Historic building at Connecticut Ave. cor Q St NW, near Dupont Circle.
Photo taken with an Aiptek Mini Pencam 1.3MP.
how now brownpau
Historic building at Connecticut Ave. cor Q St NW, near Dupont Circle.
Photo taken with an Aiptek Mini Pencam 1.3MP.
My nerd test score is 479, with a percent rating of 102.57%. Is that a good or bad thing? (Minus one point for being on a Windows machine.)
Disneyland Stories and Hidden Mickeys. I loved going to Disneyland as a kid, but as I grew older, I became more of a “behind-the-scenes” enthusiast, so these Disney security stories are more my type.
Also check out these scripts of Disney World Attractions. Just like being on the ride.
(link via Mike.)
Weird. Yesterday, a Google phrase search for “Captain’s Blog” turned up Bill’s Space on WilliamShatner.com as the first result. Today, however, Shatner is nowhere on the first page for the same search. Did Google find out?
Paulo, why were you searching for that search phrase? Are you that much of a loser Trekkie?
Um, no, of course not! I was, uh, looking for other Trekkie blogs! Yeah, that’s it. I was looking for other Trekkie blogs so I could gloat and, uh, tell them to get a life! Uh, yeah.
(fiddles nervously with Star Trek communicator badge, muttering, “Engage…”)
Can we clear up a minor ethnic spelling concern that occasionally pops up every now and then? People from the Philippines are Filipinos, spelled with an “F” and not a “P” or a “Ph.” (Actually, it was “Pilipino” until recently, and I think some traditionalists still prefer to use the older spelling, but that’s a whole other issue.) Today, the normally accepted spelling is “Filipino,” or optionally, “Filipina” for ladies. The traditional “Pilipino” is also acceptable, but somewhat odd. I’m not sure why exactly this is so, but it may have something to do with the new expanded Filipino alphabet introduced in the 1980s, which included letters which had not been in the traditional alphabet, including C, F, Ñ and X.
A stray apple sat on the sidewalk at 16th and Belmont NW. It looked rather sad.
Photo taken with an Aiptek Mini Pencam 1.3MP.
(This was intended as a post to this comments thread, but I’m putting it in this blog post so that I appear more voluminous than I really am.)
Now that quote from the end of Nietzsche’s Gay Science, Book 3, is very interesting, that “the seal of liberation is to no longer be ashamed in front of oneself.” In the Christian context, it is precisely because of Christ that I am liberated and no longer ashamed.
For us, shame and sin refer to our inherent baseness as a fallen race; “Original Sin,” as many sects call it. All of us have gone astray from the goodness that God intended us for. We are enslaved to sin because of our fallenness, and unable to save ourselves from it for the same reason, as even our righteousness is tainted with unrighteousness. The only way by which we are saved is through the work of Christ, who sacrificed himself on the cross to pay for sin, rose from the grave in victory over death, then sent us his Spirit to work out within us the redemption which has been achieved. Because of the salvation we have gained through the work of Christ, we are no longer sinful before the Lord, but are instead washed clean of sin, and able to stand before Him, made righteous by virtue of his love and not by our own merit: Liberated and free of shame.
We perceive our own self-redemption to be futile, and I can see how that can be interpreted as self-loathing and shame; but then, self-loathing and self-pity are repeating attitudes which torment the soul unrelentingly without end. Not so with Christianity; it acknowledges the sinfulness of man, then rises above it and accepts the gift of salvation which frees us from that sinfulness. It gives us a life free from shame, free from the tyranny of believing that we must work and self-flagellate endlessly to be made worthy of God. That is our redemption; an imputed righteousness that makes us as sinless as newborn children.
Such a faith, which says that “he whom the Son sets free is free indeed,” is markedly different from other religions which would seek to keep followers in line through fear and punishment. If I were to build a religion as a tyrannical structure of power, I most definitely would not model it after Evangelical Christianity. (Although admittedly, there are Christian leaders across every denomination who have sought to foment such abuse.)
I’m well aware of how foolish much of this must sound to the atheist and the skeptic. There are many things which we accept solely by faith and/or based on the authority of Scripture, and none of this can be “proven” by empirical or scientific methods. But I believe that Scripture is a miraculous text which is reliable and unyieldingly convicting, and that Christian testimony through the ages can show the truth of the experience of God in Jesus Christ.
I’m a die-hard Original Series Star Trek fan. Been one for years, and I’ve always thought of myself as a “Trekker,” rather than a “Trekkie.” I’ve been under the impression that Trekkers are the more respectable fans who appreciate the show and its legacy without going overboard; while Trekkies are the ones who believe they are Starfleet officers, speak fluent Klingon, and get their ears “Spocked.”
Am I getting my “Trekker/Trekkie” terminology right, or is it the other way around? How do you Trek fans out there identify yourselves?
Update: More on the difference between Trekkers and Trekkies. My initial perceptions of the dichotomy are confirmed. About.com’s profile, however, is a bit more ambiguous.
“What animal are you?” Apparently I’m a bat. So move over, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney. Oh, and you too, Adam West.
The blinds in my room, in my uncle’s house at Beekman Place. Through these windows there is a stunning view of the DC skyline, with the Washington Monument and the US Capitol in the distance.
Photo taken with an Aiptek Mini Pencam 1.3MP.