Monday, July 28, 2008 |
|
ANOTHER major leak? |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
10:54 PM |
Well...
To serious "The OFFICE" fans anyway...
 Pam's talking...
Evidently the new season opener is going to be "awesome," half the cast is up for honors, and Jenna Fischer is a kleptomaniac...
|
|
|
Wednesday, July 02, 2008 |
|
Evangelicals REAL problems with Obama - Part 2 |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
10:48 PM |
 Obama and Media misrepresented me... A day ago I began the relaying of on going discussions I am presently having with "moderate evangelicals" on the issue of fuzzy thinking in this election cycle, and most pronouncedly - their support for Barack Obama. More of my discussion with Steve Savage follows... Also interesting is this insider account that is now emerging about that supposed meeting Obama had evangelical leaders a couple of weeks ago. Original accounts that hit the media headlines were all favorable and had Obama and Franklin Graham embracing. I could decipher by who was quote in the original account that it had in fact been an Obama supporter that put the story into the media rotation. None of the significant names from the evangelical side of the equation (something Obama does not fall in to) would comment on the meeting or the proceedings. Undoubtedly, I thought to myself at the time, they refused comment in order to not spread - likely very blunt and direct thoughts to the future front runner into the gossip mill of the mainstream press. Reports now emerging, several weeks later, indicate my hunch had been spot on. According to these reports Franklin Graham - peppered Obama about his "salvation." Even from the way the Obama supporters among the clergy termed the interaction - it was OBVIOUS that Barack Obama was not then, and likely is not now a born-again, Biblical Christian. Of course this surprises NO ONE who is a born-again, biblically based Christian - but for lackeys who draw no distinction between someone who says, "glo-reee" and one who admits before God, "I am a sinner, incapable of righteousness on my own. I accept the price paid on my behalf by your sinless Son Jesus Christ. I submit my will and choices to the truth of His word and will. I submit to His authority, Lordship, and redemption. I have and do trust Him to be in me, and for me - what I can not ever be for myself," there IS a big difference, and that's likely what got under Obama's skin as he was peppered in the meeting. Obama can play church some of the time but he can not play Christian ANY of the time in front of everyone and expect those of us who truly are ones - to not recognize him for what he is... Moving on... More of my interaction with an "evangelical" who claims to be strongly supportive of Obama. KMC: "Yes Steve you DO support the killing of unborn children just as Obama has supported the killing of born(alive) children."Steve Savage: You are right in a certain sense. Obama stands for abortion rights and that comes as part of the package. It is unfortunate. Consider that if you supported president Bush you also effectively supported the killing of children in Iraq and the starvation of people in Africa in the future because of our inaction on global climate change. This is why we, the Church, cannot try to accomplish our aims through political means. The people involved in politics are complex and the process is complex. We do the Church damage when we are too closely aligned with a party or a political ideology and need to retain our independent, prophetic voice. I would argue that the Church made a huge error in adopting the language of "rights" in the debate about abortion. It is a moral issue not a rights issue. A woman in our church and her baby just narrowly survived a delivery complication that has around an 80% mortality rate. Her baby didn't live because of a "right" - their lives were an obvious gift of God and that is really what it is in every case. A woman who is pregnant in circumstances where that is not a joyful thing does not really have a "right" to abort. She has a huge moral dilemma and an "obligation" to make a choice. This is not about "rights" and ultimately it is not really about law. The "truth-speaking" function of the Church has been side-tracked by attaching our message to those non-Kingdom concepts and mechanisms. Jesus very specifically rejected politics as a means of advancing His Kingdom though he had plenty of radical things to say about politics. Governments have a role in God's General Grace and their authority must be respected, but when Peter and Paul and Jesus said that they were talking about the Roman Empire which certainly did not govern by Biblical values. Government is what it is. We make the best choices we can as voters to try to keep the society functioning and peaceful so that the Kingdom can do its unique work through the power of the Holy Spirit - not the power of law or policy.
KMC: Then by your own standard you should reject politics and sit out the election...Anthropolgical climate change is a myth... Scientists in the 100,000's are agreeing to that now... So hanging "starving childen" on any administration based on it is also false. And in fact arguments can actually be made that the alternative fuel set-asides of food crops for fuel purposes have contributed more greatly to the starving of children in Africa - than the climate difficulties themselves...You may well believe the church should not be involved in politics - but you sir violate your own principle.I do believe that we are responsible for the direction of our nation. Our greatest threat is radical Islam, followed closely by attempts like yours to remove God's principles from the greater arena of life. But in order to embrace your position and be consistent you would need to also reject evangelism.All that aside - to knowingly elect someone who has vowed thrice on the campaign trail to undue the institution of Biblical marriage - puts you outside - the both known and expressed scriptural purpose of the matter. In other words you seek to undo marriage as well. That my friend is rebellion...
|
|
|
Monday, June 30, 2008 |
|
Evangelicals' REAL problems with Obama... Part 1 |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
11:16 PM |
 Gospel of Condoms Two interesting things happened this weekend... I began separate discussions with two self-professed "Evangelicals" both of whom, I believe will likely support Barack Obama in the fall. Over the next day or so - I'd like to replay for your benefit and discussion the two sides of the debate. I'd also greatly appreciate your further thoughts - as this is a genuine attempt to hash out the evangelical's role in the election in November. Let me state up front - that I am not a supporter of either primary candidate. I have written intense criticism of both men. And if you do not believe me - go check my column archives for the months of November 2006 - January of 2007. Nonetheless Christians are REQUIRED to participate in the election of 2008 - if we choose not to we are exercising disobedience to a known command - to "render to Caesar that which belongs to him." (In this nation - WE - are Caesar therefore our duty is to rule justly and at minimum that means voting righteously! The column that began the first discussion with an evangelical named Steve was my syndicated piece from Sunday that discussed Barack's "solution" to the AIDS crisis. Not behavior, not different choices, not discernment - CONDOMS! In response this is how Steven began the conversation: You seem to be quite dismissive of Evangelicals who support Obama in this election. As one of them, I think there are more important issues than "condoms" and I'm not sure you are right about this micro-issue. Sincerely, Steve Savage
To which my responses began: How can you claim Biblical Christianity and support the killing of innocent children, the redefining of Biblical marriage, the sanctity and advocacy of homosexuality, the barring of teaching children Biblical truth as it relates to their development, removing the God given rights of parents and replacing them with greater state control, the fallacy of hate crimes legislation designed to silence pastors on Biblical teaching?
All of which are positions that run antithetically to Bible based evangelical Christianity... I await your explanation!
Steve's reply: First of all, the President has little if anything to do with those moral and religious issues. More importantly, the mission of the Church is far better accomplished through Kingdom means than through the "arm of man." As for potential persecution - I don't really see that happening and if it did it would only be what Jesus told us to expect. Presidents DO have have a role in deciding whether or not to start wars, whether or not to abandon civil liberties and violate treaties, whether or not to ignore important warnings from the scientific community, and how to resolve international issues in places like Pakistan, Afganhistan, Iraq, Iran etc. They do have an influence on whether we move to a rational energy policy. They do have a role in whether or not we can resolve important issues like Social Security, Health Care and Immigration. A responsible Evangelical voter must also consider all of these issues. Christians who thought they were voting based on Biblical values in the last two elections were instrumental in giving us a president who made some very poor choices on the issues he could effect. I don't support the killing of innocent children - in the US or in Iraq or anywhere. However; electing a President who might-make-a-nomination-that-might-someday-influence-a-court-decision-that-might-or-might-not-change-the-opinions-and-actions-of-still-unconvinced-pro-abortion-Americans hardly seems to be the best way to do something about killing innocent children. Sincerely, Steve Savage
My response, from my phone, driving about 65mph headed down 95 to DC: Yes you do support the killing of Children as Obama supported the killing of born children...
End of first exchanges... Obviously there is much more that could be said to the plethora of Steve's anti-biblical views. Which are astounding really... given that he is touting himself as an evangelical it is fair to measure him by what he claims to be. I know Obama does not wish to be, his supporters likely don't either... But for now... to claims of the back and forth... What say you?
|
|
|
Thursday, November 08, 2007 |
|
THE OFFICE: Production stopped, Pam Beasley speaks... |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
12:41 PM |
|

Yes you know that I am a huge "The Office" freakazoid. The Lovely Bride and I were kicking the subject around last night.
"How would the writer's strike in Hollywood affect the funniest show to hit American airwaves in a very long time?"
Pam Beasley (played by Jenna Fischer) speaks on the issue today. Long story short - only two episodes left, she's cleaned out her office, and she supports the writers. (Which given the little bit of public info we have about the issue seems more than reasonable to me too...)
And don't call her Pammy:
By now you may have heard that The Office has shut down production. This is true. They cleaned out my trailer and just delivered me 3 boxes of my stuff. It is pretty surreal. We cannot produce new episodes of The Office until the Writer's Guild strike is over.
You might be confused about the issues of the strike and I'm hoping that this blog can make it a bit clearer. (I should probably tell you that I support my head writer/producer Greg Daniels and the writing staff of The Office in their decision to strike.)
The big issue in this negotiation involves the internet. If you go to NBC.com right now, you can watch an episode The Office for free. The network runs advertisements while you're watching it, which gives them an extra source of revenue. The actors, writers, producers and director, the people who created the content you are watching, are not compensated in any way for this.
The Writer's Guild has taken the position that the writers should receive residuals if the show re-airs on the internet just like they receive residuals if it re-airs on television since in both cases the studios are making money. The issue is a huge deal, because the internet is clearly where the future of entertainment lies.
Right now, a number of successful shows (like Lost for one) have stopped showing repeat episodes on TV at all, and have replaced them with ad-supported streaming video on their websites. If you're a Lost writer, or actor, or director, or a teamster that's no residuals at all for that show, and that's a big pay cut. We all count on the extra income that residuals provide as it can help us through a slump in our career when we aren't working as regularly. It is our safety net. In 10 years I may need those residual checks to cover my electric bill. You never know. Hollywood is a fickle town. If in 10 years, everything is rerun on the internet, the current union contracts say the studios don't have to pay us a dime. And, I'll be sitting in the dark.
And now this little breaking news update:

Bubba wants to settle the issue, his terms for his involvement have not been publicly revealed, but if I were Teri Hatcher, I'd just let my calls go to voicemail for the coming few weeks.
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 |
|
I'm NOT Ashamed... |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
7:53 AM |
|
Just for fun - I thought I'd pull out some of my old music days footage. In 2000 my band and I did a little time in Eastern Europe. In this video our lead guitar player stepped up on the last stop on the tour and ripped a Delirious tune off the wall:
Ladies and Gentlemen with no rehearsal of any sort, and improving the song start to finish: ZERO BC w/ Doug Bardolph on lead...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Blog Postings:
|
|
Last updated 41 Minutes 55 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 47 Minutes 35 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 48 Minutes 48 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 49 Minutes 32 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 51 Minutes 6 Seconds Ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archives Archives
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
Comments Comments
•Hugh, you won't have to wait that long
Re:
A Vote For Obama Is A Vote For Great Depression 2.0
By
southsider
•Maybe
Re:
Three Points Among Likely Voters
By
Pasadena Phil
•Cons seem to care about fidelity
Re:
Kathleen Parker Still Thinks Palin Should Go; Says Ifill Took it Easy on Palin, Says Women Offended With Palin's "Flirting for Votes" ...
By
PC
•Back to Mr. Lewis's post on Ms. Parker
Re:
Kathleen Parker Still Thinks Palin Should Go; Says Ifill Took it Easy on Palin, Says Women Offended With Palin's "Flirting for Votes" ...
By
vonryansexpress
•Jorge 10:50 PM
Re:
Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
By
Bob Munck
•Cimar down
Re:
Kathleen Parker Still Thinks Palin Should Go; Says Ifill Took it Easy on Palin, Says Women Offended With Palin's "Flirting for Votes" ...
By
wise woman
•Back to Gaffney's post on Parker, Palin.
Re:
Kathleen Parker Still Thinks Palin Should Go; Says Ifill Took it Easy on Palin, Says Women Offended With Palin's "Flirting for Votes" ...
By
vonryansexpress
•Cimar down
Re:
Kathleen Parker Still Thinks Palin Should Go; Says Ifill Took it Easy on Palin, Says Women Offended With Palin's "Flirting for Votes" ...
By
wise woman
•Bias
Re:
"That Kind of Shuts You Up, Doesn't It?"
By
Bob Munck
•Yeah. You guys are Sooo Niche
Re:
Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
By
Michael
•Oh Bob...
Re:
Kathleen Parker Still Thinks Palin Should Go; Says Ifill Took it Easy on Palin, Says Women Offended With Palin's "Flirting for Votes" ...
By
Christina
•rip's flagon
Re:
A Vote For Obama Is A Vote For Great Depression 2.0
By
Pasadena Phil
•Bail Out bill Irony
Re:
Bailout Bill's Top 10 List
By
Victor
•John
Re:
Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
By
Joseph
•yes hugh .. every news is an eye opener
Re:
Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
By
rockisback1@yahoo.com
•Hillary Found Lots But Couldn't Use It
Re:
Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
By
Jorge
•Follow the money
Re:
Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
By
Mike
•Hotrod, You Forgot A Favorite:
Re:
Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
By
Jorge
•Least We Forget...
Re:
Kurtz on the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi Triangle
By
Bob Munck
•Should get uptight over violence not s--
Re:
Kathleen Parker Still Thinks Palin Should Go; Says Ifill Took it Easy on Palin, Says Women Offended With Palin's "Flirting for Votes" ...
By
vicky
|
|
|
|
The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall
|
|
|
| | | |