<$BlogRSDURL$>

Monday, July 25, 2005

Rugby Anyone?


Quadriplegia (kwodra-plee-jee-a): A condition of having partial or full paralysis of all four limbs.

Rugby (rug-bee): A game played by two teams of 15 players each on a rectangular field 110 yards long with goal lines and goal posts at either end, the object being to run with an oval ball across the opponent's goal line or kick it through the upper portion of the goal posts, with forward passing and time-outs not permitted. (American Heritage).

Murderball (Mur-der-bal): Quadriplegics playing rugby.

I watched the new documentary, Murderball, yesterday with my brother. Honestly, going into it I didn’t really know what to expect. Was the doc going to focus on the sport? The players? I wasn’t sure. As it turned out, it focused on both, but not in the way you might think.

Don’t walk into the movie expecting it to be a feel good movie about men overcoming great odds. It’s not that kind of film. Instead, expect a rather graphic discussion of sex as a quadriplegic; a trophy-collecting father who probably abuses his son; winning rugby games and losing rugby games; dealing psychologically with being in a wheelchair; and a lot of laughs.

Here’s a quote that I think sums up the movie: Scott Hogsett recounts how he was at a wedding and most of the people there knew he was about to play in the Paralympics in Athens (2004). Well, a woman comes up to him and says, “I understand you’re playing in the Special Olympics.” He said to himself, “Right then I went from being the man at the party to being a f*^&ing retard.”

Now I realize that’s cold, and he does qualify the remark by expressing admiration for the athletes in the Special Olympics. But, let’s face it, the Special Olympics aren’t about winning. They are a competition for children and adults with disabilities; participating is the biggest reward. The Paralympics, on the other hand, are about winning. And these guys work their ass off to make sure they do just that.

If you have the time, check out Murderball. It will be eye-opening to say the least, and if you are like most people, it will broader your understanding of quadriplegia and exactly what does and doesn’t mean to be disabled.

www.murderballmovie.com


Wednesday, July 20, 2005

"That's one small step for [a] man..."

So today, July 20, is the anniversary of humans landing on the moon. Or is it...

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

(Supreme Court Justice?) John Roberts, Jr.

I don't know much about Judge John Roberts, Jr., but he was nominated earlier tonight to replace the vacancy soon to be created by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.Currently, he is on the appeal's court in D.C.; he's 50 years old (pretty young); and he went to Harvard (undergrad and law).

I was extremely impressed by his brief statement after President Bush introduced him. Very classy:

"Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.

"Thank you very much. It is both an honor and very humbling to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Before I became a judge, my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the court. That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the court as an institution.

"I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court, and I don't think it was just from the nerves.

"I am very grateful for the confidence the president has shown in nominating me, and I look forward to the next step in the process before the United States Senate.

"It's also appropriate for me to acknowledge that I would not be standing here today if it were not for the sacrifice and help of my parents, Jack and Rosemary Roberts; my three sisters, Kathy, Peggy and Barbara; and of course my wife, Jane.

"And I also want to acknowledge my children, my daughter, Josie, my son, Jack, who remind me every day why it's so important for us to work to preserve the institutions of our democracy.

"Thank you again very much."


Friday, July 15, 2005

Atheism's God


I was listening to the radio today, and the host had on two people: a young woman who was 17 and an older man (not related). The reason the host had these people on was that they were affiliated with Camp Quest (www.camp-quest.com), a summer camp "for the children of Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists, Humanists, Brights, or whatever other terms might be applied to those who hold to a naturalistic, not supernatural, world view." The young woman has attended the summer camp for the past three summers, and the man is the camp director.

I have to say its always entertaining to listen to religious and non-religious people debate or discuss religion. Usually what happens is a bunch of Christians will call in and say that the bible is the word of God and therefore everyone should read it and live it. As with most people, their skills at debating always seem to me to be pretty lacking. How do you convince someone that they should listen to the word of God (in any form) if they don't believe in God at all? It’s tantamount to circular reasoning.

But what has always fascinated me about atheism is this: Every time I listen to an atheist, he or she says that it is absurd to believe that they are not moral simply because they don’t subscribe to the notion of any higher authority.

We have Christians, Jews, and Muslims who be in a certain God and therefore define their morality based upon principles laid down by that figure. Buddhists subscribe to a morality influenced by the philosophy of a circular nature. Hindus believe in many Gods and define their morality from those supernatural beings. I’m sure that if we studied the religions of small tribes in Africa, South America etc., we’d find a similar pattern: I define my morality this way because a supernatural being says so (in effect).

Ok, so let’s turn now to the atheist. I have no doubt that an atheist can be moral. (Brief side note: I realize that “morality” to many people, especially those in the realm of academia, is fluid and relative, let’s put that notion aside for the moment.) In fact, I would suggest that, as a ratio, there are just as many moral atheists as there are moral Christians (or Buddhists, or Hindus, etc,).

What I want to know, and what I would like you all to comment on (ESPECIALLY if you are or know an atheist), is how do atheists arrive at what is moral and what is immoral? What is the standard?

Murder, Rape, Theft…

Certainly any atheist would agree that those things are wrong. But the question is: why are they wrong. What is it about those acts (and the many others that I could rattle off) that make them wrong. Christianity has a pretty defined reason why murder is wrong. It involves many aspects. Why do atheists believe it is wrong. To me it is not good enough to say, “Well, come on Mike, it’s obvious that murder is wrong.” What makes it so obvious.

So please, let’s discuss this. Give me your thoughts.


Friday, July 08, 2005

Is That the Best You Could Do?

Over the past 30 hours, we’ve all had the unfortunate opportunity to see and read about the latest (purported) Islamic terrorist act in London, England. However, given the city’s tragic history in the 20th century, 4 bombs and less than 40 dead is hardly an affective way to get a “stiff upper lip” to quiver.

During the “Battle of Britain,” NAZI bombs (when they actually went off) killed more than 27,000 civilians in London between 7/1940 and 5/1941. That is approximately 2,700 people a month. The bombs also injured more than 30,000. Since the 1960s, the United Kingdom has been victimized by numerous attacks from the Irish Republican Army (in its various forms), killing perhaps a total of 50 people.

Isn’t the bomb-in-the-subway or bomb-on-the-bus strategy just a little passé, Arab Islamic terrorist? Did you spend on your terrorist capital on hijacking those four American planes on September 11 and driving them into various buildings and fields?

Believe me, I’m not asking for anything more “spectacular” than the terror you’ve already wrought. And, granted, you may pull off something huge today or tomorrow. But I doubt it. I’m willing to bet, now that certain world leaders have gotten more serious about terrorism, you’re activities will remain be regulated to the cheap, easy, and disgusting—just like your mom.

Snap.


Monday, July 04, 2005

What does the date July 4, 1776, mean to you? Please respond by comment or a post of your own...

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