NCAA Strips U S C of 2005 Bowl Championship

The University of Southern California has officially been stripped of the championship Bowl victory against Oklahoma in January 2005. They say they did so because one of their players, Reggie Bush, took illegal funds while on the team. To me this is an absurd injustice. How long has the NCAA been holding some penalty over USC’s head anyhow, three years? It’s seemingly endless and I’ve lost track. But reaching back six years into history and say that the major victory over Oklahoma doesn’t count- - is silly, because we all watched them do it. They aren’t awarding the championship to Oklahoma or any other team. They will just say “there will be no championship for the 2004 season”. I was thinking what if the US Supreme Court reasoned this way. As you know when the Bush v Gore decision was handed down. One where the Court illegally treaded on state’s rights. When this happened they said “This decision cannot be used for a precedent in any court case”. So what’s to stop the US Supreme Court from saying, “Since the case was illegally decided we are going to re-hear the case and if we rule in favor of the State of Florida, and Al Gore, will strip the Presidency of George Bush from him. This will mean that none of the laws Bush signed into law during his terms has any legal binding effect because they are illegal. Or what if Republicans getting into power decided to retroactively refigues the unemployment rate during Ronald Reagan’s first term and decreed that RR was actually reelected when unemployment was at 3.6% and not 7.2% I think a lot of these sports rulings now are over-bearing. Who cares how Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France? If the idea is to push the limits of human endurance, well didn’t Lance prove he could do that? What about these “Purity” nutritional products they advertise on the radio Saturday mornings? They claim these have wonder working powers. Sometimes they even say to give the product to Fido and watch him run around in the park. I get suspicious when they issue these “revised” economic figures on stuff, because they almost invariably show a better figure than the original one to make the current administration look good.. Neither do I like this game they play in court where if some “illegal evidence” slips through on the most minute of technicality- - like the D A raised an illegal point in an argument or something was brought out that “shouldn’t” have been because it revealed too much - - and if left to stand would - - unduly clarify the issues the jury was arguing about.

I am not happy about today’s U S Supreme Court ruling which let a California court ruling stand saying that illegal aliens can get the same reduced tuition for state colleges that legal Californians get. But if you are a legal foreigner from another state, you have to pay more. I don’t get it. Illegal aliens shouldn’t have driver’s licenses and shouldn’t have a social security number, and shouldn’t be hired by employers. But we know all these take place. And they come here to our emergency rooms, and get free medical services on our tax dollar. It’s not as though California government is rolling in money right now. If the Supreme Court at least heard the case they might see that leaving the status quo intact is itself a grave Injustice.

Weiner-gate has about played itself out as far as it can go. And I hope that’s not another pun. Today Anthony Weiner had to admit he lied when he said his Twitter site was hacked and the photo was not his. Nobody likes someone being caught in a lie, especially when its someone on our side. One could hardly imagine a worse fate were Cosmic Hand writing the script Himself. It’s the fondest dream and hope of any republican that the most strident, fearless spokesman for the common man be put out of commission. But one has to just wonder whether Bill Clinton “played it right” in his own sex scandal of 1998. In retrospect it would have been much more crafty and wise to just resign and let Al Gore take over. Then Al Gore would most assuredly have won the election of 2000 and he would have four years to groom any potential vice president he picked, who would have won in 2004. And then after eight years of “candidate X”, perhaps by then Berack Obama would actually be mature enough to run for President in 2012. One can imagine a rosy scenario all the way around. All of those wall street laws most likely would not have been signed into law by a President Gore. That computer system that was in place at the beginning of 2001 that Bush took out (Sixty Minutes talked about this) that system would have added to the warnings the US was about to be attacked by Al Qaeda on 9 – 11. So since that never would have happened there might not have been the business slow down there was that the right wing said was an outgrowth of 9 – 11. And there would be no Iraq War in 2003 and no war in Afghanistan. And the prescription drug give-away Medicare part D bill would never have been signed (to curry needed favor with senior citizens) and as such our deficit would be a lot lower, if there was one at all. Because of course the Bush tax cuts never would have happened. In short almost everyone in America would be a lot happier.

"The simple things you see are all complicated"

"I look bloody young but I'm just back-dated"

Good morning this Wednesday June 8th 2011. I'm typing this nice and early so you people in Chicago can be reading this while on your way to work. There was some pop up saying "Make your blog part of a mobile device. I was just listening to Bill Press. Maybe you were too. He says how come nobody sticks up for Anthony Wiener. That's because we're all afraid of what "they" alias the Media will think of us if we do. But I have SOMETHING NEW for you right now on the whole mystery of when St. Paul actually lived. To solve this we need a Roman Emperor who was actually sympathetic to is not protective of Christians. And we found one in Antionius Pious. The "Pious" part of it was always a hint. Paul kept saying "I want to appeal to Caesar". Pious began his reign in 138 AD. Which means St. Paul and his vast network of Churches spanning the Medeteranian was just wrapping up his ministry by then. Though St. Paul's letters clearly precede the Gospels, they don't precede it by all that much because Justin Martyr, in his Apology of 150 AD quotes from both indescriminately. No Bible source is named by Justin, and he won't even use the phrase "it is written" but just quote the line as if it were his own, often making reference to "the memwires of the Apostles". I've been told that Ignatius, who lived earlier if he lived at all, never heard of Paul. We may infer also that some of the late letters of Paul were unknown to Marcion, or he would have quoted from them. Likewise Acts hadn't been written yet or Marcion would have gladly quoted from that since it so expertly suited his purposes. According to Luke we may infer "all kingdoms of this world are ruled by Satan, and Jesus never disputed this". However in Romans 13 by Paul, we are told "Governments are instituted by God". There two separate roomers about John Knox. That he believes Acts has inaccurate chronology, and also that Marcion didn't know about the Christmas Story in Luke so didn't include it. We also know John Calvin did not think ANY of the epistles of Ignatius were genuine. There are so many of them and it seemed if you wanted to write a fake epistle it was shiek to put Ignatius' name on it. Prior to Antonius Pious who began reigning in AD 138 we have Hadrian. No mention of Christians is made at all during his reign however we know that in AD 135 his troops destroyed the City of Jerusalem and all the Jews were expelled. My guess is that there was a "piling on" instinct here, where being Jewish became an easy target to pick on now. But keep in mind if Gnosticisum began in 90 AD it had been going on for decades already, and Christians already had a big boot up on forulating a lot of their Theology.

I want to talk just a little about the last posting. I am a reasonable man. If you thought that was undo extrapolation of dialog, what about the Screwtape Letters by C S Lewis? How strange that in that story Satan practices perfect Christian theology, or should I say perfect C S Lewis Christian theology. Keep in mind the story is to have taken place about AD 35 or 36 shortly after “Yeshuah” the Jewish name for Jesus, died in AD 34 during what’s known as the Hebrew jubilee year. As such things like crosses and Sunday worship and the words “Church” and “Cathedral” would have been unknown. And not only that but the whole anti-Semitic tone of Christian theology hadn’t been thought of yet. Does this clarify things? It’s hard to dig down and find the truth. Many will just accept whatever the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar tells them. There is a line in there “Always hoped to be an apostle. Knew that I would make it if I tried. Then when we retire we can all write the Gospels so they’ll all talk about us when we died.” As I have said however the first real evidence for the existence of any gospel comes about AD 135 or some hundred years after Jesus died. People will say “Christianity can’t be a myth because there isn’t enough TIME for a myth to get going. Myths generally take a hundred years to get going”. OK, how do you want to tell the story? So Jesus dies when the apostles are about thirty and they live another 25 years and retire from the ministry and write the gospels at age 55, which is way past the normal life expectancy of that era, especially for those who live in backward areas. No authority says the gospels were written as early as AD 55 or some 15 years before the Jewish War. And besides they also tell us that all the apostles were martyred, which means they couldn’t “retire” because they were “killed on the job”. It’s funny that with each passing century - the more certitude exists in documents, as well as the more details, and subtle motives you read. By 300 a guy named Eusebius was writing a lot of Church history. And I maintain if you see his name referenced, pretty much ignore anything he ways. The Coptic Church says St. Mark founded their church. But even the Bible itself makes no mention of Mark being in Egypt but numerous references to his being in Rome. The first reference to St. Mark’s founding of the Coptic church occurs centuries later. I gotta admit when I first heard the St. Mark - Egypt connection I was excited. They said Egypt had the Gospel of Mark in 50 AD. Well, it ‘taint so. In fact the Apostle Paul knew virtually nothing about the life of Jesus, and by the way there is no historic proof that either the Apostle, nor any of the web of churches founded in his name- existed in the first century AD. There is a Wickepedia article on Historical inaccuracies in the Book of Acts. You see many area where chronologies of events is altered, or reference is made to things either that no longer exist or haven't yet come into existance. Also the Bible would have us that James, brother of Jesus writes and reads Greek. If Peter's pentacost speech was delivered outdoors and 3,000 got saved right then and they were only some portion of the people present, how did he do this without a good P A system? And I still can't wrap my head around the idea that Nero is referred to numerous times in the Book of Acts, in a positive manner but he is never mentioned by Name, nor is the fire in Rome or the Christians being thrown to the lions, or the deaths of Peter and Paul mentioned.