text:
I'm inside The Lumberyard for 30 frustrating minutes before I finally figure out what I'm doing. Rolling over jumps on my big, squishy full-suspension bike, I'm earthbound and embarrassed on every attempt, not really sure what's wrong.
Then someone watching suggests I swap out my bike for a hard-tail rental, something about "the right tool for the job."
Within a few minutes, the beginner jump line transforms from a series of disappointing little rollers to a long ripple of sculpted plywood. I boost upward at each apex, glide over the tabletop, and land silently on the transition. All I can think is, "Finally."
The Lumberyard is a brand new indoor bike park -- a rustic playground of purpose-built bike stunts on 82nd Avenue in Northeast Portland.
It, too, had a little trouble getting off the ground.
"I thought we'd be open in mid-November," founder Will Heiberg said. "I completely underestimated the permitting system. There is no building code for bike parks."
The Lumberyard dangled in front of mountain bikers for an entire rainy winter, promising urban access to handcrafted flow trails and permission to remove "weather permitting" from ride invites.
The first thing I notice is the smell of new bikes and fresh paint; of sandpaper put to use on the unfinished wood covering nearly every surface.
The Lumberyard is as fun as promised in the bike blog posts preceding its opening, and is a viable mud-free alternative to January trail rides. If like me you are already semi-addicted to flow trails, you will find your fix.
Factor in $4 a gallon of gas on a typical trip to the trailhead, and the Lumberyard admission price of $25 to $30 quickly gets reasonable. The question now is: Will that be good enough to keep the place in business?
Granted, the Lumberyard has some things your typical forest trail does not.
There's a cross-country course, built to make use of expensive suspension, painted brown and climbing from floor to ceiling several times as it snakes around the building. There's a beginner-friendly green jump line, a blue intermediate jumpline and an orange pump track with a 12-foot-high wall ride, all of it designed by professional jump-builder Joe Prisel and made from salvaged bowling alley hardwood and $65,000 worth of Home Depot lumber.
There is a built-in camera system, installed by the company Feral Motion, that soon will start recording riders and identifying them with an RFID chip built into their pass, so that they can download video of their best tricks (or crashes) from home.
There will be a timing system for the cross-country loop, with a leader board showing the fastest lap time for the day and the fastest lap time ever. Particularly competitive riders can have the results forwarded to their Facebook page or phone.
There will be someone serving beer to of-age spectators.
There will be ladies night, and an old-man night for those feeling self-conscious about having never jumped a bike before.
There will be a longer cross-country course, and it will run outside to the pole-barn, which will be raised in the parking lot this summer to house more expert-level stunts.
And if these features captivate the crowds, and if the uninitiated find they like grabbing small bites of air and would like to grab more, then Portland mountain bikers will have their wintertime riding haven. But there's no way to know for sure.
Back in the bike park, I take a break from the pump track to catch my breath and chat with the other riders queuing up to drop in and take a turn.
We thought the waiting was over, but it seems there's a little bit left.


text:
I ask this because it seems that Detroit has a ton of pitching talent and a few nice pieces, position-wise, but they never seem to get better than they show early on.
We traded away Granderson, and within a year he had a ton more success against left-handed pitchers and overall at the plate.
Jackson and Boesch have a bunch of talent, but they do not seem to be progressing much, even though Jackson has shown flashes.
And, as far as pitching, why can't we get the results out of prospects that have been around for awhile like Oliver and, even though he isn't a prospect anymore, Porcello. Is it time to replace (Lloyd) McClendon, (Gene) Lamont and especially (pitching coach) Jeff Jones?
-- J Homan.
Answer: This is a touchy subject, Homan. There's a lot of blame to pass around when a team is struggling, and -- at times -- it feels misplaced.
More specific, it's oftentimes directed at a team's coaching staff. They players are the scapegoat.
But, that's the business. Tigers manager Jim Leyland said as much during his pregame media session Monday.
When the team struggles, it's up to the manager and coaches to right the ship. If an individual player struggles, it's up to the player to correct the wrong.
In this case, the Tigers are playing .500 baseball.
Surely, their record shouldn't be any cause for concern. The team is 12-12 and is only one game behind Cleveland, who owns the top record in the AL Central.
Would they be sporting a better record with a different coaching staff? Doubtful.
It's tough to defend coaches because most of their work oftentimes goes unnoticed.
For instance, Rick Porcello went eight strong innings Tuesday. You know why? It's because Jones noticed a flaw in Porcello's delivery and suggested he take his hands together over his head in an effort to slow the tempo in his windup.
Jones was also responsible for discovering the flaw in Scherzer's delivery -- in which he holds his hands on his windup. As a result, he carries them behind his body, which affects his lead arm from getting on the target and staying there long enough.
It's a flaw that Jones spotted after watching hours worth of video on Scherzer directly following his seven-walk start Sunday. Will it work? Who knows. But, like Leyland said of Jones, he's not afraid to make tweaks.
I recently had a conversation with Don Kelly about the team's coaching staff.
As a utility infielder and outfielder, Kelly has worked under the guidance of nearly every Tigers coach, particularly infield coach Rafael Belliard and outfield coach first-base/outfield coach Tom Brookens.
"They're prepared," Kelly said. "They're out there early every single day and anything that you need, they're there for us."
He continued.
"They're a wealth of knowledge. Between all of them, they're going to have an answer," he said. "The biggest thing is that they're for us."
Kelly then turned his attention to McClendon, who he credited with helping him work out of a handful of slumps.
"Mac watches a ton of video. He's always working -- especially when a guy is struggling a little bit," he said. "He'll go in there and watch video and go back and look at what you were doing when you were hitting well.
"He's real good at knowing when it's time to approach a guy. He doesn't jump on you when you're 0-for-8 -- he'll give you some time to feel it out. Once it gets to two or three games, then he might say something."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|[TowerTalk] Guy Grips with Rohn Torque Arms
|email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.com)
|Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:55:25 -0400 (EDT)
I have found it worth going up another notch to the bigger thimbles....the formation of the middle of the guy grip is not perfectly round/flat but has some twist to it...if you can provide a wider torugh for it to lay in you are better off....otherwise you find yourself using the screwdriver (there he goes again) to walk the grip into the thimbles trough.....also: The best thimbles I have found are from a local rigging supply house...here in Tampa they go by Certified Sling....I went in to buy a few thimbles and asked for "thimbles"....5/16"........he did what no other clerk there had done before - asked, "do you want the regular ones or the heavy duties"....my response was - "I dunno (a common response from em) - didn''t know there was a difference!"....he then said the words that made this tower hardware geek a believer...."c'mon behind the counter and I will show you the difference"...it was then that I saw tower erectors mecca.....you name it, they had it. Being a port city, Tampa has need for lots of rigging stuff....these guys got the goods. The point I was trying to make but typed myself out of, was that the Heavy Duty Thimble is a beauty.....unlike the usual hardware store type thimble, the trough on the HD has steep sides to it which keep the grips in place....also they are made of a heavier gauge of metal.....no comparison in which you want - the choice is obvious....especially when the heavy duty were only cents more than the routine ones.... Moral of the post....find yourself a place that sells rigging supplies....in addition to thimbles and turnbuckles they will have all kinds of neato keen tower stuff like shackles for you torque bar guy guys.....not to mention slings, comealongs....it is tower putter upper heaven.....almost like reading K7LXC's catalogue! k4oj -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html Submissions: email@example.com Administrative requests: firstname.lastname@example.com Problems: firstname.lastname@example.com Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search
|<Prev in Thread]
|Current Thread
|[Next in Thread>
|Previous by Date:
|[TowerTalk] FW: ARLB057 Doug DeMaw, W1FB, SK, Dale Martin
|Next by Date:
|[TowerTalk] FW: ARLB057 Doug DeMaw, W1FB, SK, Carlos Augusto S. Pereira
|Previous by Thread:
|[TowerTalk] Guy Grips with Rohn Torque Arms, K4RO Kirk Pickering
|Next by Thread:
|[TowerTalk] MARB550 Collapse, Jack
|[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]


text:
20th over: Pune 159 for 7. All over! Deccan register their first win. Pune have been beaten by 18 runs. Smiles all around in the Deccan camp.
Alfonso Thomas run out 12 (9)
19th over: Pune 152 for 6. Despite another six hit by Manhas, this over by Theron should be a clincher for Deccan. Pune need 26 off the last six balls.
18th over: Pune 141 for 6. Another six hit by Pune, this time off Alfonso Thomas' bat. But honestly speaking, 37 off the last 12 overs looks beyond Mithun and Thomas.
17th over: Pune 129 for 6. Pune's last hope Steven Smith has been dismissed by Theron. Trying to go for his fourth six, the Australian gets caught at long-on. But Mithun Manhas pulls one off to get his first six. 49 needed off 18 balls. It's been done before in this tournament but looks difficult with Mithun and Alfonso Thomas at the crease.
Steven Smith c Duminy b Theron 26 (13)
16th over: Pune 111 for 5. Another six by Smith and 10 runs off the over by Reddy. But still Pune can't meet the required run-rate, which is getting tougher with every delivery. Now 67 needed off 24 balls.
15th over: Pune 101 for 5. Clearly Steven Smith is Pune's last hope and he shows that by hitting Gony for a six over deep square leg. But still a tough ask with 77 runs required off 30 balls.
14th over: Pune 91 for 5. Double-wicket over by Reddy. And two big wickets, first he bowls Uthappa and then has Samuels caught at covers. The cherry on the top was just three runs in the over. 87 needed in six overs now. Looking difficult with no boundaries coming.
Marlon Samuels c Sangakkara b Ashish Reddy 3 (8)
Robin Uthappa b Ashish Reddy 29 (27)
13th over: Pune 88 for 3. Deccan are tightening the grip here and Theron is filling in nicely for Dale Steyn. His figures of 2-0-8-1 have stifled Pune, but seven wickets in hand give the hosts a license to go for the kill.
12th over: Pune 85 for 3. Finally a boundary for Pune after two quiet overs, and again behind the wickets as Uthappa dabs it past the third-man. But overall a good over for Pune as Reddy limits it to just seven runs. 93 needed off 48 balls now.
11th over: Pune 78 for 3. Slight rebuilding needed by Pune, but the boundaries need to keep coming or else the required run-rate will go through the roof. Just five runs off that Mishra over.
10th over: Pune 73 for 3. Gony gets rid of Ganguly. After being dropped by Duminy at point on the first ball of the over, Ganguly swats at the wide fifth delivery that goes straight to short cover. Just two runs off that over.
Sourav Ganguly c sub (DJ Harris) b Gony 23 (20)
9th over: Pune 71 for 2. Runs are coming largely square of off the wicket or behind the wicketkeeper. First Ganguly sweeps Mishra to the deep square-leg boundary and then Uthappa beats the short fine-leg fielder with a glance that crosses the ropes. Pune looking healthy now.
8th over: Pune 58 for 2. Duminy is bowling a good, tight spell for his skipper despite nothing in the wickets column yet. After conceding a glanced four to Ganguly early in the over, the part-timer limits it to just five runs. Duminy's figures read 3-0-24-0.
7th over: Pune 53 for 2. Uthappa pulls off his first big shot, just about clears Gony at long-off for a six. However, Mishra comes back well to limit it to nine runs off the over. Strategic time-out.
6th over: Pune 44 for 2. Juan Theron strikes in his first over as Pandey chops it onto his stumps. After a steered four to third man, Pandey tries to repeat the stroke but this time bottom-edges it onto the stumps. Loose stroke.
Manish Pandey b Theron 21 (20)
5th over: Pune 39 for 1. Manpreet Gony is into the attack and begins well by keeping a check on the free-scoring Pandey. But Ganguly spoils it in the end with a signature straight six off the last ball. Vintage stuff that!
4th over: Pune 30 for 1. Having seen enough of the part-timer Duminy, Pandey launches himself into him, bringing up a six that just goes over the long-on fielder. Five more runs off the over make it a good for Pune.
3rd over: Pune 19 for 1. Ankit Sharma dismisses Ryder. After smacking Sharma for a four, Ryder holes out to short mid-wicket. Ganguly doesn't let the tempo drop, though, and follows up with a boundary past the wicketkeeper.
Jesse Ryder c sub (Harris) b Ankit Sharma 7 (6)
2nd over: Pune 11 for no loss. No Dale Steyn in this match, so spin from the other end as well. JP Duminy has been pressed into service and has been taken for eight runs, including a boundary over mid-off by Manish Pandey.
1st over: Pune 3 for no loss. Deccan have opened with left-arm spinner Ankit Sharma, and Pune openers Manish Pandey and Jesse Ryder are trying to gauge his length and get their eye in for a start.
20th over: Deccan 177 for 4. Another good over for Pune. Alfonso Thomas prevents any boundaries, but it is still a very healthy total. Pune will have to be at their best to win this one. But there is no Steyn there, and that's a big minus in the Deccan bowling attack.
19th over: Deccan 168 for 4. Top over bowled by Nehra. He has been like a pendulum this season. At times he hasn't been able to defend 21 runs in an over and at other times he bowls a penultimate over like this where he concedes just six runs.
18th over: Deccan 162 for 4. White dismissed for 78. He tries to loft Samuels over extra cover but has been caught by Thomas on the boundary. But his whirlwind knock off just 46 balls, including six fours and five sixes, has done the damage.
Cameron White c Thomas b Samuels 78 (46)
17th over: Deccan 151 for 3. White is going ballistic here. His fifth innings of the series, this time off Kumar, takes him to 78. Can he go on to make a century?
16th over: Deccan 141 for 3. Happy Hours time for White, not for Rahul Sharma though. The 19-run over reads 1, 1, 4, 6, 6, 1. Ominous signs for Pune as Deccan are within touching distance of 190.
15th over: Deccan 122 for 3. Cameron White is back in form with a half-century off just 35 balls. The Aussie brings up the landmark off a smashing straight drive off Alfonso Thomas. And those four byes off the last ball shows Pune are feeling the pressure now. If Deccan can keep wickets in hand, we are in for some fireworks in the last five overs.
14th over: Deccan 111 for 3. White and Duminy are now looking to put their foot on the accelerator. Samuels has been taken off for 12 runs in the over, including a six by White.
13th over: Deccan 99 for 3. Nehra has bowled a good, tight over here. Keeps the lid on White and Duminy with just five runs off the over.
12th over: Deccan 94 for 3. Sangakkara out to a pretty un-Sangakkara stroke. Rahul Sharma cleans him up after the Deccan skipper tries an across-the-line slog. But White launches a counter-attack soon after with two boundaries, one through the extra cover and the next one through the point boundary.
Kumar Sangakkara b Sharma 12 (14)
11th over: Deccan 83 for 2. Vintage Sangakkara! First he hits a length ball over extra cover for a four and then hits Kumar on the up for a couple over his head. An edgy four to square leg off White rounds off a profitable over for Deccan.
10th over: Deccan 71 for 2. Deccan look quite settled with Sangakkara and White at the crease. Another couple of overs and then we might see the big shots coming out.
9th over: Deccan 64 for 2. After a few tight overs, Cameron White has broken the shackles with that slog six over the mid-wicket boundary. Rahul Sharma is the bowler, whose figures have taken a little bit of a hit after a miserly first over.
8th over: Deccan 58 for 2. Nehra has been brought back after that opening over where he leaked 16 runs. Looking visibly comfortable with fielders in the deep as Deccan re-build their innings after the loss of their openers.
7th over: Deccan 53 for 2. Rahul Sharma is into the attack as the field restrictions have been lifted. Starts off well, giving away just three runs.
6th over: Deccan 50 for 2: Bhuvneshwar Kumar sends Patel back. The Powerplay has ended on a wicket-taking note for Pune. Parthiv tries a flick but hits it only as far as the deep square-leg fielder Mithun Manhas.
Parthiv Patel c Manhas b Kumar 24 (18)
5th over: Deccan 48 for 1. Another good over for Deccan. This time Thomas has been at the receiving end, conceding two boundaries in the over. First Patel glanced it off his pads and then White pulls a short ball to mid-wicket.
4th over: Deccan 39 for 1. Needless run out! Dhawan has committed a suicide here, stealing a cheeky single when they had already scored 10 runs in the over. This has been gift for Pune.
Shikhar Dhawan run out 16 (11)
3rd over: Deccan 29 for no loss. Marlon Samuels has replaced Ashish Nehra and has been welcomed with a huge six by Dhawan over long-on.
2nd over: Deccan 20 for no loss. Alfonso Thomas, the experienced T20 pro, has pulled things back by conceding just four runs. His variations in pace might be the ideal way to contain the batsmen on this run-laden track.
1st over: Deccan 16 for no loss. Parthiv Patel and Shikhar Dhawan have come out to open, and have welcomed Ashish Nehra with three boundaries, two by Patel and one by Dhawan. Must stay the pitch is looking full of runs, with the ball coming nicely onto the bat.
7:45 p.m. Yuvraj on air: "I just want to tell all the people going through this [cancer] to be tough and be strong. All my close friends came over to visit me. Anil Kumble was there, I met Sachin in London and even Ranvijay came to see me. I'm starting to feel better and my stamina is improving day by day, so hopefully I can start training soon. I can't really say when exactly I will be back to play cricket, but perhaps in 3-4 months I should be back.
7:30 p.m. DC win the toss and Sangakkara says they will bat. Ganguly says he would have bowled. So both the captains have got what they wanted. "What are we here for then?" was Robin Jackman's response to that.
Playing XIs:
Deccan Chargers: Kumar Sangakkara (capt), Shikhar Dhawan, Parthiv Patel (wk), Jean-Paul Duminy, Cameron White, Ishank Jaggi, Ankit Sharma, Ashish Reddy, Amit Mishra, Juan Theron, Manpreet Gony
Pune Warriors India: Jesse Ryder, Manish Pandey, Sourav Ganguly (capt), Robin Uthappa (wk), Steven Smith, Marlon Samuels, Mithun Manhas, Alfonso Thomas, Bhuvneshwar Kumar, Rahul Sharma, Ashish Nehra
7:15 p.m. And guess who's here! Yuvraj Singh is huddling up with the team and this could be the biggest lift Pune could have got.
7:10 p.m. After two washouts in a row, IPL 5 is in need of an exciting encounter, and the setting can't be better here in Pune, with Sourav Ganguly trying to wit out Kumar Sangakkara, who will pull out all stocks to earn Deccan Chargers their first win this season.
With six wins, five losses and one washout, Deccan can only be termed lucky to have one point in their kitty. But they still have time to make up lost ground and stay in running for the play-offs. Meanwhile, Pune, despite an up and down ride, have eight points in their account. But Sourav Ganguly will want his team to hit the consistency curve as the tournament moves towards its business end.


text:
Former American Pacific co-ceo joins Umbra
July 29, 2009-- Home Textiles Today,
Toronto – Umbra has hired Kaela Forker Clary as vp of business development.
She spent 15 years with American Pacific Enterprises, most recently at co-ceo. In 2002, she was named vp sales. Prior to that, she was American Pacific's national sales manager.
"Having someone so experienced and respected a Kaela join Umbra has excited and re-energized our team," said Les Mandelbaum, president and co-found of Umbra. "Her ability to strengthen our product development and strategically enter new categories will bring us closer to our goal of being a brand for the entire home.
Umbra's home licenses include bedding, bath, storage, drapery and drapery hardware, décor accessories, and wall décor.
Said Forker: "Umbra is an amazing brand that I have always admired for their continuous product innovation and outstanding design. "
Related Content By Author
Sponsored Content
Sponsored Links
Featured Video
New homes for Indo Count, Trident


text:
|Can't push on a rope? was [TowerTalk] Putting a pull rope in conduit.
|"Mike Gilmer - N2MG" <firstname.lastname@example.com>
|Mon, 17 Nov 2003 05:34:07 -0800 (PST)
Recently, while (re)building several used Hygain 204/105 antennas, I realized I had forgotten the requisite "rope in the elements" in one antenna. I removed an element end cap, stuffing the first few inches of the (approx 3-foot long) dampening rope into the element tip. Then I used my air compressor with (what I call) a "blow gun" attachment to shoot air into the end of the element. When the remaining rope is held correctly, and the air aimed just right, the rope would be whisked out of my hand into the element with such force that I could have easily lost it inside the tubing. As an experiment, I tried this on a Cushcraft 15-4CD, (as you know these have a different element-to-boom arrangement than the Hygains) and the rope was ejected out the other side of the antenna! Mike N2MG ________________________________________________ PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart. http://www.peoplepc.com _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA. _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list email@example.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|<Prev in Thread]
|Current Thread
|[Next in Thread>
|Previous by Date:
|[TowerTalk] Crank-up won't crank, Mike Gilmer - N2MG
|Next by Date:
|[TowerTalk] Telrex stack, Pete Stark
|Previous by Thread:
|[TowerTalk] subscribe, k2qmf
|Next by Thread:
|[TowerTalk] Telrex stack, Pete Stark
|[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]


text:
2006 Authors Insider Tips
Beyond the Basics
With Tulsa Brown
The 30-Second Solution
Backstory vs. Flashback
Intimacy Begins With "I"
Hit the Ground Running
Make the Reader Leap
Meaningful Dialogue
Pulling the String
Central Image
Elegant Smut
Better Plots
Bitch Power
The Write Stuff
From Ashley Lister
Predefined Your Goals
Spell Ink Miss Takes
Plotting & Planning
Character Building
Speech Therapy
Talking Sense
Two Girls Kissing
With Amie M. Evans
Intro to Lesbian Erotica
3-Dimensional Characters
Submitting for Publication
Five Year Writing Plan
Setting Up Your Plan...
The Power of Naming
Language of Lesbian...
Sexual Description
What Can I say?
Hard Business
From Greg Herren
What Are Your Priorities?
How to Edit an Anthology
Follow the Guidelines...
A Cock is Just a Cock
But is it Still a Story?
Who Am I Fucking?
Potential Material
Rejection ...
The Business End
By Kate Dominic
Effective Cover Letters
How to Lose Contracts
Contracts: Agent Issues
Contracts: Read It!
Double Duty Bios
What's Sex?
Literary Streetwalker
By M. Christian
Ground Rules for Writers
No Muse is Good News
Effective Cover Letters
Location, Location
Say Something!
Dirty Words
The Erotic Book Docter
By Susie Bright
Marketing Your Book
Submission Concerns
Promotion Strategies
2006 Smutters Lounge
Pondering Porn
With Ann Regentin
Babes & Hunks of Erotica
Fantasy, Reality & Rape
Selling Ourselves Short
Selling Smut in Motown
The Frankenstein Bride
Frankenstein Revisited
Porn and Perfect Shoes
Porn's Passionate Pull
Instruments of Joy
Get All Worked Up
With J.T. Benjamin
Orwell's Eerie Parallels
Redefining Marriage
The Porn Menace
High-Quality Porn
About Profanity
Dirty Laundry
Big Brother
Wrong Reasons to do SM
by Midori
All Worked Up About Redefining Marriage
As has been well-documented by my own humble self, the Holy Terrors are engaged in a War On Whoopie, an all-out campaign to banish all things not related to marital intercourse for the specific purpose of procreation. That is, everything fun about sex. These include pornography, sex education, sex toys, birth control, obscenity, homosexuality in general, and specifically gay marriage. To name a few.
However, in documenting the Holy Terrors' war, I realize I have not spent much time exploring their motives. WHY do the Holy Terrors feel the need to remove the "FUCKIN-AY! THAT WAS GREAT!" out of sex?
I could simply presume that the War on Whoopie is being waged because the Holy Terrors are just a collection of self-righteous homophobic bigoted assholes who have nothing better to do than to stick their holier-than-thou noses into other peoples business because God Forbid people should be out there having more fun than they, that is, any fun at all.
But I won't do that. I'll instead take it for granted that the Holy Terrors have only the most noble motives in mind, and I'll take them at their own words to discern their motives. Why, for example, do they so vehemently oppose gay marriage?
Taking the Holy Terrors at their word, they oppose gay marriage because it threatens the very institution of marriage itself.
Don't believe me? Pay heed to the words of Fearless Leader. "(S)ome activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage [by legalizing homosexual unions] ….If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. …Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." (George W. Bush, Feb. 14, 2004).
I'm sure it was an oversight, but Fearless Leader's call to arms was devoid of specifics. I still have a few questions. How does legalizing gay unions redefine marriage? What is the meaning of marriage such that it's at risk of change, and what is so special about "man and woman as husband and wife" that therefore needs the protection of a Constitutional amendment?
In other words, why do people get married?
Because they love each other, of course. Why else?
Okay. But in all the media coverage of gay people wanting to marry, they say they want to do so because they love their partners and want to be with each other until death do they part. So why not let them marry? How does letting more people do it for love redefine it? Are there other possible reasons for people to marry?
As a matter of fact, over the course of history, people have gotten married for an enormous diversity of reasons: to seal political alliances, for business and property ownership purposes, to produce children, (heirs and laborers, mostly), and generally to maintain an orderly society. And what about love and sexual gratification? Well, that's what mistresses, concubines, prostitutes, and fuckbuddies were for. According to Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage: A History, (The Penguin Group, 2005), "(f)or thousands of years, marriage served so many economic, political, and social functions that the individual needs and wishes of its members (especially women and children) took second place. Marriage was not about bringing two individuals together for love and intimacy, although that was sometimes a welcome side effect. Rather, the aim of marriage was to acquire useful in-laws and gain political or economic advantage.
Only in the last two hundred years, as other economic and political institutions began to take over many of the roles once played by marriage, did Europeans and Americans begin to see marriage as a personal and private relationship that should fulfill their emotional and sexual desires. Once that happened, free choice became the societal norm for mate selection, love became the main reason for marriage, and a successful marriage came to be defined as one that met the needs of its members." (pp. 306-307, Coontz).
With hindsight, the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana is a perfect example of Ms. Coontz theory. The pairing was a mis-match made someplace other than heaven. Once the couple had produced Princes William and Harry, ("an heir and a spare") ensuring the royal line would continue for another generation, Charles and Diana each found someone more well-suited to their wants and needs. The marriage ended, like so many others, in divorce.
In fact, you might say that the true fairy-tale wedding with the "happily-ever-after" ending is that of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Marry for love? To hell with the political consequences? Oh, you crazy kids!
Wait a minute, you might say. We're living in the twenty-first century. Don't tell me the Holy Terrors are still saying people should marry for reasons other than for love!
Okay, I won't tell you that. I'll let them tell you that.
Quoting the Catechism for the Catholic Church, Article 7, Section 1601: "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring," (emphasis added).
Until 1965, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), states could legally prohibit the sale of contraceptives to married couples or to individuals. Why? Because birth control was anti-family. In upholding a similar law in 1917, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held the law's purpose was to "protect purity, to preserve chastity, to encourage continence and self-restraint, to defend the sanctity of the home, and thus to engender in the State and nation a virile and virtuous race of men and women."
The Family Research Council website offers a lengthy article by Dr. Allan C. Carlson, PhD, entitled, Marriage And Procreation: On Children As The First Purpose Of Marriage." Dr. Carlson himself acknowledges, "When Massachusetts officials facing the court case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health set out to defend that state's marriage law from a challenge by seven homosexual couples, their major line of defense was procreation. Making babies, the state argued, was the first purpose of marriage."
Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, is a special piece of work. He's got his eye on the Presidency and in his recent book, It Takes A Family, he complains among other things that too many women are working outside the home, (p. 94), public schools are weird, (p. 386), and "The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong." (Pg. 138) However, the junior Senator from PA saved a special message for the "Brian Lehrer" radio show on August 4, 2005. There, the Senator said, "(T)he point of marriage from a societal point of view is not to affirm the love of two people, and to make people feel good about who they are in their relationship, but in fact the point of marriage is for having children …If we change that, we devalue the institution and we change it, and re-orient it more toward parents, and away from children."
Being the father of four myself, I can get behind the idea that we need to raise our children in the best home environment possible. However, I've known of too many negative "one man-one woman" family arrangements and too many positive "single parent" or "one parent-one significant other" or "two moms" or "two dads" or "one or more of the above" arrangements to trust the Catholic Church, a monolithic governmental bureaucracy, or a crackpot Pennsylvania politician to know what's best for everyone.
So, I hate to admit it, but the President is right. We liberals are out to re-define marriage. I say a marriage ought to be about unconditional love and affection between consenting adults. Call me nut, call me crazy dreamer.
No, it's okay. Go ahead. All together now. "J.T, you nut! You crazy dreamer!"
J.T. Benjamin
Copyright 1996 and on, Erotica Readers Association, Inc.
2006 Book Reviews
4 Erotic Ass-ets
Reviews by Ashley Lister
Review by Lisabet Sarai
Bad Girls & More...
Reviews by Ashley Lister
The Best of Both Worlds
Review by Lisabet Sarai
The Black Masque
Review by M. Ellis
Blood Surrender
Review by Lisabet Sarai
Review by Lisabet Sarai
Bound to Love
Review by Ashley Lister
Double Dare
Review by Ashley Lister
Filthy: Outrageous Gay...
Review by Lisabet Sarai
Review by Gary Russell
Forbidden Reading
Review by M. Ellis
Leather, Lace and Lust
Review by Lisabet Sarai
Mr. Stone & Lessons
Reviews by Ashley Lister
Nina Hartley's Sex Guide
Review by Adrienne
Oedipus & Rode Hard
Reviews by Ashley Lister
Orgasms & More
Reviews by Ashley Lister
Passion of Isis
Review by Ashley Lister
Sex in Uniform
Review by Ashley Lister
Six Top Picks
Reviews by Ashley Lister
Stirring up a Storm
Review by M. Ellis
Sunshine and Shadow
Reviews by Lisabet Sarai
Surrender & Dying for It
Reviews by Ashley Lister
Review by Lisabet Sarai
Wicked: Sexy Tales...
Reviews by Ashley Lister
Writing Naked
Review by Lisabet Sarai
America's War on Sex
Review by Rob Hardy
Review by Rob Hardy
Covent Garden Ladies
Review by Rob Hardy
The Commitment
Review by Rob Hardy
Eroticism and Art
Review by Rob Hardy
Expletive Deleted...
Review by Rob Hardy
Female Orgasms
Review by Rob Hardy
Government Vs. Erotica
Review by Rob Hardy
Heloise & Abelard ...
Review by Rob Hardy
International Exposure
Review by Rob Hardy
A Profane Wit
Review by Rob Hardy
Secret Life of Oscar Wilde
Review by Rob Hardy
Sex Collectors
Review by Rob Hardy
Review by Rob Hardy


text:
Thousand Oaks Wedding Venue
4155 Erbes Road North
Thousand Oaks, California 91360
Contact: Catering Department
Phone: 805/495-6484 x241
Request more information
Nestled in the rolling hills of Thousand Oaks, Sunset Hills Country Club is just outside Los Angeles but feels like it's worlds away. The club is spread over 85 lush acres, whose gently rolling hills are dotted with majestic oaks, mature elms, and a wealth of other trees. In addition to a clubhouse and golf shop, the property features an 18-hole golf course and an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
Situated on three separate levels with interconnecting stairways, the two clubhouse buildings and Pro Shop are arranged in a horseshoe around the sparkling pool. With their arched façades and red-tile roofs, these one-story stuccos reflect a contemporary melding of California and Spanish architecture.
Sunset Hills welcomes events of all kinds—weddings, birthday parties, and golf tournaments to name a few. If marriage is on your mind, two sites are available for ceremonies. For a big wedding, the best place to tie the knot is in a flat green valley surrounded by stately oaks that affords ample room for theater-style seating. More intimate ceremonies take place at the crest of a little hill beneath overarching alder branches.
After saying "I do" outdoors, bring your festivities inside the Sunset Hills Ballroom, located on the clubhouse's upper level. This spacious, L-shaped venue comes with a parquet dance floor and features an arching, adobe-style brick fireplace. Wrought-iron chandeliers and sconces illuminate earth-tone walls adorned with Tuscan-style artwork, imparting a tasteful elegance. If your event calls for more space, a movable wall rolls easily aside, allowing the ballroom and the lounge to combine into a single large room overlooking the patio and pool.
Sunset Hills offers a variety of wedding packages, all of which can be customized. Their executive chef is happy to personalize your menu, and the on-site coordinator and catering manager will work with you and/or your wedding planner to choreograph your affair from start to finish.
The team at Sunset Hills Country Club is experienced at hosting all types of celebrations. Their expertise and marvelous esprit de corps will ensure that yours will be a resounding success.
CEREMONY CAPACITY: The lawn area holds 200 seated guests.
EVENT/RECEPTION CAPACITY: The Ballroom accommodates 200 seated with dance floor.
MEETING CAPACITY: The Ballroom holds 200 guests seated theater-style.
A nonrefundable deposit, which is applied to your food & beverage total, is required to reserve your date. The amount of the deposit varies, depending on how far in advance you book. Payment terms for the balance also vary, and may be arranged on an individual basis. Luncheons start at $15/person, dinners at $25/person. Tax, alcohol and service charge are additional. Menus and packages can be customized to fit your needs and budget. Call for details.
For business meetings, rates vary depending on the services required; call for details.
Wedding Receptions
Special Events, Parties
Business Functions/Meetings
Rehearsal Dinners
Catering: in-house
Kitchen Facilities: n/a
Tables & Chairs: provided
Linens, Silver, etc.: provided
Restrooms: wheelchair accessible
Dance Floor: yes
Bride's Dressing Area: yes
AV/Meeting Equipment: CBA, extra fee
Parking: ample, large lots
Accommodations: no guest rooms
Outdoor Night Lighting: yes
Outdoor Cooking Facilities: none
Cleanup: provided
View: pool
Pool Area
Banquet Hall/Events Facility
Golf Course/Golf Clubhouse
Private Club
Alcohol: in-house or BYO with corkage fee
Smoking: outside only
Music: amplified OK indoors, outdoors with restrictions
Wheelchair Access: yes
Insurance: not required
BYO w/ Corkage Fee
w/ Restrictions
Wheelchair Accessible
Year-round, daily, 6pm–midnight. Earlier events can be arranged.
Alternate Info: Sunset Hills Golf Club, Sunset Hills Golf Course


text:
Marselisborg Skov, two kilometres south of the centre, is the city's largest park, and home to the summer residence of the Danish royals: its landscaped grounds can be visited when the monarch isn't staying (usually at all times outside Easter, Christmas and late June to early Aug).
Ten kilometres south of Århus, the Moesgård Museum details Danish civilizations from the Stone Age onwards. Its most notable exhibit is the "Grauballe Man", an amazingly well-preserved sacrificial victim dating from around 100 BC discovered in a peat bog west of town in 1952. Also remarkable is the Illerup Ådal collection of Iron Age weapons and the scenic "prehistoric trail" which runs 3km to the sea. A striking redesign of the museum (tripling the area but not affecting access) should be complete by 2014.


text:
Set up automatic replies, set a time range, use rules to manage your inbox while you're out, and create different out-of-office messages for different groups, whether or not you're using Microsoft Exchange.
Inside this course:
Set up automatic replies (3:09)
Create, edit, and turn off out-of-office messages, set a time range for them to run, and set different messages for different groups. You'll need a work or school account to use these features of Microsoft Exchange.
Rules to keep your inbox organized while you're away (3:39)
Use automatic reply rules to manage your inbox. Move messages from specific people or using specific keywords to different folders, forward them to other people, or send them directly to the recycle bin.
Use automatic replies without Exchange (3:38)
Set up out-of-office messages even if you don't use Microsoft Exchange. Save an email message as a template, then create an Outlook rule to send it to anyone who writes to you while you're away.
Course summary
A brief reminder of the key points in this course.
More courses available at Microsoft Office Training.


text: Seattle City Council Seattle May Soon Have A Citywide System Of Lockers To Serve Homeless Residents By Martha Kang • Feb 11, 2014 joolie / Flickr Seattle city leaders are working to establish a citywide system of lockers for the city's homeless residents, council members Sally Bagshaw and Bruce Harrell announced in a guest blog post in The Stranger on Tuesday. Lockers, the council members wrote, would free homeless residents from having to "drag your possessions with you to your interview, on your back, in bags, whatever you have, stigmatizing you for sure as homeless." Not Yet In Office, Sawant Promises $15 Minimum Wage In 2014 By Paula Wissel • Dec 17, 2013 Elaine Thompson / Associated Press Seattle's newly-elected Socialist city council member Kshama Sawant isn't wasting any time. At a news conference Tuesday, Sawant boldly promised "2014 will be the year of the $15-an-hour minimum wage." Sawant, who won't be sworn in until January, has already been meeting with council members and labor leaders. But she says she's also looking for support from ordinary people on the street. As Seattle Voters Mull Amendment 19, Tacoma Serves as Example By Jennifer Wing • Oct 24, 2013 Jennifer Wing Listen Listening... / 5:24 Many people who live in Seattle probably have a hard time naming their city council representatives. There are nine at-large positions that govern the entire city. Charter Amendment 19 on the November ballot wants to make politics more local in Seattle by having seven of those positions look out for the needs of specific districts. Seattle to Require its Bank to be Socially Responsible By Ashley Gross • Aug 12, 2013 Ted S. Warren / Associated Press Listen Listening... / 0:59 The Occupy Wall Street movement has faded from the news, but the Seattle City Council invoked its memory Monday with the passing of a banking ordinance. The city council wants the bank where it deposits money to reinvest back into the community. Plan to carve city council into districts likely headed for ballot By Gabriel Spitzer • Jun 11, 2013 Gabriel Spitzer / KPLU Seattle voters will likely get a chance to consider a new way to elect the city council. Supporters of a district-elections amendment delivered 10 boxes of petitions to the city clerk, containing 46,633 signatures – more than enough to grab a place on the November ballot. Burgess exits Seattle mayoral race By Bellamy Pailthorp & The Associated Press • May 17, 2013 Listen Listening... / 1:15 Seattle City Council member Tim Burgess has bowed out of the mayoral race. Burgess said recent polling showed his campaign lacked the sparkle he needed to win, and he posed a risk of splintering the vote in the crowded race. Seattle city council president says state may have to raise taxes to fund schools By Ashley Gross • Dec 4, 2012 The president of the Seattle City Council says the state needs to make sure it adequately funds schools – and that may mean the state has to raise taxes. The state of Washington faces a grim budget deficit – more than $2.5 billion over the next two years, by one estimate. At the same time, the state also has to boost money for schools, according to a state supreme court decision. Should Seattle require all landlords to register rental units? By Ashley Gross • Sep 12, 2012 The city of Seattle wants to crack down on problem rental buildings by requiring landlords to register and get inspections of their units. Tenants' advocates say they're hopeful the new system will mean fewer people living in unhealthy or dangerous housing. Jonathan Grant runs the non-profit group Tenants Union of Washington State. He says he hears from tenants all the time about the poor conditions of their apartments. Seattle councilwoman dying of cancer comes out at 66 By The Associated Press • Aug 22, 2012 The Associated Press Former Seattle councilwoman Cheryl Chow has brain cancer and says she has one more thing she wants to do before she dies. She told KING-TV she is coming out and telling people she is gay after being secretive for more than 60 years. She wants to encourage others to not be afraid to tell their parents or children the truth. Seattle Council member worries arena deal could set bad precedent By Bellamy Pailthorp • Jul 18, 2012 More questions are being asked about the proposal for a new arena in Seattle to lure back the NBA. A public hearing on the deal takes place Thursday evening and Seattle's City Hall is expected to be packed with people giving testimony for and against it. Seattle council protects public breastfeeding By The Associated Press • Apr 9, 2012 The Seattle City Council has made it illegal for businesses and others to ask mothers to stop breastfeeding, to cover up or move to a different location. Seattle law to protect breastfeeding moves on to final vote By Erin Hennessey & Jake Ellison • Apr 5, 2012 The Associated Press About a dozen women testified in favor yesterday of the Seattle City Council proposed rule to add protection for breastfeeding mothers. A committee considering the new law voted 3-0 to pass it onto the full council, which will vote on the bill on Monday. The committee is expecting unanimous support of the bill. Plastic bag ban back on Seattle council's agenda By Bellamy Pailthorp • Nov 21, 2011 Gwen Harlow / Flickr "Paper or plastic?" Seattle wants to take that choice away in order to save the environment and money. The city council is considering a ban on single-use plastic bags, because they are harmful to marine wildlife as well as to recycling machinery. Should Bruce Lee get his own Seattle museum? Council wonders By Joshua Kinne • Nov 2, 2011 The Seattle City Council has unveiled a new proposal to create a museum memorializing martial arts star Bruce Lee. In June, plans for a museum at Lee's former residence in Hong Kong were scrapped. Now, The Lee Family Foundation has released a concept for a Seattle-based museum. Seattle low-income students to get high-speed Internet access By Robin Cedar • Sep 27, 2011 Tom Woodward / flickr The Seattle City Council voted Monday to provide high-speed Internet to low-income students for less than $10 a month. The Great Student Initiative is expected to help 16,000 of the 47,000 students in Seattle Public Schools who are on the free lunch program. Update: Chihuly, city break ground for exhibition at Seattle Center By Vanessa Romo • Aug 23, 2011 Robin Cedar / KPLU Listen Listening... / What was once a Fun Forest will soon be " Chihuly Garden and Glass." Artist Dale Chihuly officially broke ground today on a 1.5 acre exhibition space in the Seattle Center. The gallery will include a garden, bookstore and café. It's set to open in the spring of 2012. Just in time to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Seattle World's Fair. Medical marijuana measure passed to Seattle City Council By Paula Wissel • Jul 13, 2011 Flickr The city of Seattle is getting closer to regulating medical pot dispensaries. The Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture Committee of the Seattle City Council unanimously passed a measure that would require the marijuana shops to comply with city building codes, zoning ordinances and fair employment laws. Chihuly glass exhibit for Seattle Center gets OK'd by city council By Gary Crawford • Apr 26, 2011 Studio 216 / Owen Richards Architects [UPDATE/CORRECTION: Bumbershoot's Visual Arts Exhibits will move from the Northwest Rooms to Seattle Center Pavilion and the adjacent courtyard.] The Space Needle's owners get a Chihuly museum, a community radio station gets a new home and Bumbershoot's visual art space gets, well, nobody seems to be sure. Legal questions confront proposed Seattle referendum on tunnel By Liam Moriarty & KPLU News Staff • Mar 29, 2011 AP Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes has filed a legal challenge to a citizen referendum on Seattle's proposed deep-bore waterfront tunnel. Holmes has asked a judge to rule on whether the construction agreements between the city and the state that targeted by the referendum are "administrative actions" which can't be overturned by the vote. Tunnel vote likely in Seattle, but it may not resolve anything By Liam Moriarty • Mar 29, 2011 WSDOT Opponents of the tunnel proposed to replace Seattle's aging Alaskan Way Viaduct say they've gathered more than enough signatures to force a public vote. But a new poll suggests that won't settle the contentious issue. Restaurateur Tom Douglas vs. Mayor Mike McGinn on changes to Seattle parking rates By Bellamy Pailthorp • Mar 28, 2011 Photo by Bellamy Pailthorp / KPLU News Seattle's downtown restaurant owners are still grumbling about rate hikes for metered street parking. The city's new scheme has been in place for a little over a month. But the controversy hasn't gone away. One of the city's most famous restaurant owners is going public with his concerns. City of Seattle launches customizable web portal By Gary Crawford • Feb 1, 2011 City of Seattle website Need to report a pothole in your neighborhood? Or pay a parking ticket? The City of Seattle has launched a new one-stop website that it hopes will improve customer service and foster public participation. Seattle expands definition of service animal By Paula Wissel • Jan 25, 2011 guidehorse.org When you think of a service animal, you probably think of a dog sitting next to someone who's blind. But under new civil rights legislation in Seattle, the city defines " service animal" as: "any animal a doctor deems medically necessary." Pages« first ‹ previous 1 2


text:
Skip to comments.Update: Now 44 Times More TV Coverage of Christie's Traffic Scandal Than in Last Six Months on IRS
Posted on 01/10/2014 2:19:39 PM PST by Zakeet
In less than 48 hours, ABC, CBS and NBC deluged viewers with coverage of Chris Christie's traffic jam scandal, devoting a staggering 88 minutes to the story. In comparison, these same news outlets over the last six months have allowed a scant two minutes for the latest on Barack Obama's Internal Revenue Service scandal. The disparity in less than two days is 44-to-one. [See a chart below.]
From Wednesday through Friday morning, the latest on Christie's Traffic-Gate led 11 out of 13 news programs. NBC produced the heaviest coverage, over 34 minutes. CBS followed close behind with more than 30 minutes. ABC came in third with just under 23 minutes.
Over the last six months, NBC featured a meager five seconds on IRS targeting of Tea Party organizations. CBS allowed a minute and 41 seconds. ABC managed a mere 22 seconds.
The scandal exploded onto the media radar, Wednesday, when it was revealed that lane closures on the George Washington bridge last fall were as a because of political payback from the Christie administration. The resulting traffic jam caused a massive back-up.
NBC's Today on Friday opened with a graphic that announced "the crisis grows." Correspondent Kelly O'Donnell underscored, "The crisis feeds into critics' perceptions that Christie fosters hardball tactics."
On ABC's Good Morning America, Jim Avila ramped up the danger level, announcing "it was Governor Chris Christie's worst day in politics ever." He labeled Thursday's press conference a "political walk of shame" for the Republican.
On CBS This Morning, journalist Elaine Quijano saw it as "the biggest test yet of Christie's political career."
That may well be true, but a major scandal involving political targeting by Obama's IRS resulted in near media silence and a complete lack of hyperbolic, shocked language by reporters.
It wasn't as though there were a lack of potential IRS stories to follow-up on. In December, House investigator Darrell Issa announced that the FBI and IRS chief counsel is stonewalling the investigation.
In October, newly obtained e-mails showed that the scandal-plagued Lois Lerner, the woman at the center of the controversy, illegally gave Tea Party tax info to the FEC. Lerner retired from the IRS In September, but the networks skipped that. (For more, see a report by the Media Research Center.)
The accusations and revelations about the Christie administration's orchestrating and handling of a man-made traffic jam certainly warrant media attention. However, the same journalists who have jumped all over a scandal involving a potential Republican candidate in 2016 don't seem interested in the IRS scandal involving the current Democratic president.
(For the totals of the the Christie scandal as of Thursday morning, go here.)
Here is a TV report from 1981 about getting news on the newfangled internet...
Not us Democrats!
No! Christie's the donkey!
Christie is arm-in-arm with Obama & mainstream media. Maybe he'll fill in for Joe as VP in the Democrat party.
bi = goes both ways
assed = well... never-mind
I swear before God Himself... the media is FIRST.
All he has to do is switch parties and it'll go away in a nanosecond.
Obama's officially thrown Chrissy Christie under the bus.
And this is surprising to whom?
I don't have any love for Chunky C but this is ridiculous.
The punditards had no interest in fast and furious, Benghazi, the targeting of political enemies by the IRS, sending 30,000 troops into Afghanistan when he apparently didn't believe there would be any success.
These same punditards have the audacity to suggest that Christie could be charged with murder.
Christie is a bigger target. Batta-bing.
Christie is a RINO business as usual politician and its looks like the GOPe political machine is working overtime to create the notion that he is some sort of victim.
The machine is also using media including postings on this website to cover for Christie's actions and get grassroots conservatives behind him.
I'm not being hustled. Chris Christie was wrong period, end of sentence.
nice link!!!
FWIW ping.
It's called Selective Electronic Lynching.
Someone posted it on Facebook.
The MSM is the greatest threat to the Country.
Or Leftist-controlled media.
Say what you want about Republicans, but one of the benifits of having them in office is that they turn the media from a State propaganda machine back into something resembling the legitimate watchdogs they are supposed to be.
You are MAGNANIMOUS! lol. freepers... they are the best (even in disagreement). Eagles Up! freepersup!
Now that's funny (ready for it) I don't care who you are.
BTTT for cool ;-)
Eagles Up, always!
You want me to take Christie out to a field and club him like a baby seal? No problem. (just kidding Mr. law enforcement types listening in). I'm more of a concrete shoes kind of guy- hey it's Jersey for crying out loud.
I have NOT been defending Christie by stating the obvious- and this thread/topic makes my point, AND my blood boil. The piling on is magnitudes beyond the punishment due this "crime". Freepers are supposed to be seekers of the facts right? As much as donut boy is a turd in the punch bowl, a set up and public lynching needs to be called what it is. What brings you to this thread anyway, since this thread supports my contention of a hysterical, ferocious, blinded, out of control press that's been piling on Christie doing the bidding of the left, and I took flak for pointing that out, and, as if it made me some kind of Christie supporter? That WAS a question (I think) wasn't it? Pile on!
Typical Lib: The IRS targeting of Tea Party groups never happened. And besides, the Tea Party deserved it.
The Christie story had an 'EASY' button. Did not require the media to perform any investigation and the circumstances had more 'reality show' appeal to the commuting public; who hate congested traffic complications and the people who cause them.
The media is running scared - won't touch any scandal that could cause trouble for BO or themselves. They don't have an 'INTEGRITY' button.
The corrupt MSM need to be the first ones visited when it hits the fan.
It's started. From now until the 2016 presidential primary, any Republican who might win will be taken down, leaving only a Dem-lite wimp like McCain or Romney to win the primary, conduct a lackluster campaign, and lose like a gentleman to the Dem candidate.
About the headline: Is ANYONE surprised?
Better they take him down now, than after he gets the nomination.
Well Christie isn't Dem-lite.....he's Full-Blown Dem.
"You've lost that loving feeling....."
He ain't a Dem-Svelte, I'll give you that!
On abc radio the repeater sounded soo excited talking about this fake scandal. Didn't hear the same excitement over real Obama scandals.
That bus must of been souped-up with high suspension to fit the Fat Boy underneath it!
US Attorney in New Jersey Seeks FBI's Help in Bridge-Gate Probe
Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:01 AM
By: Newsmax Wires
The U.S. attorney in New Jersey is opening an inquiry into claims that public officials orchestrated the massive traffic snarl on the busy George Washington Bridge to settle a political score and has asked the FBI to help.
The probe announcement came Thursday as Gov. Chris Christie, a possible Republican White House contender, spent the day addressing the brewing scandal over his staff's role in orchestrating the traffic jam after a local mayor declined to endorse Christie's re-election bid.
AG Eric Holder Is Investigating Lane Closures On The Washington Bridge But Not IRS Harassment
Thanks Zakeet.
I was around for RIchard NixOn and felt angry when the liberal media beat up on him.
But Nixon was also beating up on his enemies.
His "hatchet man" White House counsel Charles Colson wrote many letters of apology when he went to prison in connection with Watergate.
One was to a fundamentalist radio preacher whose crime against Nixon was leading mass protests for a military victory in the Vietnam War and against Nixon and Kissinger's policy of cutting a "peace" agreement.
The ex-Air Force Chief of Staff, General Curtis Lemay, ran as George Wallace's third party running mate in 1968, advocating using air power in the right places like Haiphong harbor instead of the limited attacks on the communists.
He thinks his auditing by the IRS during Nixon's presidency was a warning to stay out of politics.
RINO's go after their Democrat and liberal enemies because politics is a turf war, but in Nixon's case strong arm tactics were unleashed on patriots and conservatives.
I suspect there's more examples of this in Christie's governorship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
I just read Forged by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman (published in March, 2011). I have to say I'm livid. Majorly pissed off. Shocked. Free.
My first emotion is to be angry because if anything Ehrman says is true, I have been lied to my whole life. And not just pretty white lies. I'm talking the kind of lies that imprison and chain your soul. Lies that force you to do and believe what you don't want to do and believe. Lies that claim God doesn't allow women to speak, so if I choose to do so, I have to believe that I'm going against God. Lies about the bible being inspired scripture, based on writings by people who lied about their identity.
Note: there are lots of great book reviews of Forged such as this one (http://theparish.typepad.com/parish/2011/03/forged-ehrman-fundies-and-bible-liars.html). I started this post to blog about the implications for me and others like me who have been taught for years that the New Testament is the infallible Word of God. But since the implications are so extreme, I decided to also check out criticisms of the book that could weaken or invalidate Ehrman's theory. It got pretty long, and the criticism part ended up being college-essay style, so if that sort of thing turns you off, you can skip it. However, if, like me, you're interested in digging deeper in the arguments from this book, I hope you interact with what I've written in the criticism section.
In Ehrman's book, he explains why certain books of the New Testament are today considered by scholars to have been written by different authors than was originally thought. Below is a summary of Ehrman's conclusions (as I remember them) about authorship in each book of the New Testament.
Matthew – written anonymously, but later attributed to Matthew. Probably not by Matthew.
Mark – written anonymously, but later attributed to Mark. Probably not by Mark.
Luke – written anonymously, but later attributed to Luke because people thought Luke wrote Acts. But Luke didn't write Acts so not Luke either.
John – written anonymously, but later attributed to the apostle John. Probably not by John.
Acts – forged to make it look like a companion of Paul wrote it, but a companion of Paul did not write it, so not by Luke.
Romans – truly by Paul.
1 Corinthians – truly by Paul (but Ehrman suspects that the part about women not speaking in church is forged).
2 Corinthians – truly by Paul.
Galatians – truly by Paul.
Ephesians – forged. The style doesn't match Paul, and the content doesn't agree with his other books.
Philippians – truly by Paul.
Colossians – forged.
1 Thessalonians – truly by Paul.
2 Thessalonians – forged. Paul believed the end of the world was imminent, and this book contradicts his other writings.
1 Timothy – forged.
2 Timothy – forged.
Titus – forged. First Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus were all written by the same person but not Paul, and supposedly all scholars agree that Paul didn't write them.
Philemon – truly by Paul.
Hebrews – anonymous, but it was attributed to Paul. Not by Paul.
James – forged.
1 Peter – forged.
2 Peter – forged.
Jude – forged.
Revelation – possibly by a "John" but probably not by the apostle John. It could have been by another person entirely who wanted to sell the belief in 1000 years of paradise on earth.
Ehrman also mentions that Daniel is forged, and Isaiah was written by three different authors.
Ehrman explains that it was a common practice for a person in New Testament times and the centuries that followed to write a book to advance his beliefs. But if this writer was not well-known, he faced a huge temptation to claim to be someone of greater Christian authority. If readers believed his book was written by one of the original apostles, say John, Peter, or Paul, they would be much more likely to accept the doctrines in the book, and the book would be circulated much more widely, read in meetings, and viewed as an authority. It may even be thought of as Scripture. Because of this dynamic, many books written in the centuries after the death of Christ were forged, claiming to be written by one of the original apostles, when they obviously were not. A lot of the books were out to lunch, telling tall tales (like the one where Jesus comes out of the tomb with two angels. The angels are as tall as mountains, but Jesus is taller yet. After Jesus the cross comes out of the tomb. God asks if the cross preached to those who are asleep, and the cross answers, "yes.")
When people chose the books that would make it into the New Testament, they rejected a lot of forgeries. Ehrman doesn't really go into the process that books went through to be chosen, but a check of the Wikipedia entry about the New Testament canon explains how certain church fathers accepted certain books that matched to their beliefs. Almost all of these books were supposedly written by apostles. All the epistles, with the possible exception of Jude, that eventually made it into the New Testament canon claim to have been written by an apostle or are attributed to an apostle. (James & Jude were brothers of Jesus, which gave them nearly the authority of an apostle, but I think James also claimed to be an apostle, even though he was not one of the original 12.) Two of the four gospels were attributed to an apostle, and the other two and Acts were attributed to a companion of an apostle. However, the gospels and Acts are supposed to be historical accounts of the life of Jesus and the apostles. So the authors of Mark, Luke, and Acts didn't themselves give apostolic-type instruction as is found in the epistles (unless they changed things Jesus or apostles supposedly said in these books to match their own views, but according to the official fundamentalist view, they would not have done that).
Thus all the books of the New Testament were eventually accepted as Scripture based in large part on the authority of the author, and the people who accepted them probably didn't realize that many of these books were forged.
What pisses me off the most about all this is that even though it was believed for hundreds of years that all the books in the New Testament were written by the authority the books claimed wrote them, (or the person they were attributed to), in the last two centuries scholars have realized that that is simply not true of many of them. So if all these scholars admit that the books were written by someone else, WHY IN HELL DID NO PREACHER OR TEACHER EVER TELL ME THAT THERE WAS ANY CONTROVERSY? Why didn't my parents? I vaguely recall the idea that maybe some of them were dictated to a scribe who wrote the actual words. But that is all I was ever told. Both my parents went to bible college for four years. Did they hear nothing about a controversy with any of these books? Maybe their school was under a rock that only looked at writings by other Church of Christ leaders. Though I seem to recall them studying the bible and books about the bible my whole life.
I went to the Church of Christ until I was 18. That church believed that they taught nothing but the bible and completely went by the bible, to the point that they found verses about baptism that disagreed with the way the rest of the evangelical church saw it, so they wrote off all of Christianity besides their cult as unsaved. So since they didn't think other Christians were saved, it's possible that they didn't read anything by Bible scholars that brought out the controversy. (Though I highly doubt that. I think they knew about the controversy but didn't say anything since their whole religion is based on the view that the Bible is the "Word of God.")
After I left the Church of Christ, I went to two different ministry schools, 1 year at Oral Roberts University, and a bunch of other churches. All of them claimed to believe and follow the bible, though they usually validated personal experience as well. None of them mentioned the controversy. Unlike the Church of Christ, the churches I attended in my 20's allowed women to speak and minister in meetings. These churches didn't mention the fact that the verses that say women can't speak weren't written by Paul; they just tried to explain it away or ignore it. I got to the point where I concluded that the repression of women is so wrong that if that is truly scripture, I can't completely follow the scripture.
So maybe it makes sense that people forged much of the New Testament. After all, none of the Christian leaders I used to listen to thought it necessary to mention that the authorship of these books is in question. At least some of them must have known about the controversy, but if they talked about it, it could discredit some of their teachings. So they kept their mouths shut about it. They may have felt that laypeople were not equipped to handle the knowledge that books of their precious bible were actually forged. This would be similar to the reasoning people used when they forged the books in the first place. They wanted their beliefs to be authoritative, so they used apostles' names. Fundamentalist Christian leaders want to consider the Bible authoritative, so they don't tell their people that someone wrote these books using apostles' names.
I wonder if it is possible that many of these leaders who taught me actually did not know about the controversy. In an article critiquing Forged, evangelical leader Dr. Mike Licona asserts that "[t]he issue of authorship is discussed at length in most introductions to the New Testament, which differ from surveys and are usually written for graduate students" (1). (I talk more about Licona's article in the Critique section below.) In other words, the news that there is contention about the authorship of numerous books of the New Testament is being held back from the general Christian public, even from some students who obtain a bachelor's degree in theology.
I asked a friend who has a master's in the history of religion about this, and he said he did learn about the discrepancy in an undergraduate class at a Baptist school. He also said that more liberal churches talk about this all the time, but if he were a pastor at, say, a Southern Baptist church and mentioned in the pulpit that there was a controversy about authorship of books in the New Testament, he would be fired. Is it because scholars assume that unless someone is a New Testament scholar, they won't be able to figure out how to handle the evidence for or against authorship of a book by a certain person? I think Ehrman was right to bring this out into view of the lay public, and I applaud him for doing so. I think people in the churches need to know for themselves that there is a problem with the book they revere, and they need to be able to decide for themselves what to do about it.
In his book Ehrman does not focus on the implications of his conclusions. In this book, he doesn't even say what he currently believes about God, though he does say he believes Jesus existed. (Other websites that talk about his work say he's now an agnostic, though in the book he explains that he used to be a fundamentalist who went to Moody Bible Institute.) But in this post I would like to get into the implications for me and other people who question things in the Bible.
It boils down to this. Growing up every Sunday since I came to a certain Church of Christ at age 11 until I left at age 18, the preacher repeated certain verses in nearly every sermon. One of those was 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." This was the basis of teaching at that fundamentalist church. If I were to say that I think this verse was talking about the Old Testament, they would quote 2 Peter 3:15b-16: "just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." In other words, the writings of Paul, which make up ½ the New Testament, are considered scripture by the author of 2 Peter, so the rest of the New Testament must be too. That means all the New Testament is inspired by God. So it's error free, and you can't question it. You must just believe it, and "[s]tudy to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). (As I recall, that repetitive preacher from my teens routinely quoted the King James version of this verse or something similar because most of the modern translations say "be diligent" or something like that, and he wanted to emphasize the importance of studying the Bible, even though that's a mistranslation.)
Since these verses are found in books that were forged, I think it's likely the doctrines about the New Testament being Scripture inspired by God are actually doctrines of humans not inspired by God who wanted to get their beliefs to be seen as authoritative. In Forged, Ehrman discusses the verse in 2 Peter and explains that there was a controversy in the early church about whether or not Peter and Paul were in agreement. He theorizes that the author of 2 Peter wanted to promote the idea that Peter and Paul were in agreement, so in his book supposedly by Peter, he has Peter calling Paul's writings Scripture.
My contention starting in my early 20's was that the bible never claims to be the Word of God, and the only time the bible refers to an entity as the Word of God, it's referring to Jesus (John 1). So I felt that the bible was being used for a purpose that wasn't intended by the original authors. For the past several years, I thought that the purpose of the bible was to share truths about God that would lead people to get to know God for themselves, but instead many people, like the ones I grew up with, see the bible as an end in itself and try to follow the bible instead of following God.
As you can see if you read other posts on this blog, I've lately been questioning the wisdom of following the bible at all. There is so much in there that I find deeply troubling that I would rather throw the whole thing out then feel crammed in the boxes it provides. I've really been doubting the inspiration of the bible. I concluded that it must be a work of men who were fallible, including Paul. I held the teachings of Jesus in a little higher regard, but I still wondered how we can know for sure whether he actually said any specific teaching. How did people remember exactly what he said to write it down years later? I'm sure some things he said are recorded, but I doubt if we have any of his exact words, especially since he probably spoke in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek.
Well, I mentioned at the beginning of this post that I felt anger, but I also felt shocked and even free at reading Forged. Shocked because I had no idea that these books were in question. Free because if these books really weren't written by apostles, then they shouldn't have been included in the New Testament in the first place, according to the standards for inclusion that men chose to follow when they picked the books for the New Testament. So they're definitely not "scripture." Furthermore, all the verses that were used to prove the New Testament is all inspired scripture and must be studied and followed as if it were God are actually written by people who were so adamant that they wanted their beliefs to be accepted that they lied about who they were, one claiming to be Peter and another Paul.
So I feel free because my impressions of the bible are validated. It's human. The only books for sure written by an apostle are six by Paul. But why should I assume they're inspired words of God just because Paul happened to be an apostle (but not one of the original twelve)? Paul himself says, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known" (1 Cor. 13:12). Paul, the only writer of the New Testament who for sure wrote some of the books attributed to him, saw in dimly and knew in part. He's saying he's human. He doesn't have the whole picture. I think the picture he gives in the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 13 (the love chapter) is beautiful, because he shows that it's all about love. And though my Church of Christ preacher uncle would like to think that the "then" Paul mentions in this verse (talking about "the perfect" from a couple verses back) is the completion of the Bible, there's nothing in that passage or anywhere else that indicates Paul even has an idea that there would be a New Testament. My uncle's idea is ludicrous. The chapter is about love, the greatest thing in the world. To me, Paul's "face to face," can only mean that he believed that when he sees God, who is perfect love, face to face, then he will fully know. But not in an academic understanding kind of way. He wants to know God relationally, just as God knows him. He wants to fully love.
So since we surmise that most of the New Testament is forged or mis-attributed, should we throw the whole thing out? Even though I'm incensed that the authors lied about their identities and deceived Christians for hundreds of years, I think they have some valid things to say. I think there is spiritual revelation that can be helpful to our current spiritual development in many of these books. Am I going to hang on their every word, believing that everything they say is from God? Absolutely not. Just as I would not blindly follow any other spiritual teaching. I have some favorites that come to me at different times in my life. I think when someone has revelation to share, that's valuable. But ultimately my spiritual walk is found in my own spirit. I can trust the God I'm coming to know far more than I can trust any other humans with their varied motivations for spouting out beliefs. I do think God or my own spirit brings teachings and revelations from other people to me at the right times when I need them.
And this all comes back to my post on the Garden of Eden. Ultimately, like Paul said, we see in part. Dimly. God and the spiritual world is a mystery. We know that the most important thing, the greatest thing that will abide forever is love. If we try to heap up to ourselves knowledge, like the story of Adam and Eve in the garden, we just might miss God.
Criticism of Forged
Since I am not a biblical scholar, I know that I could easily miss any weaknesses that might exist in Forged. And I realize that there's two sides to every story. I wanted to see if there was any reason not to believe Ehrman's assertions, so I looked for critical reviews of the book by an educated fundamentalist-type who disagrees with Ehrman's conclusions. I found a 16 page article written by Mike Licona, who holds a doctorate in New Testament studies, is on the board of several evangelical ministries, and opposes the conclusion that Ehrman reaches. You can read the article here.
Licona points out two potential weaknesses in Ehrman's argument. The first has to do with content and the second with secretaries. Ehrman asserts that the content of some books doesn't match up to what the apostle said in other books, and this is one reason to think the books are written by different authors. An example is Ephesians. Ehrman finds a discrepancy with what Paul seems to say about resurrection in Ephesians and what he says about the same subject in Romans. But Licona contends: "Paul's teaching concerning the resurrection of believers in Romans is completely compatible with what we find in Ephesians and Colossians. Many of the teachings in the disputed letters of Paul that Ehrman regards as contradictory to the teachings in his undisputed letters are solved just as easily with a careful look at the texts in question." (3). I'll grant that when I first read the argument by Ehrman about resurrection, it sounded a little fishy to me. I never saw a discrepancy before, because I always thought that what he said in Romans and in Ephesians were talking about two separate things. I also think it's difficult to pinpoint the content issue when talking about deep or complex theological issues because in my experience, people interpret these types of passages in many different ways. But there are some content issues that are more cut-and-dried. Ehrman points out that Paul seems to be concerned that salvation is not by works of the law, but some of the books under contention talk about good works in general instead of works of the law, which wasn't Paul's primary area of interest. But I will agree with Licona that in at least some of these cases, the content discrepancy doesn't definitively prove that the book was forged, though a discrepancy in content added to a stark difference in style would prove the forgery, in my opinion.
The main weakness that Licona and other reviewers found in Ehrman's argment has to do with secretaries. In fact, this was the first thing my husband brought up when I told him what I was reading, and it's the only thing I remember hearing about authorial controversy when I was growing up. Licona quotes Ehrman as saying, "Virtually all of the problems with what I've been calling forgeries can be solved if secretaries were heavily involved in the composition of the early Christian writings. (134)" Licona ends his article by saying, "Ehrman's treatment of Paul's use of secretaries is both weak and problematic. If secretaries were involved with the traditional New Testament authors in the editing and composition of their letters, most of the arguments used against the traditional authorship of this literature lose their force and, as an old friend of mine would say, Ehrman is left with a firm grasp on an empty sack" (15).
So on the subject of secretaries, Ehrman presents four basic scenarios, which I'm going to paraphrase. In the first scenario, the apostle dictated to a scribe, who wrote down word-for-word what the apostle said. The apostle is the author, no question. There's evidence that this happened in the epistles of Paul, including in books that aren't suspected of forgery.
Scenario two: the apostle wrote the epistle, then had it copyedited. In modern times there are different levels of copyediting depending on the original state of the draft and what the author wants. In light and standard copyediting, the editor points out inconsistencies in the author's arguments and attempts to resolve errors of grammar and problems with clarity. The copyeditor usually makes minor changes, such as to correct a misspelled word or misplaced comma. The copyeditor will often rewrite a short segment or offer a suggestion of a rewrite then show these changes to the author, and the author has the option to accept or reject them. In heavy copyediting, the copyeditor may do more extensive revision, but the author still gets to accept or reject the changes. In all these cases, the copyeditor is not considered the author but is only helping the author polish his or her prose and fix errors and inconsistencies. There's still no ethical problem with the author claiming the work. Ehrman doesn't offer any examples of copyediting in the New Testament and only a couple examples of that happening in ancient times with rich people. If this did happen in the New Testament and the editor did a good job, readers wouldn't be able to detect the difference between the words of the author and the words of the editor, and this certainly wouldn't explain the changes in style and content that Ehrman points out in the books in question.
Ehrman also brings up the possibility of co-authoring, but says there's no examples of that in New Testament times. My thought is that if the apostle co-authored with someone else, and the work that appeared was so different from the apostle's other works as to seem like it was written by someone else, than it was probably ghost-written (the fourth option), not co-authored. Licona does offer one example that implies a secretary did more than just take dictation:
In 2 Corinthians 10:9-11 [Paul] writes, 'it is said, "His [i.e., Paul's] letters are weighty and powerful, but his physical presence is weak, and his public speaking is despicable." Such a person should consider this: What we are in the words of our letters when absent, we will be in actions when present.' Notice carefully how the subject changes from Paul the poor public speaker in the singular to the 'we' who write the letters. More than one person is involved in writing Paul's letters. So, the involvement of the secretary appears to go beyond taking simple dictation. (14)
While this could indicate a co-author adding his two-cents into the draft, why would the co-author also be involved in disciplinary actions of a church in person? Perhaps Paul is including other leaders in this statement, who may have even written their own letters, or perhaps he has a cohort taking dictation who is also involved in church discipline. In any case, Paul seems to have control of the content and style in 1 Corinthians as this is not one of the disputed books. Also co-writing involves some of the other problems I talk about next in the section on ghostwriting.
I think that the most likely scenario that does not technically involve forgery is ghost-writing. Ehrman remarks, "And it does not seem possible that Peter gave the general gist of what he wanted to say and that a secretary then created the letter for him in his name, since, first, then the secretary rather than Peter would be the real author of the letter, and second, and even more important, we don't seem to have any analogy for a procedure like this from the ancient world" (156). I don't agree that the second reason is more important. Just because we don't have examples of ghostwriting from the ancient world doesn't mean it wasn't done or the apostles weren't smart enough to figure out they could do that. By definition, ghostwriting means writing that is attributed to an author but actually written by someone else. In today's world, a lot of times authors don't want their readers to know that the book was ghostwritten, so they try to hide it. I think it's possible that bible authors could have done that too, especially if the fact that the book was ghostwritten would have diminished the authority of the book.
So in some of these cases where it's not evident that the book was written after the death of the apostle and the content isn't too far off the author's beliefs as shown in other texts, it's possible that the book was ghost-written by a friend or assistant of the apostle. The apostle could have contributed content, an outline, or some ideas to the book, had someone else write it, and then he would have reviewed the book, possibly made changes, and approved that it be sent out in his name.
I still agree with Ehrman that it's more likely that the book was forged, but for argument's sake, let's assume that the book really was ghost-written and the apostle approved it. What does this mean for the status of the book? Although in modern times it's considered ethical to ghost-write certain types of works (but sometimes people get really pissed off when they find out a work by their favorite celebrity was ghost-written), I think there's definitely a valid place for ghost writing, though if you want to be perfectly honest, I think it is better to mention somewhere in the work the fact that the author had a good bit of help creating it. Also there are certain types of works that cannot be ethically ghostwritten. For example, if I would have hired someone to write a college essay for me and the school found out, I would have been kicked out of school. I do think that this is an instance where it's completely unethical to have something ghost written because this is an instance, similar to a college essay, where the author's identity was vital to how the book was going to be received. If an apostle did this, he was lying, and that doesn't fit the character the original apostles supposedly had.
So the question becomes, what are the implications for the books of the New Testament if they were ghostwritten? Many people consider these books to be inerrant scripture that was inspired by God. The scenario my old churches painted for me is that an apostle sat down with ink and a scroll, heard from the Holy Spirit, and wrote down what he heard. This corresponds to the image presented in 2 Peter 1:20-21: "know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (Though this verse doesn't say that this process applied to all scripture, only to prophesy. And isn't prophesy by definition something that people said when they were moved by God? So yes, obviously no prophesy occurred without people being moved by God because if they weren't moved by God, what they said would not be defined as prophesy. That really doesn't prove anything, and it's similar to the circular reasoning in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is inspired by God . . . " So one part of the definition of Scripture is that it is something inspired by God. That doesn't really prove anything.)
So when we read the New Testament, we supposedly read the very words of God. But what happens when the person doing the initial writing isn't actually the apostle? Well, it still could be the same scenario. Someone without any particular authority in the church sits down with God and hears the Holy Spirit. He then writes down what he hears. He brings it to the closest apostle, and the apostle says, "Yup, that sounds like God. in fact I think people really need to hear this message, and they'll receive it better if my name's on it. Why don't you just right here in the beginning add these words: 'Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ' (Eph. 1:1-2). That should tie in just fine with your intro here where you have 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' (Eph 1:3)." So in this scenario, the book is still inspired by God. Just like when I sit down in my contemplative prayer time, get really still, and begin hearing something from the spirit. I write down what I hear. What I wrote down is inspired by God.
Lots and lots of people have done this through the centuries, so there's probably thousands or millions of inspired writings. But when I write something I hear, I don't consider it scripture, and I'm pretty sure that if I tried to pass it off to my fundamentalist parents as scripture, they'd laugh at me. I know when I hear from God, everything God says gets passed through my own filters and the fog in my own head. So what I hear and write down could very well not exactly be what God meant. I studied communication and rhetorical theory in college, and this helped me realize just how dicey words and meanings are. To have an imprint of someone else's idea in your head is pretty much miraculous, let alone getting the same exact meaning from the words that someone else said, especially when talking about complicated issues. So I try to be careful when talking about messages I get from God to use the words, "I heard" rather than, "God told me" because maybe what God told me is not what I heard, and all I know for sure is what I heard.
The books of the New Testament don't even use the words "I heard." But people assume that because the content is profound, and the author is an apostle, the words must be inspired scripture. So while there's lots of works that are inspired, very few of them have been considered Scripture, and that's because who the human author is holds a lot of weight. Maybe Paul's head wasn't as cloudy as mine, and his filters were all cleaned out. So when he heard from God, he got the message a lot more clearly than I do. More likely, because the message came to him for the church, and he had a lot of authority in his time, the church receives it as from God and doesn't worry about possible filtering problems.
But if the message did not come to him but to his friend, why would that be considered scripture when what I (or some other first-century person who didn't add an apostle's name to his work) wrote is not being considered scripture? So Licona's secretary hypothesis discredits the very purpose these books are being used for in fundamentalist churches today. I maintain that the book was included in the canon because the editors of the canon concluded that this book was written by an apostle who clearly heard from God. I don't think they would have included it if they knew it was ghost-written or told from God to someone else and an apostle put his name on it. The filtering system wasn't the apostle's, it was his friend's.
So while the ghost-writing scenario may not be as unethical as the outright forgery Ehrman suspects, it's still not completely honest. More importantly, by the definition of the editors of the canon and fundamentalists today, the work can't be considered Scripture. Some no-name person heard from God instead of the authoritative apostle. Only what the apostle himself heard from God is weighty enough to be considered scripture.
What it boils down to for me is that whether a disputed book is ghost-written as Licona implies or outright forged as Ehrman concludes, it still lies about the author and should not be part of the canon of the New Testament.