There's a good book that explores what the Bible says about these thing in light of the Biblical texts changed from Old Testament to New.  It is Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb.

The basic argument, as I understand it, is that God gave certain commands to help certain aspects of human culture to move in the right direction, so what was expected of people in Old Testament times changed somewhat as culture cahnged and that by understanding this, we can better understand what God iultimately wants.

I've probably explained this badly and come off sounding like a relativist (which I'm not,) but I think Webb is really onto something here.  The book description says:

Darrel L. Bock writes in the foreword to Webb's work, "His goal is not only to discuss how these groups are to be seen in light of Scriptures but to make a case for a specific hermeneutical approach to reading these texts.

Every time the whole country is required by the federal government to bail out people because of some disaster or another I think of the famous story about congressman Davie Crockett in which he said,

  I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

I don't have any children, but my parents did two things that I think are the most important jobs of any parent:

1) Taught me what was right and wrong and provided suitable motivation to do the things that were right.

2) Taught me how to tell right from wrong so when I left home I could keep on doing the right things.

What they taught me that made this possible was the importance of faith in God and a right relationship with him.

You should read the chapter on "violence" in Jonah Goldberg's book The Tyranny of Cliches where he makes a very convincing case that a voluntary law (one that isn't backed up by the threat of violence) is meaningless. 

I thought I'd give this a try but the first question was unanswerable so I gave up immediately.  The question is:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

This makes the assumption that something that serves corporations cannot also serve humanity...Hello!?!? Corporations are made up of humans.

Their multiple choices should also include: "This question makes no sense"

Solyndrous.  What a great new word! 

I was driving up I-880 early yesterday morning and went by the Solyndra plant I noticed the lights were still on.  I wonder who is paying the electric bill.

The left always calls anyone who disagrees with them a bigot so what is the point of wondering if their claim is true?

Another thought:  The term "marriage equality” is merely a politically skewed cliché that is intended to imply that there is not marriage equality already—that somehow, someone is being treated unfairly.    But this isn't true because there is nothing stopping a man and a woman from getting married if they want to.  The idea that two people of the same sex can be married to each other is about changing the meaning of the word “marriage” and in the process, legitimizing something that, until recently, most people found abhorent.

I can't seem to focus on just one thing from beginning to end:

• Blood in the Sky, by Steve Hamilton
• The Piano Shop on the Left Bank, by T.E. Carhart
• La Mosquée Notre-Dame de Paris: année 2048, by Elena Tchoudinova
• Tyranny of Clichés, by Jonah Goldberg

Can anyone explain why a school teacher should ever get tenure?  I can understand why it makes sense for university professors, but am completely baffled by the idea of granting it to school teachers.

I guess there's an exception to most every rule.  It's not at all clear what this person is trying to tell the world.

When I worked at an electric utility company back when mission statements were all the rage, we were all required to attend a series of meetings to brainstorm.  First we were each told to say what we thought the most important goal of the company was.  Thinking that they were serious, I said "to make money for the stockholders."  Silly me.  I wasn't invited back to the next meeting.

It's tempting to say that the man was killed because he had some marijuana, but the fact (according to the officer's statement) is that the man was killed because, in the short time the officer had to make a life and death decision, he believed he had to defend himself with deadly force. 

It's like the people who said the John Singer shooting in Utah way back when was a case of the police killing a man because he wanted to homeschool his kids, when in reality it was because, when they went to uphold the law (be it right or wrong), they believed Singer was going to kill them so they defended themselves.

When a motorist who is pulled over for a traffic violation tries to shoot the traffic cop and is killed when the officer defends himself, is that a valid reason for gettting rid of traffic laws?

I think you're a bit too generous in saying there "there are many great reporters."  Maybe the intervention should be similar to Gen. Sherman's wartime policy in Savannah.  He apparently knew what most journalists were really up to.

Not more than two newspapers will be published in Savannah; their editors and proprietors will be held to the strictest accountability, and will be punished severely, in person and property, for any libelous publication, mischievous matter, premature news, exaggerated statements, or any comments whatever upon the acts of the constituted authorities; they will be held accountable for such articles, even though copied from other papers.
 - Memoirs of Gen. William T. Sherman, Volume 2, p. 152

I thought he was just being humorous by starting out saying he hated cliches and them using them constantly throughout the speech.  Anyway, these two (almost consectutive) statements are contradictory:

 Climb the mountain not to plant your flag, but to embrace the challenge, enjoy the air and behold the view.

and

Exercise free will and creative, independent thought not for the satisfactions they will bring you, but for the good they will do others

In other words, do things for your own enjoyment, not for the good they will do for others.  But, also, don't do things for your own benefit, but rather to help others.   Huh?

At any rate I think his points, that making it through high school, doesn't prove one is a star, and about doing good things for the right reasons were great.  The one thing about the speech that makes me uncomfortable is the fact that each of us is special, not because of our accomplishments, but because God loves us.  I guess that would be illegal to say in a high school these days...so how did he manage to get away with talking about Zeus?

In one of the local races the the only candidates were three Democrats and one Libertarian.  Believing that a Libertarian couldn't possibly be elected here, I held my nose and voted for the least objectionable Democrat.  I still have a bad taste in my mouth, though.

Maybe she is just thankful that in spite of everything else, something is working out well for her.

The LORD is my strength and my shield; My heart trusted in Him, and I am helped; Therefore my heart greatly rejoices, And with my song I will praise Him. Psalm 28:7