A collection of random recent thoughts...

I always liked US History....but why is it that it never occurred to me to ask (until now): "Why do we call it Rhode Island...when it's not even an island?" Click here if you are as slow as I am to ask that question...

_________________________

Is Godmen suppose to be 'Promise Keepers Redux'?


Is it just me....or does this choice of a picture for their front page strike you as odd, if not altogether out of place?? This guy looks like he's in some serious pain!!

Ayeeee...yet another evangelical fad that will probably become a distant asterisk in a few short years.

_________________________

I confess that I do love men's college basketball. 'March Madness' might be the best pure sporting event...after the World Cup, of course!

However, one thing that is getting more and more ridiculous is the filling out of brackets. You know, the pool where you have have to fill out every game for a small ($10 or $20) entry fee. Winner takes all! I don't understand why there is such a craze...except that it permits people to 'gamble' without really calling it 'gambling'!

But more than the office pools. What I don't understand is why these networks like CBS, ESPN, Yahoo, and others actually *pay* these so-called experts to give the hoi polloi advice on potential upsets (aka the 'bracket busters'). Like these "experts" really have any idea how these games are going to go!! Nobody has any clue about who could win these games in a 'one and done' tournament.

I still remember one of the first 'pools' I ever heard about. It was won by some girl who clearly had no clue about who any of the teams were. She picked a team because they had a point guard who was 'really cute'....and that team ended up winning the whole thing! When a girl wins booty of a pool with *that* kind of criteria for picking teams, that tells you everything you need to know about these commentators on TV and radio who really think they know what's going on.

_________________________

I should start a blog series of overused phrases in book/journal articles.

This week's phrase: "without a doubt"

I remember Bob Strimple mentioning this in a side comment a number of years ago, and he's right.

Consider something I heard on the radio a couple days ago: "Barak Obama is, without a doubt, a better candidate for the democratic party than Hillary Clinton."

Now think about that statement. What is this person trying to communicate? They are trying to communicate 'absolute certainty'!

But now think about the comparison a little more! Is Barak Obama really WITHOUT A DOUBT the better candidate? Putting political persuasions aside for a moment, I'm thinking probably not. And so what has the comment just created in the process of his comparison?!?! Doubt!!!! {i.e. 'I doubt that Barak Obama is really 'without a doubt' the better candidate!}

You see this kind of language frequently in religious, theological, and Biblical Studies' journals and books. And it really is pointless language.  'Without a doubt' adds nothing to the argument...and that's without a doubt!! :)