Guilty.
Guilty.
Guilty.
Guilty.
For the past several days, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been on trial in Boston for his alleged role in the Boston Marathon bombing.
He was tried on thirty counts.
During the last hour, the verdict on each count has come down.
Guilty on all counts.
Seventeen of those counts make him eligible for the death penalty.
Now the penalty phase begins.
The question is, will the jury--the same jury who found him guilty on all counts--decide that he should die for those crimes?
That is the next phase.
The penalty phase starts next week.
My gut says that he should get the death penalty . . . but if the jury gives him death, he may get what he wants, which is, martyrdom for his "cause".
I'm hoping the jury will take their time and not be pressured, either way.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Statcounter
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Sunday, April 5, 2015
When God got the last laugh
Today, God got the last laugh.
The laughter began before dawn, when a dead body regained consciousness in a cold tomb.
Or perhaps it began with an earthquake, which rolled a stone away and scared guards so that they became "like dead men".
I'm not sure if Jesus strode out boldly with a swagger, or if he just peeked out from the tomb, thinking, "Where is everybody?" and then walked out.
The party in hell was over. The party in hell had broken up with screams of horror and shouts of anger. How dare he? How dare he get the last laugh on us?
The first person he revealed himself to was a woman, Mary of Magdala, whom we know today as Mary Magdalene. This was the Mary that wept because they had taken her Lord away and she didn't know where he was.
It was when he said to her, "Mary," that she knew who he was.
I wonder if, when she turned towards him, Jesus was smiling.
I wonder if he smiled when he appeared to the two on the road to Emmaus.
And I wonder if he smiled when he first appeared to the apostles who were hiding in the upper room. We know he said, "Peace be with you!" and showed him his hands and feet. But I wonder if the expression on his face said, "Look! It's me! I'm here! Isn't that great! I told you it was going to happen, and it did!"
This is Easter Sunday.
Easter is a holiday associated with bunnies (chocolate and otherwise), baskets, eggs dyed in different colors, new clothes, parades, and white shoes. It's also associated with large dinners--usually with ham as the main course--with family visits and perhaps a surprise from the Easter Bunny. (One year, a gift from the Easter Bunny came with a note and a carrot with teeth marks in it. I told everyone who would listen that those teeth marks were proof that there really was an Easter Bunny. It was years before I realized that my dad had written the note and probably had bitten into that carrot as well!)
This is the holiday where people and Easter lilies will crowd churches, and many will repeat as part of a liturgy, "He is risen." "He is risen indeed."
But do we really understand that, on this day, God got the last laugh?
If man had created God in his own image, as is sometimes alleged, hope would have died at the cross. The apostle Paul, in I Corinthians 15:12-19, says:
"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." (emphasis mine, TAS)
The cross would have been proof that God was created in the image of man, for the cross meant death--physical death of a man, the death of hope, the death of dreams the death of everything.
But God got the last laugh.
Jesus said he would rise from the dead . . . and he did.
The witness of men, the witness of Scripture speaks--indeed, it shouts--that "Christ has indeed been risen from the dead!" as I Corinthians 15:20 says.
When we speak today that "Christ is risen indeed," it is not merely a recitation of a liturgy that has been passed down for two thousand years. Instead, it is a testament to a God that got the last laugh--over Satan, over sin, over death.
I wonder, if when the disciples saw Jesus, he looked like this, as painted by artist Jack Jewell:
This is the day when God got the last laugh.
He is risen.
He is risen indeed!
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
The laughter began before dawn, when a dead body regained consciousness in a cold tomb.
Or perhaps it began with an earthquake, which rolled a stone away and scared guards so that they became "like dead men".
I'm not sure if Jesus strode out boldly with a swagger, or if he just peeked out from the tomb, thinking, "Where is everybody?" and then walked out.
The party in hell was over. The party in hell had broken up with screams of horror and shouts of anger. How dare he? How dare he get the last laugh on us?
The first person he revealed himself to was a woman, Mary of Magdala, whom we know today as Mary Magdalene. This was the Mary that wept because they had taken her Lord away and she didn't know where he was.
It was when he said to her, "Mary," that she knew who he was.
I wonder if, when she turned towards him, Jesus was smiling.
I wonder if he smiled when he appeared to the two on the road to Emmaus.
And I wonder if he smiled when he first appeared to the apostles who were hiding in the upper room. We know he said, "Peace be with you!" and showed him his hands and feet. But I wonder if the expression on his face said, "Look! It's me! I'm here! Isn't that great! I told you it was going to happen, and it did!"
This is Easter Sunday.
Easter is a holiday associated with bunnies (chocolate and otherwise), baskets, eggs dyed in different colors, new clothes, parades, and white shoes. It's also associated with large dinners--usually with ham as the main course--with family visits and perhaps a surprise from the Easter Bunny. (One year, a gift from the Easter Bunny came with a note and a carrot with teeth marks in it. I told everyone who would listen that those teeth marks were proof that there really was an Easter Bunny. It was years before I realized that my dad had written the note and probably had bitten into that carrot as well!)
This is the holiday where people and Easter lilies will crowd churches, and many will repeat as part of a liturgy, "He is risen." "He is risen indeed."
But do we really understand that, on this day, God got the last laugh?
If man had created God in his own image, as is sometimes alleged, hope would have died at the cross. The apostle Paul, in I Corinthians 15:12-19, says:
"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." (emphasis mine, TAS)
The cross would have been proof that God was created in the image of man, for the cross meant death--physical death of a man, the death of hope, the death of dreams the death of everything.
But God got the last laugh.
Jesus said he would rise from the dead . . . and he did.
The witness of men, the witness of Scripture speaks--indeed, it shouts--that "Christ has indeed been risen from the dead!" as I Corinthians 15:20 says.
When we speak today that "Christ is risen indeed," it is not merely a recitation of a liturgy that has been passed down for two thousand years. Instead, it is a testament to a God that got the last laugh--over Satan, over sin, over death.
I wonder, if when the disciples saw Jesus, he looked like this, as painted by artist Jack Jewell:
This is the day when God got the last laugh.
He is risen.
He is risen indeed!
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
When Satan threw a party
Today, the party in hell that started when Jesus died on the cross continued. I imagine it to be like a fraternity party on steroids, with debauchery everywhere.
Satan laughed and the demons rejoiced. Because what they wanted had been accomplished, the death of God. As Nietzsche would write nearly 1800 years later, "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."
They had won.
On earth, the body of Judas had been discovered, broken, with his bowels spilling out.
The rest of the disciples were in hiding, behind locked doors, afraid that they would be next. Peter drowned in shame, hearing the words in his head, "I don't know the man!" and starting every time he heard a rooster crow. Perhaps he heard that rooster crow in his nightmares.
Mary? Where was Mary? Overcome with grief and pain and heartbroken, as I would be if it were my son.
Death had come and killed God, and Satan was in the middle of throwing a party.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Satan laughed and the demons rejoiced. Because what they wanted had been accomplished, the death of God. As Nietzsche would write nearly 1800 years later, "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."
They had won.
On earth, the body of Judas had been discovered, broken, with his bowels spilling out.
The rest of the disciples were in hiding, behind locked doors, afraid that they would be next. Peter drowned in shame, hearing the words in his head, "I don't know the man!" and starting every time he heard a rooster crow. Perhaps he heard that rooster crow in his nightmares.
Mary? Where was Mary? Overcome with grief and pain and heartbroken, as I would be if it were my son.
Death had come and killed God, and Satan was in the middle of throwing a party.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Friday, April 3, 2015
The day man killed God
Man killed God today.
Man, in the guise of a Roman ruler, his centurions, and people who screamed, "Crucify him!" killed God.
Man stripped him, beat him, mocked him, "hailed" him as "king".
And then man led him out to a cross.
Man watched while he stumbled along the Via Dolorosa. Some jeered him, some wept, some wailed, some didn't pay attention.
Man, in the guise of trained centurions, picked up nails--long, cruel nails--and, using a mallet, drove them, blow by blow, into skin and muscle and bone and blood vessel.
They did it three times. One for each arm, and one for both feet, crossed together.
And then they sat back and gambled while God gasped for breath, slowly suffocated, bled, and died.
And if that wasn't enough, someone rammed a spear into his side.
Then the broken body of God was picked up and carried to a borrowed tomb, wrapped in linen, and laid to rest.
The last act was the sound of a stone rolled over the entrance, then the final thud as it landed in its place.
This was the day that man killed God.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Man, in the guise of a Roman ruler, his centurions, and people who screamed, "Crucify him!" killed God.
Man stripped him, beat him, mocked him, "hailed" him as "king".
And then man led him out to a cross.
Man watched while he stumbled along the Via Dolorosa. Some jeered him, some wept, some wailed, some didn't pay attention.
Man, in the guise of trained centurions, picked up nails--long, cruel nails--and, using a mallet, drove them, blow by blow, into skin and muscle and bone and blood vessel.
They did it three times. One for each arm, and one for both feet, crossed together.
And then they sat back and gambled while God gasped for breath, slowly suffocated, bled, and died.
And if that wasn't enough, someone rammed a spear into his side.
Then the broken body of God was picked up and carried to a borrowed tomb, wrapped in linen, and laid to rest.
The last act was the sound of a stone rolled over the entrance, then the final thud as it landed in its place.
This was the day that man killed God.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
The Stephanies
The story of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, begins in Acts, chapter 6.
It seems that there was a tradition in the early Christian church of feeding widows. Greek Jews complained because their widows were being ignored in the "daily distribution of food" (Acts 6:1).
So the Twelve (the original disciples of Jesus, minus Judas Iscariot and plus Matthias) gathered the believers to suggest a solution: pick seven men from among you, and the food distribution will be their responsibility.
Stephen is the first man listed. The first man to die for the Christian faith began his ministry, so to speak, in a soup kitchen.
It seems that there was a tradition in the early Christian church of feeding widows. Greek Jews complained because their widows were being ignored in the "daily distribution of food" (Acts 6:1).
So the Twelve (the original disciples of Jesus, minus Judas Iscariot and plus Matthias) gathered the believers to suggest a solution: pick seven men from among you, and the food distribution will be their responsibility.
Stephen is the first man listed. The first man to die for the Christian faith began his ministry, so to speak, in a soup kitchen.
Once a month, on Wednesdays, I help serve lunch to our seniors' Bible class. These are "seasoned" men and women who come to our church building to listen to the word of God, and then stay to eat lunch afterwards. Lunch is catered by a local restaurant. Volunteers, mostly women, from my church help serve. We are supervised by a wonderful servant of God.
Our fearless leader has been in charge of serving lunch for about the last ten years. She makes sure that the tables are set and decorated, that the food is ordered, and that the money for the food is collected. She also encourages others to volunteer as well. This past year, I decided to join the group and help serve lunch.
Yesterday, I figured out the name of our group:
The Stephanies.
I said this to one of the women volunteering, and she said, "Huh?"
When I explained, she laughed.
It does sound a bit funny . . . but work with me here.
People in the first church needed physical feeding as well as spiritual feeding. The Twelve couldn't do it all. They needed help to fill a legitimate need, and they wanted those people to be full of the Spirit and of wisdom. "Waiting tables", in this case, was a service performed for God--perhaps you could say that it was an act of worship. It is an act of caring, of making sure that a most basic need--the need for physical nourishment--is filled.
We "Stephanies" do the same thing for our seniors' class. They get their spiritual nourishment from their class, and then we give them their physical nourishment. I don't know if I can say that I am "full of the Spirit and wisdom". I have the Spirit, because every believer has the Spirit, but I am not sure if I am full of wisdom.
But I do believe that offering food to these people is an act of service, just like when Stephen and his companions began their work of making sure that widows were fed.
But I do believe that offering food to these people is an act of service, just like when Stephen and his companions began their work of making sure that widows were fed.
So that's why we should be the Stephanies.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Birther butt-biting
He's only been in the Senate for a short time. He has little, if no, executive experience. He attended Harvard Law School. He has an odd-sounding foreign name and a multiethnic background. There are questions about his birth certificate and his American citizenship.
Sound familiar?
His name is Ted Cruz, and at midnight today, he Tweeted the following:
I'm running for President and I hope to earn your support!
I don't know yet if I am going to vote for Ted Cruz. I'm still looking at candidates.
But let's get one thing out of the way now: Ted Cruz is Constitutionally eligible to run for President of the United States.
Back in 2008, when Barack Obama was running for President, the question of his citizenship arose, and it will not die. For the record, I believe him to be a citizen of the United States, born in Hawaii, to a citizen mother and a Kenyan father. I disagree with him on many things, and I didn't vote for him, but I have no question about his citizenship.
Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution lays out the following requirements for President of the United States: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
So, the question is, what is a natural born citizen?
The 14 Amendment defines U.S. citizenship as follows, in Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, according to the Constitution, if you are born in the United States, or are naturalized in the United States, you are a United States citizen.
Since the Constitution specifically states that only a "natural-born citizen" can be President, the question arises, what is a natural-born citizen?
A report issued by the Congressional Research Service, a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, states the following:
"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen." (From Maskell, Jack, Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement. The full report is located at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf)
So, a "natural-born citizen" is someone who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth. There are two ways a person obtains U.S. citizenship. One is by the principle of jus soli. Jus soli means that if you are born in a particular country, you are automatically a citizen of that country. So, if you are born in the United States or in a territory of the United States, you are entitled to American citizenship. It doesn't matter if your parents were American citizens or not; if you were born in the United States or a United States territory, you are an American citizen. (The one exception to this law is a child born on U.S. soil to a recognized foreign diplomat.)
The other principle governing American citizenship is that of jus sanguinis. Jus sanguinis means "by right of blood". In other words, if one or both of your parents is an American citizen, you automatically have American citizenship, no matter where you were born. If you were born overseas to an American parent, you are an American.
I have heard the argument by so-called "birthers" that "Obama may be a citizen, but he's not a 'natural-born' citizen, because he wasn't born of two citizen parents. A 'natural-born' citizen is one born of two citizen parents." Also, "Obama wasn't born in this country (which is not true, he was born in Hawaii), therefore, he's not eligible to be President."
Well, with Ted Cruz's announcement that he is running for President, the arguments of certain birthers are about to come back to bite them in the butt.
You see, Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, of a Cuban father and an American mother. He wasn't born in the U.S., and he didn't have two citizen parents. So, by "birther" logic, he shouldn't be eligible for the office of the President, right?
Uh, wrong. Ted Cruz's mother is an American citizen. She was born in Delaware. The law states that if a child of a U.S. citizen parent and a foreign national parent (Cruz' father became a naturalized American citizen in 2005) is born outside the U.S., the child is an American citizen if 1) one parent is a U.S. citizen, and 2) the U.S. citizen parent was "physically present in the United States for at least five years, including at least two years after 14 years of age." (From http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html) Cruz' mother attended college at Rice University in Houston. She also worked in Houston as a computer programmer. I'm assuming this means she lived there for at least two years after the age
of 14.
Therefore, Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen by birth, and thus a natural born citizen, and thus Constitutionally eligible to run for President.
The principle of jus soli, by the way, also applies to Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio. While neither of them had U.S. citizen parents at birth, they were both born in the U.S. That makes them both citizens at birth, which makes them natural born citizens, which makes them Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.
The Congressional Research Service report I cited earlier also states the following:
"In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born inthe United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e. not born to foreign diplomates or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens 'at birth' or 'by birth' and are 'natural born' as opposed to 'naturalized' U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President." (boldface emphasis is mine.)
So birthers, if you're going to use the argument of "both his parents weren't citizens, therefore, he's not a 'natural born citizen'" against Barack Obama--a man you don't like as President--you have to use the same argument against Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio, men you just might like as President. If you want to go by the rule of law, the law has to apply to all people, not just to the people you don't like.
Your arguments against a man you didn't want to be President have just come back to bite you in the butt.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Sound familiar?
His name is Ted Cruz, and at midnight today, he Tweeted the following:
I'm running for President and I hope to earn your support!
I don't know yet if I am going to vote for Ted Cruz. I'm still looking at candidates.
But let's get one thing out of the way now: Ted Cruz is Constitutionally eligible to run for President of the United States.
Back in 2008, when Barack Obama was running for President, the question of his citizenship arose, and it will not die. For the record, I believe him to be a citizen of the United States, born in Hawaii, to a citizen mother and a Kenyan father. I disagree with him on many things, and I didn't vote for him, but I have no question about his citizenship.
Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution lays out the following requirements for President of the United States: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
So, the question is, what is a natural born citizen?
The 14 Amendment defines U.S. citizenship as follows, in Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, according to the Constitution, if you are born in the United States, or are naturalized in the United States, you are a United States citizen.
Since the Constitution specifically states that only a "natural-born citizen" can be President, the question arises, what is a natural-born citizen?
A report issued by the Congressional Research Service, a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, states the following:
"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen." (From Maskell, Jack, Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement. The full report is located at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf)
So, a "natural-born citizen" is someone who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth. There are two ways a person obtains U.S. citizenship. One is by the principle of jus soli. Jus soli means that if you are born in a particular country, you are automatically a citizen of that country. So, if you are born in the United States or in a territory of the United States, you are entitled to American citizenship. It doesn't matter if your parents were American citizens or not; if you were born in the United States or a United States territory, you are an American citizen. (The one exception to this law is a child born on U.S. soil to a recognized foreign diplomat.)
The other principle governing American citizenship is that of jus sanguinis. Jus sanguinis means "by right of blood". In other words, if one or both of your parents is an American citizen, you automatically have American citizenship, no matter where you were born. If you were born overseas to an American parent, you are an American.
I have heard the argument by so-called "birthers" that "Obama may be a citizen, but he's not a 'natural-born' citizen, because he wasn't born of two citizen parents. A 'natural-born' citizen is one born of two citizen parents." Also, "Obama wasn't born in this country (which is not true, he was born in Hawaii), therefore, he's not eligible to be President."
Well, with Ted Cruz's announcement that he is running for President, the arguments of certain birthers are about to come back to bite them in the butt.
You see, Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, of a Cuban father and an American mother. He wasn't born in the U.S., and he didn't have two citizen parents. So, by "birther" logic, he shouldn't be eligible for the office of the President, right?
Uh, wrong. Ted Cruz's mother is an American citizen. She was born in Delaware. The law states that if a child of a U.S. citizen parent and a foreign national parent (Cruz' father became a naturalized American citizen in 2005) is born outside the U.S., the child is an American citizen if 1) one parent is a U.S. citizen, and 2) the U.S. citizen parent was "physically present in the United States for at least five years, including at least two years after 14 years of age." (From http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html) Cruz' mother attended college at Rice University in Houston. She also worked in Houston as a computer programmer. I'm assuming this means she lived there for at least two years after the age
of 14.
Therefore, Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen by birth, and thus a natural born citizen, and thus Constitutionally eligible to run for President.
The principle of jus soli, by the way, also applies to Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio. While neither of them had U.S. citizen parents at birth, they were both born in the U.S. That makes them both citizens at birth, which makes them natural born citizens, which makes them Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.
The Congressional Research Service report I cited earlier also states the following:
"In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born inthe United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e. not born to foreign diplomates or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens 'at birth' or 'by birth' and are 'natural born' as opposed to 'naturalized' U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President." (boldface emphasis is mine.)
So birthers, if you're going to use the argument of "both his parents weren't citizens, therefore, he's not a 'natural born citizen'" against Barack Obama--a man you don't like as President--you have to use the same argument against Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio, men you just might like as President. If you want to go by the rule of law, the law has to apply to all people, not just to the people you don't like.
Your arguments against a man you didn't want to be President have just come back to bite you in the butt.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Bracketology, Tina style
Let the madness begin!
March Madness is in full swing. For those of you that live under a rock, March Madness is the unofficial name for the NCAA's Men's College Basketball tournament. The field starts with 64 teams, then narrows down to 32, then the "sweet sixteen", then the "elite eight", then the "final four", and then the last two, who play for the national championship.
Last year, I decided that this year, I was going to fill out a bracket.
So this year, I went to ESPN and did just that.
Now, I know there's a science to "bracketology", and all this analysis you're supposed to do in order to put the proper teams in the proper brackets. But I am not a basketball expert. So, here's my bracketology, Tina style:
I picked Kentucky to win it all. In order for Kentucky to win it all, I had to pick Kentucky to win each game.
Then I went through the rest of the brackets and just randomly picked. Some I picked because they were the top seed. Others I picked, well, just because.
Today, I learned that my bracket--like several thousand others--has already been busted.
I picked Baylor to beat Georgia State, mainly because Baylor was ranked higher.
Georgia State won, 57-56.
I also picked Iowa State to beat University of Alabama at Birmingham.
UAB won, 60-59.
(Notre Dame, a team I did pick, has advanced to the second round.)
Such is the reality of March Madness.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
March Madness is in full swing. For those of you that live under a rock, March Madness is the unofficial name for the NCAA's Men's College Basketball tournament. The field starts with 64 teams, then narrows down to 32, then the "sweet sixteen", then the "elite eight", then the "final four", and then the last two, who play for the national championship.
Last year, I decided that this year, I was going to fill out a bracket.
So this year, I went to ESPN and did just that.
Now, I know there's a science to "bracketology", and all this analysis you're supposed to do in order to put the proper teams in the proper brackets. But I am not a basketball expert. So, here's my bracketology, Tina style:
I picked Kentucky to win it all. In order for Kentucky to win it all, I had to pick Kentucky to win each game.
Then I went through the rest of the brackets and just randomly picked. Some I picked because they were the top seed. Others I picked, well, just because.
Today, I learned that my bracket--like several thousand others--has already been busted.
I picked Baylor to beat Georgia State, mainly because Baylor was ranked higher.
Georgia State won, 57-56.
I also picked Iowa State to beat University of Alabama at Birmingham.
UAB won, 60-59.
(Notre Dame, a team I did pick, has advanced to the second round.)
Such is the reality of March Madness.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)