionary framework. Theses critiques discussed in The
Cell’s Design
complements the major criticisms raised by Behe
and Dembski against the evolutionary paradigm.

Of course, the positive case
I make for ID gains strength from the work of Behe and Dembski (and
others who have raised significant questions about the validity of naturalistic
explanations for the origin of life and life’s fundamental features
at a molecular level).


9) What are your plans for further research or for your next book?

just signed a contract with Baker Books to write a book on the quest
to create artificial and synthetic life in the laboratory. I plan to
describe the most important and high-profile scientific work done in
this arena and to explore what these efforts mean for evolutionary and
creation/ID paradigms. 


10) Do you have any plans to tackle the biological case against universal
common descent (which would be the major item not yet comprehensively
addressed within the greater ID movement)?

I don’t have any overly ambitious
plans for addressing the problem of universal common descent at this
point in time. This doesn’t mean that I haven’t paid attention to
this challenge to ID, nor that I will forgo this challenge in the future.

One arena I have given a lot
of attention to along these lines is “junk” DNA. One of the most
compelling evidences for common descent are the shared junk DNA segments
found in the corresponding regions of the genomes of organisms that
appear to be related. This argument for common descent, in my mind,
is being actively eroded by advances that indicate that nearly every
class of junk DNA has function. I document a number of these discoveries
in Who Was Adam? in the context of human origins, and also touch
on these discoveries in The Cell’s Design in the context of
“bad” biochemical designs. I also write updates about junk DNA discoveries
for the Reasons To Believe website (
www.reasons.org) as part of the Today’s New Reason
To Believe
feature. (Here is a link to one of more recent articles
on pseudogenes,

I have also done some work
on convergence. In my mind, convergence undermines the notion of common
descent. This term refers to the widespread pattern in nature in which
unrelated organisms possess nearly identical anatomical, physiological,
behavioral, and biochemical characteristics. The wings of birds and
bats represent one textbook example. According to the evolutionary paradigm,
undirected natural processes yielded the identical outcome (wings, in
this case) because the forces of selection channeled evolutionary pathways
to the same endpoint.

This explanation doesn’t
square up, however. If biological systems are the product of evolution,
then the same biological systems should not recur throughout nature.
Chance governs biological and biochemical evolution at its most fundamental
level. Evolutionary pathways consist of a historical sequence of chance
genetic changes operated on by natural selection, which, too, consists
of chance components. The consequences are profound. If evolutionary
events could be repeated, the outcome would be dramatically different
every time. The inability of evolutionary processes to retrace the same
path makes it highly unlikely that the same biological and biochemical
designs should repeatedly appear throughout nature.


The concept of historical contingency
embodies this idea and is the theme of Stephen J. Gould’s book
Wonderful Life.
To help clarify the concept of historical contingency,
Gould used the metaphor of “replaying life’s tape.” If one was
to push the rewind button, erase life’s history, and then let the
tape run again, the results would be completely different each time.
The very essence of the evolutionary process renders evolutionary outcomes

And yet, over the last decade
or so, evolutionary biologists have discovered a number of examples
of convergence at the organismal and biochemical levels. (For more information
on this topic check out articles I wrote on convergence (
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue04/index.shtml#convergence_evidence_for_a_single_creator ) and repeated evolution



In The Cell’s Design,
I document over one hundred examples of convergence at the biochemical
level and argue that the widespread occurrence of the multiple repeated
origin of a wide range of biochemical systems raises significant questions
about the validity of evolutionary explanations for life’s origin
and diversity, and along with it the case for common descent.

As I argue in The Cell’s
, designers and engineers frequently reapply successful strategies
when they face closely related problems. Why reinvent the wheel? It’s
much more prudent and efficient for an inventor to reuse the same good
designs as much as possible, particularly when confronted with a problem
he or she has already solved.

The tendency of engineers and
designers reuse the same designs provides insight into the way that
a Creator might work. If human engineers, made in God’s image, reutilize
the same techniques and technologies when they invent, it’s reasonable
to expect that a Creator would do the same. If life stems from the work
of a Creator then it’s reasonable to expect that the same designs
would repeatedly appear throughout nature. Use of good, effective designs
over and over again would reflect His prudence and efficiency as a Divine

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, May 26, 2008

Iran Paid Insurgents to Kill British Soldiers

If I can fault the Bush administration for anything vis a vis Iraq, it has been on two things. 1) They didn't clamp down on Iranian influence early enough. 2) They did not make it clear to the public Iran's role. We're basically fighting a proxy war against Iran like the Soviets were fighting a proxy war against us in Afghanistan.

So the question is, what is anyone going to do about what is essentially an act of war. My guess is that the "stop before I say stop again" type of diplomacy.

Labels: ,

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Is Being a Single Mother a Good Thing?

I was recently called to task for saying that one of the biggest problems facing America is single parent households. The person thought I was attacking single parents. Of course not. I wish them well, but the situation is not ideal. And if it can be avoided should be avoided.

I recently ran across this Chris Rock quote:
In Mr. Rock's HBO special, a performance taped at the Apollo Theater, he maintains his reputation for outrageous cutting-edge comedy by taking Dan Quayle's side of the Murphy Brown debate. ''A bunch of girls say you don't need no man to help you raise no child,'' he says, and promptly dismisses them.

''Yeah, you can do it without a man,'' he says. ''You could drive a car with your feet if you want to. That don't make it a good [expletive] idea.'' Mr. Rock excoriates deadbeat dads and laments the lessened importance of the traditional father.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

If You Vote Against Obama You Are a Racist

I saw this on a LA Time blog (in the comments):
I have a Master's Degree, 30 years of social work experience and a daughter at Harvard. I am not a "redneck" or "hillbilly", you condescending Obamites. But I am a woman who has spent years watching shallow young men being promoted over hard working women based on their ability to BS.

Is it so hard to see why I don't want to vote for a candidate with no experience, unbelieveable arrogance and a sense of entitlement. I am no racist but I resent being told by Black pundits that I have to vote for an "empty suit" or Blacks will be rioting in the streets. That is called blackmail and I won't be intimidated.

I see a lot of Obama supporters saying stuff like "everyone knows Kentucky is filled with racists." Yeah, keep that talk up.


Obama the Naive

Obama has some problems. First, he freaks out when President Bush comes out against appeasers. "Hey, stop talking about me!" So he admits he's an appeaser. Not good.

Then he tries to say that Kennedy talked to the Russians, what's the big deal with talking to the Iranians? Kennedy's first meeting with Kruschev made him think that Kennedy was a light-weight. Kennedy then brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Does anyone seriously think that the Iranians are going to take Obama seriously if he threatens them?

I have no problem with talking with our enemies. But this "stop before I say 'stop' again" stuff has to go.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Pushing for Plants Rights

In my college and high school newspapers, I wrote an article where I said something along the lines that they should give maple trees rights instead of dolphins. You never see maple trees being caught in tuna nets.

I guess I was ahead of time.


Saturday, May 03, 2008

Sabremetrics Coming To Basketball, or At Least the Celtics

When I heard Michael Lewis give a book talk while he was promoting 'the Blind Side', Lewis mentioned that NFL and NBA teams had contacted him about his book. While this article makes it sound like baseball teams are rushing on the stat bandwagon, Lewis said he hadn't heard much from baseball teams.

My guess would be that several teams are getting into sabremetrics, but only a handful are true believers.

Labels: ,

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?