If convicted, there is no punishment too harsh for Joseph P. Smith. Yet, as heinous the crime he is accused of, if he sincerely comes to God and asks for forgivness, he will be made clean. I don't understand it, I don't have to understand it, but I do know God forgave me and made me His son. He will do the same for Joseph Smith, if he but asks.
(Joh 1:12) But whoever did want him, who believed he was who he claimed and would do what he said, He made to be their true selves, their child-of-God selves.
(MSG)
Friday, February 06, 2004
Thursday, February 05, 2004
CIA Director George Tenet gave a speech on intelligence gathering, with specifics to the intelligence relating to Iraq, at Georgetown University this morning. If you didn't hear him, or even if you did, you should read the text of his speech. You'll find it interesting, at the least. I thought it validated my comments yesterday then expanded on them.
To be sure, intelligence gathering is not as "cut and dried," "black and white" as the current critics would have you believe.
To be sure, intelligence gathering is not as "cut and dried," "black and white" as the current critics would have you believe.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
We want our government to protect us from harm. We demand that they keep us safe. When they do and mistakes are made, we blast them for not getting it perfect.
Intelligence by it's very nature is a very murky business depending on gathering bits and pieces of information and hopefully extrapolating those into a cohesive bit of knowledge. That process is dependent on lots of things, trustworthy people on the ground risking everything, their lives and those of their friends and family, technology performing flawlessly, transport of that information in a timely manner, the historical context of the person/country/region, the psychological condition of the persons involved and many other real and potential "what it's." Then analysis look at what are often thousands of bits of information to try and reach a conclusion as to the meaning of it all.
There is rarely any black and white, few glaringly red flags, usually only tiny, when looked at in isolation insignificant, bits. And from this individuals, groups and government organizations work hard to ensure the security of our country.
Sure, in retrospect, in hindsight, lapses are obvious. After 9/11 the investigations found that law enforcement in Arizona and Wisconsin separately had information that may have indicated a terrorist plot.
Now, in retrospect, we are seeing where assumptions in analysis of information may have led to incorrect conclusions regarding Iraq's possession of WMD. Still, I would rather have intelligence and analysis that erred on the side of greater protection of this nation than on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to those known to despise us and desire our destruction.
Should we castigate the intelligence community for doing what they are tasked with? I would say no. What we need to do is restore and increase the funding to our intelligence services that was cut under the Clinton administration so they can acquire the resources needed to provide current, trustworthy intelligence to protect our nation and her citizens.
Intelligence by it's very nature is a very murky business depending on gathering bits and pieces of information and hopefully extrapolating those into a cohesive bit of knowledge. That process is dependent on lots of things, trustworthy people on the ground risking everything, their lives and those of their friends and family, technology performing flawlessly, transport of that information in a timely manner, the historical context of the person/country/region, the psychological condition of the persons involved and many other real and potential "what it's." Then analysis look at what are often thousands of bits of information to try and reach a conclusion as to the meaning of it all.
There is rarely any black and white, few glaringly red flags, usually only tiny, when looked at in isolation insignificant, bits. And from this individuals, groups and government organizations work hard to ensure the security of our country.
Sure, in retrospect, in hindsight, lapses are obvious. After 9/11 the investigations found that law enforcement in Arizona and Wisconsin separately had information that may have indicated a terrorist plot.
Now, in retrospect, we are seeing where assumptions in analysis of information may have led to incorrect conclusions regarding Iraq's possession of WMD. Still, I would rather have intelligence and analysis that erred on the side of greater protection of this nation than on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to those known to despise us and desire our destruction.
Should we castigate the intelligence community for doing what they are tasked with? I would say no. What we need to do is restore and increase the funding to our intelligence services that was cut under the Clinton administration so they can acquire the resources needed to provide current, trustworthy intelligence to protect our nation and her citizens.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Talk about fair and balanced! On today's FoxNews.com website there are two stories on opposite ends of the spectrum.
One tells, again, the story and the controversy around Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake's foray into shock TV at the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
The other tells the story visited by Forbes Magazine last fall, the phenomena of the MegaChurch.
While there are obvious contrasts between the two stories, there are also similarities.
Huge crowds fill both the super churches and the Super Bowl.
There tends to be lots of glitz and glitter at both.
There is an almost religious fervor among those attending the Super Bowl.
Folks attend both with great expectation.
Those who attend either spectacle come for lots of different reasons.
To be associated with something big.
To enjoy the prestige of attending.
To spend time with friends and family.
To be close to someone they may not personally know, but they respect.
I'm sure there are more comparisons, but you get the point.
What is even more interesting is that many churches actually changed their service schedule so their members would be able to take in the Super Bowl "spectacle."
Wonder if they in retrospect think the "show" was worth it?
One tells, again, the story and the controversy around Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake's foray into shock TV at the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
The other tells the story visited by Forbes Magazine last fall, the phenomena of the MegaChurch.
While there are obvious contrasts between the two stories, there are also similarities.
Huge crowds fill both the super churches and the Super Bowl.
There tends to be lots of glitz and glitter at both.
There is an almost religious fervor among those attending the Super Bowl.
Folks attend both with great expectation.
Those who attend either spectacle come for lots of different reasons.
To be associated with something big.
To enjoy the prestige of attending.
To spend time with friends and family.
To be close to someone they may not personally know, but they respect.
I'm sure there are more comparisons, but you get the point.
What is even more interesting is that many churches actually changed their service schedule so their members would be able to take in the Super Bowl "spectacle."
Wonder if they in retrospect think the "show" was worth it?
Monday, February 02, 2004
Yesterday in church we were discussing Daniel 1:6-7, specifically what is in a name and the meanings of the names given to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. In order they were Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Remember the story? The discussion went that the reason for the change was to separate the Israelites from their heritage and families and to rid any vestige of honor to the Hebrew God. Their Hebrew names honored their God, while the names given by Nebuchadnezzar gave honor to Chaldean gods.
As the discussion progressed we talked about the names given Christians in the Bible; Beloved, Friend, Sons & Daughters, Ambassadors, Royal Priesthood, More than Conquerors and so on. Then the discussion went to the names Christians are given by those who are not Christian. For example, fanatic, intolerant, weak and dependent, fundamentalist, right wing, stupid, moralistic, hypocrite and so on.
It occurred to me that many of the names given to us by those outside the faith are given because of the perceptions often fed by Christians themselves and by those claiming to be Christians.
Too often we fail to live our lives towards others as Jesus did, to see them for who they are, people needing love, forgiveness and a relationship with God. Instead of loving them, we lambast them. Instead of forgiving them, we find fault, instead of cultivating a relationship we foster division.
Of course this is not the practice of all or even the majority of Christians, but most of us, in some small way send a signal to someone in our path that they are unwelcome in our company. I cannot imagine Jesus doing that. He who welcomed the company of Zacchaeus, the woman at the well, Roman centurion and others who were considered by society to be sinners, enemies, and undesirables.
Maybe if we tried to be more like Jesus, loving people instead of spewing hate, or simply showing disinterest in them, those who despise us would find themselves drawn to the love of Jesus showing through our lives.
I'm sure not all the unfavorable labels would go away, after all Jesus said we would be misunderstood and hated by the world, but at least we wouldn't be providing the ammunition. And perhaps a few would find there is something about that name whereby we call ourselves when we call ourselves Christians...Christ like.
As the discussion progressed we talked about the names given Christians in the Bible; Beloved, Friend, Sons & Daughters, Ambassadors, Royal Priesthood, More than Conquerors and so on. Then the discussion went to the names Christians are given by those who are not Christian. For example, fanatic, intolerant, weak and dependent, fundamentalist, right wing, stupid, moralistic, hypocrite and so on.
It occurred to me that many of the names given to us by those outside the faith are given because of the perceptions often fed by Christians themselves and by those claiming to be Christians.
Too often we fail to live our lives towards others as Jesus did, to see them for who they are, people needing love, forgiveness and a relationship with God. Instead of loving them, we lambast them. Instead of forgiving them, we find fault, instead of cultivating a relationship we foster division.
Of course this is not the practice of all or even the majority of Christians, but most of us, in some small way send a signal to someone in our path that they are unwelcome in our company. I cannot imagine Jesus doing that. He who welcomed the company of Zacchaeus, the woman at the well, Roman centurion and others who were considered by society to be sinners, enemies, and undesirables.
Maybe if we tried to be more like Jesus, loving people instead of spewing hate, or simply showing disinterest in them, those who despise us would find themselves drawn to the love of Jesus showing through our lives.
I'm sure not all the unfavorable labels would go away, after all Jesus said we would be misunderstood and hated by the world, but at least we wouldn't be providing the ammunition. And perhaps a few would find there is something about that name whereby we call ourselves when we call ourselves Christians...Christ like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)