Friday, February 28, 2014


This past weekend, my High School graduating class celebrated our 20-year reunion. Naturally, we actually graduated 21 years ago this May. But, that's our class for you.

Every one of the other nine classmates that showed up commented on how much weight I'd lost. That felt good to hear. Some of them had done the same, some hadn't. It didn't really matter.

One guy I was close to in High School, but drifted away from afterwards just got married last year. It was indicated that this was his first marriage. Good for him.

75% of the conversation at dinner was about our children, and with only two notable exceptions, none of us had met any of the other folks' children.

We had 35 in our graduating class. 11 guys. Saturday night, there were 3 guys, and ten of us total.

All three of us guys, and about half the girls are now into guns or carry regularly. That surprised me in a positive way.

This one was organized far better than my 10-year reunion. On that day, I got a call stating the reunion would start in a little over an hour. It was held in Chattanooga. I was just south of Louisville, KY at the time, moving my brother-in-law in to college. Five people attended that one... wonder why.

Every one of us made aloud a comment about our alma-mater's tendency toward legalism and how much we despised that... which was probably one of the reasons our class was often "looked down" upon. And that was our badge of honor.


Thursday, February 27, 2014

Set Straight Not By Me

Funny conversation between my wife, a neighbor, and another lady - all three are moms of Daisy scouts in the same troop. They and their daughters are at a store, selling Girl Scout cookies, when the other lady spots a man legally carrying a GLOCK in a holster. The man was open-carrying.

My wife = "W"
Neighbor = "M"
Other lady = "S"

S - "Do you see that! That man is carrying a gun! He can't do that!"

W - "Yes, he can. It's perfectly legal."

N - "Yeah. It's just fine if he has a permit."

S - "But he has kids!"

N - "Good. He is protecting them."

S - "But, he shouldn't be able to do that! Doesn't the store..."

W - "Any business can 'post' a sign that keeps out the good guys..."

N - "Of course, the bad guys never obey signs..."

S - "But... but..."

W - "You should get your carry permit, like N and I have." (pats her purse with a knowing smile)

[abrupt end to the conversation as S realizes my wife is legally carrying at the same instant.]

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Liver Shot

This past weekend, Ronda Rousey defended her UFC Womens' Bantamweight championship over Sara McMann. The entire bout lasted 66 seconds.

Rousey did not win with her typical juji gatame finish.

Rousey nailed McMann with a knee to the liver area, flooring McMann. Many people do not understand what a vulnerable target the liver is, but MMA legend Bas Ruten has advocated liver strikes for years. Bas used them regularly and to great success.

Here is a good breakdown of the fight highlights on Art of Grappling.


Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Monday, February 24, 2014

Extreme Ends

Depending on which polls you read, anywhere from half to most of protestant Christians believe in "Old Earth Creationism." A vast majority of Catholics believe in OEC. Most polls point to only 10-15% of the population atheistic.

So any way you slice it, only a very few people are on the extreme ends as were Bill Nye and Ken Ham in the debate a few weeks ago.


Thursday, February 20, 2014

Fighting Action

I've made several posts about real self defense compared to what some people think might work. When one of the participants is trained in jiu-jitsu, the fight sequence actually becomes repetitive... almost to the point of being boring. Here is how it usually takes place:

The jiu-jitsu fighter maintains distance, and closes the distance when the time is right. The other fighter often tries unsuccessfully to punch or kick. The jiu-jitsu fighter executes a takedown - usually a leg trip (kosoto gari) and often lands on top in a dominant position.

Alternately, the fight goes to the ground in a different manner (sometimes, the jiu-jitsu fighter will pull guard) and the jiu-jitsu fighter is on his back, and uses the guard to stay safe from punches.

Rarely, the jiu-jitsu fighter will get caught in a guillotine attempt - one of the most common, basic, and instinctive holds an untrained person will try. 

Ground Stage 1 - positioning
Typically, the jiu-jitsu fighter is in a dominant position, and will work his way to the mount. From there, the opponent often turns, and the jiu-jitsu fighter takes the back.

Alternately, the jiu-jitsu fighter is working from the guard, and maneuvers to the mount or directly to the back.

The jiu-jitsu fighter caught in a guillotine will most likely be on top, and will escape the attempt with a combination of positioning, patience, technique, and (occasionally) a few well-aimed rib strikes. The jiu-jitsu fighter then takes the mounted position, and proceeds from there.

Ground Stage 2 - the finish
Typically, the jiu-jitsu fighter will be on the opponent's back, and will secure a rear naked choke (hadaka jime). The opponent taps out or passes out.

Alternately, the jiu-jitsu fighter's attempts to sweep from the guard are unsuccessful, so he will apply a triangle choke (sankaku jime). Rarely, you will see a straight arm lock from guard (juji gatame).

In fights or matches between a jiu-jitsu fighter, and someone who lacks jiu-jitsu training (they might be a black belt in karate or kung fu, etc.), the most common finishes are, in order:
The single most common finish is the rear naked choke (hadaka jime).
Second most common finish would be the triangle (sankaku jime).
A distinct third option is the straight arm lock (juji gatame) - sometimes applied from the top, sometimes from guard.
The guillotine choke is often used when the situation is correct, and is fourth most common.
The Kimura arm lock (ude garami) from guard is fifth, but is rare.
The Americana arm lock (ude garami) from top (mount or side) is sixth, and is very rarely seen.

Other finishes do exist, but are most commonly used in matches between jiu-jitsu fighters. So rare to see are these, that I do not teach them to beginner ranks.


Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Challenge Fights

I recently came across some previously unreleased challenge fights from the Gracie Academy. Here is the Youtube video:

As I've stated before, it is technically possible for an untrained person to beat a person trained in jiu-jitsu... it's just very, very unlikely. Each of these matches bears that fact out.


Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Creation vs. Evolution

A few days ago - 2/4/2014 - I was witness to the "Creation vs. Evolution" debate that was sponsored by Answers in Genesis and televised via . The debaters were Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and Bill Nye of TV fame. The choice of debaters might seem somewhat puzzling on the outside - neither man holds a PhD, and neither is considered a top scientist of their respective fields.

However, the choice was obvious for other reasons. Ham and Nye both have earned a living in the public eye with their scientific endeavors. Ham is the founder of the Creation Museum, as well as Answers in Genesis (AiG). Bill Nye was an airplane engineer by trade who went on to make his money doing fun science-related things on a TV program geared to get kids excited about science. You could say their respective scientific merits fall within the realm of capitalism as opposed to research.

I follow AiG, and I also try to keep abreast of scientific discoveries and trends. I observed a growing tension in both camps from people of all walks of life, as they typed out their thoughts on various internet forums.

Before the debate, the air was quite different from the respective crowds:

Evolution side -
People were openly criticizing the selection of Bill Nye, as they often felt he lacks suitable credentials. They also were acting astonished that anyone would "stoop" to the level of actually debating creationinsm, thereby lending credibility to the argument.

Creation side -
People in these circles were almost antsy to see a Creationist "tear up" an evolutionist with facts and statements from the Bible. It was as if they thought the win was theirs before the opening bell.

As for the debate:

Evolution Side -
Bill Nye really surprised me with his stage presence. It is one thing to perform in front of a camera for a taped show, with multiple takes and directors, etc. It is quite a different thing to speak in front of hundreds (thousands?) present at the Creation Museum and potentially millions watching live around the world via internet stream. He did not seem uneasy, and he used as simple of terms as possible - bringing the subjects to life.

Creation Side -
Ken Ham similarly seemed at ease. It would be my guess that he speaks regularly in front of hundreds of people who come to his Creation Museum. It was clearly his home court. He presented his side of things and added the dimension of what he feels, as well as doing a good job of staying on point with "there's this book."

Snarky Bits - both
Neither man poked personal jabs at the other... much different than a political debate. This was refreshing.
Nye kept pointing to "Ham's personal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago in other languages and translated into modern English." To be fair, the point was valid, though many others share Ham's opinion on the topic.
Ham kept pointing to the fact that evolution cannot tell us where or how life originated (Nye later confirmed), and would poke at the "chance" happenings needed to make it work.

Nye pointed to facts (speed of light and distance to stars, rubidium-strontium and uranium-lead decay), and commonly held theories (ice layer formation) to point to evidence of vast periods of time.
Ham only gave cursory counters to the commonly-held timeframes, but then seemed to quickly shift to other topics.

Nye constantly attacked the presumption of 4000 years since a flood, and pointed out a lack of evidence for same. It was my impression that Ham never fully addressed this issue.

At several instances, Nye openly challenged anyone to show evidence to the contrary that fossils were always found in predicted layers underground, and never mixed. I am surprised Ham did not mention Glen Rose, TX.

Ham did bring up a few notes that can demonstrate inconsistency in geological dating, to which Nye's responses were a bit lacking.

Ham brought up Biblical references to "kinds" - or what we now classify (typically) as "Family." It was interesting and showed how god helped us to classify things long ago. 

Nye completely failed to ask questions about Biblical writing - specifically the fact that much of the Bible is in allegory form (often taking the form of a parable). However, he only praised religion in broad terms. This was a positive note for me, as he shied away from the attacks that militant atheists often use in debates.

Ham seemed to reach his Achilles Heel with the subject of universal expansion. I'm not sure if he simply wasn't well read on the subject, or if he outright denies the evidence. With other commonly held notions, you could tell his stance (denies evidence or has an alternate explanation)... not with the expansion notion.

Ham also directly avoided mentioning factual constants like the speed of light and how that directly relates to time. To be fair, this was probably for the best with regards to his cause.

Conspicuous by its absence was discussion on the origin of man, specifically. 

I'm sure others will point out many things I didn't. That's fine... these are my takeaways on it. I enjoyed the debate. I felt the following victories were had by each side:
Evolution: age of Earth / Universe
Evolution: variations within species
Creation: origin of Earth
Creation: origin of life (including man)
Evolution: use of scientific method and observation of facts.
Creation: the fact that facts of the past must often be "interpreted" and this can be source of error.

In very broad terms, I'd imagine this outline sums up the personal beliefs of most Christians in America today, myself included.

Personal Feelings
Some time back, I set out to find what Jews felt on the age of the Earth. Reason being, as a chemist by training, I am extremely familiar with rubidium-strontium and uranium-lead decay, as well as other forms of radiometric dating. I also understand that the speed of light is a constant, and can, therefore, be used to measure distance.

If we can view stars that are millions of light-years away, then it means that something was around millions of years ago. Similarly, if we can determine the date of a rock to be millions, or even billions of years old, then we know Earth was here back then.

I refused to accept the strong evidence, and had to make sure my faith was right. It was not a matter of molding my faith, but a matter of interpreting a 3500 year old book correctly... something we cannot do with the same accuracy we can use to date a rock or measure distance to a star.


Monday, February 17, 2014

Faith in Christ Alone

John 14:6
Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Does this invalidate the Covenant God made with the Jews? What about the provisions within Judaism for the Noahide code (salvation for righteous Gentiles)? 

In Short: not at all. 
Here is how we get there...

What is so special about Christ?
There are two major schools of thought: the mainline thoughts fall under the umbrella concept that Christ's death satisfied God's demand for punishment of sin for those who believe in Him. The alternative view does not necessarily diminish Jesus' Lordship, but simply falls more in line with the modern Jewish thought that atonement is not necessary in light of Faith, repentance, and Godly works. 

I will not go into more, as there are several major schools of thought within each umbrella. Suffice it to say, at the base, we all agree to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. 

Why belief in Jesus Christ does not contradict the "Old" Covenant
Because Jesus is Lord. He is part of what we know as "God."

Why belief in God does not contradict belief in Jesus Christ
Because Jesus is Lord. He is part of what we know as "God."

What does John 14:6 mean?
Like so many verses in the Bible, it is an urge from God for us to believe in Him - the One, True God. As opposed to believing in Buddha, or Baal, etc.


Friday, February 14, 2014

I'm Not the Only one

In the past, I might have had a blog post about Delta Airlines. Or Two.
And there might even be more snide comments I've made in other posts about Delta, as well.

Seems I am far from the only one on this. Was reading an article on America's least respected companies. Delta was ranked the very worst. Even below tobacco companies!


Thursday, February 13, 2014

Seminar Etiquette

Etiquette - the art of knowing how to behave. At a martial arts seminar featuring multiple martial arts, it is a valid question. Different arts have different customs, and when visiting another person's studio, it might be difficult to find out how they do things.

Having planned seminars like this, taught in them, studied in them, and been around a lot more than most, let me share some insight:

Uniform / Belt
Wear your typical uniform and belt. If you practice more than one martial art, wear the uniform / belt of one particular art. No need to put on a white belt, or do anything silly.

If you have access to multiple uniforms, a white uniform typically is best.

If you are a black belt, have a plain black belt to wear. Don't get caught up in the "keeping up with the Jones'es" act of trying to wear your most outlandish belt or uniform just to show off.

Line Up / Come to order
Observe for a second how the members of the home studio are lining up, and fall in as instructed, or at the lower ranking end of similar belt colors.

Korean schools will call you to order and bow in with commands of "Cha Ryot! Kunye!"
Japanese schools will call order and bow in with "Kiyotsuke! Rei!"

There may be additional words in there, but the gist is the same: "Come to attention! Bow (show respect)!"

Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Martial Arts Twist: BECAUSE they are going to do unto you in just a few moments!

No need to go crazy, or use super amounts of strength to accomplish your task. Just follow the instructions and have fun!

Stick to the subject matter
Seriously, if you have something to add, see one of the organizers, and ask about being a presenter at the next seminar!


Wednesday, February 12, 2014

To Your Health

There's no question that America has been the breeding ground of ill health in the last few decades. The US leads the world in obesity, diabetes, heart attack, stroke, cancer, as well as more "minor" issues such as psychological disorders, ADD, ADHD, and many more.

"If diet is wrong, then medicine is of no use. If diet is right, then medicine is of no need."
- Ancient Ayurvedic Proverb

How many times have you heard someone say "I try to diet, but it just doesn't work!" Or "I exercise a lot, but it doesn't help much!" I think these statements are often true, and largely correct!

In 2011, I was diagnosed with Type II Diabetes - at age 36. My father was diagnosed at a similar age. My mother diagnosed a couple of decades later. My mother died from a heart attack brought on by complications from uncontrolled diabetes. My father has lost one foot and half of the other, as well as an eye to the effects of diabetes.

To say I had a dog in this fight was an understatement.

What I found was that doctors could measure blood-sugar levels: both instant and 3-month averages, but they couldn't tell you a lot about what caused those levels to raise or lower. These doctors could prescribe medicine that would artificially lower those numbers... but it only made you think that it was all a game so they could prescribe you more and more things and pay for their BMW payment with your money.

So, I put my education to work. Degree in Chemistry from UTC - 1998.

To be clear, I didn't put to use any specific knowledge I had of chemical reactions or such. I put to work the scientific method. I used my body as an experiment. I found a baseline food that did not raise my blood-sugar (aka "Blood-Glucose" or BG) levels at all. One by one, I added more foods, and determined their effect on my BG levels.

I found that a candy bar might raise my sugar levels 50-100 points, but only for a few hours.
I found that meat did not affect my BG levels appreciably.
I found that most vegetables did not affect my BG appreciably.
I found that grains did affect my BG levels. And it varied.

Wheat was worst. 
A single serving of the white bread used for Subway sandwiches would raise my BG 120-150 points and keep it up 50 points or more for over 12 hours.
A single serving of the "whole-grain" bread from Subway would elevate my BG 80-100 points and keep it elevated by 40+ points for over 12 hours.

Potato was next
Potato would elevate my blood-sugar levels about as much as whole-grain wheat... but for only half the time. There was a distinct bell-curve to the effects, vs. the plateau of elevated BG levels.
Raw potato had almost no effect, but who likes that?

Corn was next on the list
Nowhere near as much an effect as wheat. A slight peak at 50 points elevated Only slightly elevated BG levels (20-30 points) for 6-hour time frames. Corn on the cob was even less.

Rice was unpredictable
Or so I thought. Bleached (processed) white rice was almost as bad as wheat for the peak, but only elevated my BG levels for 6 hours at a time. Brown rice from home had a minimal effect - 30 point peak and 10-15 points elevated for 4-6 hours.

Beans were like brown rice
Lentils and beans had effects like brown rice on me - almost not even enough to worry about.

Milk / Dairy had little effect
Small peaks like brown rice or beans, but the effects on my BG were gone in 4 hours.

About the time I had this figured out, my brother directed me toward the Primal Diet. That blog and the anecdotes by the thousands of Primal fans mimicked my experience to the "T."

Since then, I have discovered similar eating plans advocated in the form of Paleo Diet, The Wheat Belly Blog, Free The Animal, and even The Bulletproof Executive advocates a similar version.


Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Blending In

There are many reasons to have camouflage clothing. From the point of view of the American Rifleman, there exists the possibility that being called on to defend the US might require violence. Should the American Rifleman find need of violence, then it is wise to prepare to defend against same.

One way of preventing the opponent's violence is to stay hidden. Should the American Rifleman find himself in violent times, staying concealed is of the utmost importance. There are many options available, and the majority are extremely effective in their intended use.

The author's choices of camouflage are:

1. Urban / Suburban. 
This consists of jeans / khakis, plain shirts, unremarkable shoes or hiking boots, and generally ordinary attire. The idea here is that concealment is to be had by looking ordinary. Colors should primarily be browns, greys, blues, and black. Common styles and accessories are ideal.

2. Outdoors
The author selects the traditional "woodland camouflage" for use during April - October.

Similarly, the traditional US desert 3-colorr is for November - March, when much of the local landscape is marked by wintertime drab browns and greys.

Other reasonable patterns exist in large numbers. There are various hunting styles that mimic trees or other woodland environments. Additionally, there are other military style patterns available, too. Each has its merits, and would make a good choice in the right situation.

One reason the author elects to avoid current use military patterns is due to the fact that the author never served, and would prefer to avoid giving the impression that this was the case.

3. Special considerations
Snow, lakes, destroyed buildings, and countless other possibilities exist that would legitimize the use of other patterns by a person. In short, being an American Rifleman is about adapting. The program has no specified uniform, to be sure.


Monday, February 10, 2014

Major in the Majors

In preparing for the theme of not majoring in the minors - also known as being loud where God is loud, and being silent where God is silent - we must first define what God expects of us. This is actually very easy, and does not involve hundreds of laws. Just three categories:

Greatest Commandment
1. Love God.
2. Love others as yourself.
(Matthew 22: 36 - 40 - Leviticus 19:18 - Deuteronomy 6:5)

Ten Commandments
1. Have no other gods before God.
2. Do not make any graven images.
3. Do not take the Lord's name in vain (blasphemy).
4. Remember the Sabbath Day.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not give false testimony.
10. Do not covet.
(Exodus 20:1-17 - Deuteronomy 5:4-21)

Noahide Laws
1. Acknowledge there is only one God and believe in Him. / Prohibition on idolatry.
2. Prohibition of blasphemy.
3. Prohibition of murder.
4. Prohibition of theft.
5. Prohibition of sexual immorality (adultery, incest, rape, bestiality, and pederasty)
6. Prohibition of inhumane acts to animals.
7. Prescription to establish courts of law.

Since, among these rules, there is much overlap and no contradiction, for the purpose of this series on majoring on the majors, we will assume The Greatest Commandment as the guiding principle, the Decalogue as the rules, and add the one Noahide prohibition of inhumane acts towards animals as those against which we gauge the topics.


Friday, February 7, 2014

Church-Israel Relations

From a reader:

I’ve read a lot of your blog. Good stuff. Was wondering, would you consider your theology with regards to dispensational Salvation?

Hello, and thank you for reading. Also, thank you for an excellent question!

I would consider my viewpoints to be very closely aligned with "Dual Covenant Theology," when it comes to salvation. That said, I would not fault any who held to Dispensational views, nor "Progressive Dispensational" views - I do not agree with them, but I understand their point of view. I do not at all care for those with Covenant Theology or Suppersessionism views... they simply are not Biblical.

To be clear in this answer, I am not referring to viewpoints on the rapture, or other end-times events. These are simply my opinions of Biblical interpretation of salvation with regards to God's covenants. I think all Covenants He has made are for yesterday, today, and forever. 


Thursday, February 6, 2014

Real Self Improvement

The other day, I found the article: Six Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person.

Every last point is right.


6. The world only cares about what it can get from you.
(I brought in $10M in revenue to my company last year. What did you do?)

5. The hippies were wrong.
(I am happy because I do a good job.)

4. What you produce does not have to make money, but it does have to benefit people.
(Martial Arts. Sales. I make money, make money for people, and empower people. You?)

3. You hate yourself because you don't do anything. 
(It's true, people who loaf around are the ones most likely to wind up on depression meds.)

2. What you are inside only matters because of what it makes you do.
(Jesus kept on emphasizing good works, "a tree will be known by its fruits," etc.)

1. Everything inside you will fight improvement.
(This is why the successful are so often "hated.")

Or you can be like this guy, and go into accounting or some-such. Every tribe has its useless members. They busy themselves with menial tasks and pretend they are being of some good use.


Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Keeping to the Basics

So I was reading a blog post some time ago, and the author had a very intriguing series of questions. The premise was that he had been asked by another party to write an article on basic arms, equipment, and training for a standing militia - "militia" as originally described by the US Constitution:

Every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 - 45. 

Even today, that definition is applicable to what was redefined in The Militia Act of 1903 as the "reserve militia." However, this post is not designed to discuss the definition of the militia, or even to suggest whether we need one (we do, as it is fundamental to the defending of human rights). I won't even argue the merits of women serving in militia capacities, should they so choose (they should).

What interested me were the questions the blog author asked of himself, and on which he requested input from readers:

  • What arms should be considered acceptable for militia use? Considering that the M4/M/16 platform is the military standard and shares 80%  parts commonality with the AR-15 for repair, maintenance, and resupply purposes, I’m having a hard time accepting an argument for anything other than an AR-15 from a logical point of view… but I’m open to persuasion.  I’m less interested in pistols and shotguns because of their comparatively limited use.
  • how expansive the ” standard kit” should be? Should it just be the rifle, mags, ammo cleaning kit, and something to carry it all, or should it include sustenance equipment?
  • What should be considered a minimal level of acceptable training and competency?
  • Should a minimal level of  physical conditioning be part of the requirement, and if so, what is that minimal standard?
Excellent questions! Let's tackle them, in order. But first, another definition. I shall define the militia-member, who is the subject of this line of questions, as a "minuteman." The term shall apply for both genders, and is derived from the Revolutionary War period militiaman of the same status. It should go without saying that a true minuteman would have all weapons and gear easily accessible so as to be able to be ready to fight for his freedom with these things in tow within sixty seconds of being notified.

What arms should be considered acceptable for militia use? 
I agree 100% with the author that if there was a standard, that standard should be the minuteman's preference of AR15 rifle or carbine. Sights, optics, and other accessories should be left to the personal preferences and tastes of the individual minuteman.

While the AK, the M1A, and other platforms would serve well, in the end, they would be less preferable. The AK does not have the accuracy potential, the reliability, nor the interchangeability when compared to an AR15. The M1A is heavier, harder to handle, has harsher recoil, and is not useable by as wide a variety of people. In the right hands, either platform is more than suitable... but that's a big qualifying statement.

In short - use another platform if you must. Shoot the AR15 if at all possible.

How expansive the ” standard kit” should be? Should it just be the rifle, mags, ammo cleaning kit, and something to carry it all, or should it include sustenance equipment?
Rifle. Ammo. Mags. Cleaning kit. Whatever that minuteman feels would be appropriate in a field rucksack for staying out of doors for 1-3 days.

What should be considered a minimal level of acceptable training and competency?
Be able to hit 20" targets with primary rifle out to 300 meters (one reason why the AK won't make my "approved" list).
Be able to clear malfunctions on their own rifle. 

Should a minimal level of physical conditioning be part of the requirement, and if so, what is that minimal standard?
Be able to walk/run 5k (3.1 miles) with their gear (or weight equivalent) in 60 minutes or less. 


Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Assumptive Close

My daughter (age 6) is in Daisy Scouts (formerly Brownies), the youngest division of Girl Scouts. It is the time of year to sell Girl Scout cookies. She approached the father of her brother's friend for her first sale (no training, no advice from anybody, yet):

"Mr. Rxxx, which Girl Scout cookies would you like to buy today?"

As a person who has had much success in sales, I spotted the "Assumptive Close" immediately, and was impressed to see it used by a Kindergartener.

PS - he bought two boxes, despite having prior "orders" from his wife not to buy any!


Monday, February 3, 2014

Kayfabe News NFL Style

Last night, I watched the NFL's decision to award Seattle the championship over Denver.
"What?!?!?! The NFL is not fixed!!!" you yell?

Please tell me you still don't believe in that. It was a shock to me to learn at age 10 that wrestling was not real. That's OK, I still enjoy seeing it. To be fair, it is more enjoyable than any other professional fixed league (NBA, NFL, etc.)

My brother an I figured out the fix on the NBA back in the 1990's. We could predict game outcomes, and scores to within +/-2.5 points. At that time, we conceded that the NBA was completely, if not largely, fixed with regard to outcome.

I have railed on this hard with the NFL in the last few years. So let me give you just a sampling of logic to ponder: This year, the highest scoring team ever in NFL history was crowned - the Denver Broncos. Yet, they somehow not only lose the championship, but only score a single touchdown in the process (71 offensive touchdowns over the season - that's over 4.4 per game).

Prior to that, the all time offensive team was the 2007 Patriots. They had scored 67 touchdowns (4.2 per game). That year, the Patriots did not lose a game until the Super Bowl.

If that were not enough "irony," consider this: that 2007 Patriots team is the one that got caught spying on the Jets. The League destroyed the evidence, but the man who caught them on camera happened to be a lawyer, and he sued to reclaim losses for his ticket purchase price. The court essentially agreed with the man that the games were fixed, and that the actions of the Patriots, the Jets, and the NFL were despicable. However, the court found that the man had not been subject to a breach of contract: he did get to see "NFL games" for his tickets, even though he had a shocking revelation of what an NFL game is.

A complete work.

Too bad the WWE's Creative department is much better than the NFL's. Makes matches and events much more fun than the NFL could ever be.


Not Majoring in the Minors

"We should be loud where God is loud, and quiet where God is quiet."
- Pastor of my church.

Thus starts a series on this blog. We will discuss the most common topics found in the Bible.

As a preview - here are the most common themes:
Faith in God - the most common positive command.
Love (for fellow man) - the second most common positive command.
Money - the third most common topic in the Bible.

Also, we will talk about the most mentioned sins:
Idolatry - the most commonly named sin.
Greed / Covetousness
False testimony