Neo

I support Constitutional rights, including those under the Second Amendment. A world with no threat to liberty, no threat to life or property, would be ideal. It is "a positive". Borrowing your phrase, and assuming I'm the type of person you were referring to as a "gun rights supporter", I will "admit". I've written about what informs my Constitutional Conservatism. For those with time, read Kurt Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions". KV informed my liberal progressivism. An excerpt, below: Dwayne’s bad chemicals made him take a loaded thirty-eight caliber revolver from under his pillow and stick it in his mouth. This was a tool whose only purpose was to make holes in human beings. It looked like this: [NeoNote: DRAWING OF A HANDGUN! I CANNOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO INSERT ] In Dwayne’s part of the planet, anybody who wanted one could get one down at his local hardware store. Policemen all had them. So did the criminals. So did the people caught in between. Criminals would point guns at people and say, “Give me all your money,” and the people usually would. And policemen would point their guns at criminals and say, “Stop” or whatever the situation called for, and the criminals usually would. Sometimes they wouldn’t. Sometimes a wife would get so mad at her husband that she would put a hole in him with a gun. Sometimes a husband would get so mad at his wife that he would put a hole in her. And so on. In the same week Dwayne Hoover ran amok, a fourteen-year-old Midland City boy put holes in his mother and father because he didn’t want to show them the bad report card he had brought home. His lawyer planned to enter a plea of temporary insanity, which meant that at the time of the shooting the boy was unable to distinguish the difference between right and wrong.

I'll not bore anyone with my views on the Constitution and its 2nd Amendment. They're well known. But, as I read and learn, two thoughts occur to me with enough clarity to post. 1). One, whether Utopia is ideal or imaginary or both, striving for it is good. Your strive may differ from mine. We can talk about it. 2). I do see a distinction between cops being killed in the line of duty because they intervened in harm's way, and cops being assassinated solely because they're cops. I don't have statistics and I don't have conclusions, but I believe the root causes and intentions are different. Accordingly, so are the solutions.

Can I say, and be square with all of you, that Jefferson's Jesus was exemplary and a model, regardless of his divinity? Can I further say that I don't know definitively Jefferson's view on Jesus' divinity solely from his "Bible", but I do know Jefferson's view on a life to be modeled? I'm making no point. I'm reading the learned.

Keep writing like that and I will don cheerleader garb, cheer for you, and post pictures. Y'all are going to have a blast.

All I see are Georgia Bulldog highlights.

Made me think of Booker Moore. Running back, 1981 draft. I just googled him. I didn't know he died (2009). RIP, of course. Booker had Guillain-Barre' syndrome. I'd never heard of it before he made news.

That game said so much about players being grist for the mill ...to an extent I'd not imagined, before. Benefit of the doubt - who knows what coaches, players and doctors said on the sideline ... Eyeball and sniff test .... not enough to stop it.

"I think it's gonna leave a mark ...". PS ... I failed miserably on the two sets of 20 .... two of ten! More weights, less treadmill?

Happy Birthday to YOU --- And to little Ms Nfreeman!

EJ - I genuinely like the kid. I enjoyed his good day. His last pass, though, brought all of the "here it is again" thoughts to the fore. A huge "ugh" moment. Did anyone see, hear, that it was tipped? I've read a few "may have been tipped" posts around the inter webs.

Interesting thought I borrowed from TBD .... Taylor may be the choice because his running ability, and the read option, does more to open the field for McCoy, who is the primary weapon in a run oriented offense. Shifts he conversation from "who's best" to "who makes our best, best".

Me. 79 .. wonderful, and thank you. Ms. Bowman's cite answers my broad question broadly. I have often thought there are 7 billion religions in the world today. I'm no Jefferson .. "I am a sect by myself, as far as I know". Grateful ...

Well, the question remains, source notwithstanding. No egg. Good catch!

Carp and Drunkard -- from Politics. Here is what I've quickly read inspired by your commentary. The Jefferson Bible was intended by TJ to deliver what TJ considered to be valuable about the life of Jesus and its ethical lessons. In what one critic called "scripture by subtraction", Jefferson's work advocated for the ethical approach to life and mankind as exemplified by Jesus' words and deeds. Stripped away is any conversation, teaching, dogma or need for divinity. Further, references to miracles are excluded. Whether Jefferson didn't believe in Jesus' divinity, or whether he felt there was merit in the ethics despite the debate around Jesus' divinity, isn't yet clear to me. Much like what you both said ... Most cool - he did it in English, French, Latin, and Greek ... Oh, the education!

To: Carp and Drunkard - I learn! Moving to OT Theology (even with a former Presidential tie in to Politics). Not earth shattering.

To your overview question: Raised Roman Catholic. Religion was not an emphasis in the home. Church on Sunday (required), but when it was over, it was over. Public schools with elementary school catechism once a week. Met and married a Methodist. Went through the official conversion. Practiced after marriage and raised our kids with weekly attendance, youth groups, picnics, committees. MrsNeo is the leader in faith and practice. Tons of volunteer work in the local church. Food, charity - I do not proselytize. I have no moral authority. Kids are grown. LOL, I'm remembering something. I taught Sunday school for a couple of years. Not because of my expertise, or moral authority, or message ... But because I had the courage to take the "eighth grade boys"!

I don't think you were picking my heroes! I'm glad you saw the potential disconnect and commented. My background is Christian. I'm not a role model. I started at Saint Ambrose with Catechism for public school kids, Wednesday afternoons! I like your posts.

I think "the web" mischaracterizes our back and forth dialogue. My one, original, sole point with you was simply: 1). Not all legitimate scientists reject ID. You provoked a thought, I looked, and found 7 Nobel Laureates. My take away? There's debate and the thought intrigues me. I pointed out debate, without taking a side. I got the sense then, and get it today, that "web talk" makes you conclude I'm challenging a belief of yours, or defending one of my own. Religion: I am not challenging or defending. To each his own, be happy, and keep the Government out of it. In the debate I learned, from you, that ID was being taught as a science. I think that was one of your complaints, maybe your primary one. I am sympathetic to your point of view with regard to how it's taught, or not. I feel it's a mention in Science, for discussion in Religion. A mention (science) because the debate exists and a discussion (religion) because it's a faith, not a science. YOU helped me understand the distinction. I'd never articulated it to myself, before. Overall, I responded to you originally to question the "case closed" impression I got with a "not so fast, there, cowboy" --- Plenty of legitimate scientists disagree. Pointing out that the debate exists is not taking a side. Many of the Founding Fathers were, simply Deists. There's nothing in Jefferson's view on religion that prevents him from being my hero. One need not have any particular view on religion in my mind. That's a different thought than "there's no legitimate debate". Imagine me and you with the exact same belief regarding God. We're sitting on a panel, explaining our view. You say, into the microphone, "no legitimate scientist believes in ID". I smile, lean in to the mic, and add "well, there are many legitimate scientists who still take the other side, but we think they're wrong". Just a factual correction. Did I get it right? Wanna have fun with Jefferson, religion, and government? Read his letter to the Danberry Baptists where the phrase "separation of church and state" arises. You probably have. For the religion thread - one of my favorites that I believe can be used to support, by some, or oppose, by others, the classic "Christmas tree in the town square". Politics and religion - who knew!?

Hoss, I don't know you from Adam, but you strike me as a caring person. I'm sorry for your industry's loss. It must've struck close to home in you. You quoted a hero of mine in Thomas Jefferson. I see in your quote something I'd not remembered in Jefferson. I learned a long time ago that I will keep learning over and over. You make me think. I'm grateful.

JJ ... you told me about OANN a few weeks ago. I've enjoyed it. Straight news without gloss. You also predicted changes. With that line up, you may be on to something.

The family aspect makes it cool! Hipsters!

North Buffalo and Woods - Racer ... Those were good times. I DO have memories. Fortunately, the current situation produces great memories, too .... although none involve coeds, edgy film, after midnight ... A note to the young ... 35 years ago was last week ... NS .... see what you started?

Awesome! I saw this movie during the 79/80 school year. I was a college freshman and it played at the student union. I went with about 7 girls (co-eds or young women). None of the guys would go. The next day, when I described the movie to them, their decision not to go was confirmed in their minds. I couldn't articulate the essence. All of the girls were from Long Island and had seen the movie many times. How cosmopolitan they were! They dressed and participated. It was quite a night for a college freshman from Buffalo. For the younger SabreSpacers, there was no MTV and no meaningful cable tv back in the day. Imagine this jumping out on a big screen. It was WAY out there. Life's funny ..... so edgy a generation ago, so commonplace today. This movie, though, a trendsetter, will never be common.

You're pretty funny for an egghead.

They're quoting The Man in the Arena on WGR right now .... I think you'll like this. Teddy Roosevelt's represented more than once in the clip, including his Man in the Arena speech and his Buffalo, NY delivered Duties of American Citizenship, which closes with this excerpt and is apropos of this thread: "In facing the future and in striving, each according to the measure of his individual capacity, to work out the salvation of our land, we should be neither timid pessimists nor foolish optimists. We should recognize the dangers that exist and that threaten us: we should neither overestimate them nor shrink from them, but steadily fronting them should set to work to overcome and beat them down. Grave perils are yet to be encountered in the stormy course of the Republic - perils from political corruption, perils from individual laziness, indolence and timidity, perils springing from the greed of the unscrupulous rich, and from the anarchic violence of the thriftless and turbulent poor. There is every reason why we should recognize them, but there is no reason why we should fear them or doubt our capacity to overcome them, if only each will, according to the measure of his ability, do his full duty, and endeavor so to live as to deserve the high praise of being called a good American citizen." Also apropos, but from Roosevelt's In The Arena speech (Paris, France, at the Sorbonne): “Self-restraint, self-mastery, common sense, the power of accepting individual responsibility and yet of acting in conjunction with others, courage and resolution—these are the qualities which mark a masterful people.” ​And, lastly, again from In The Arena: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." Recognizing the risk that I'll be thought of as being too Off Topic, the quotes above come to mind when I read much of what you all say in this thread. You are in the arena. That's true whether you're on this side or that side of an issue. I dig SabreSpace. I need to become familiar with Teddy. Bully!