The Enlightened Fool?

Religion - essential qualities

2009-08-19T10:27:00.003-04:00

There are two essential ingredients that any religion must have for me to take it all seriously or to consider it a "true faith"

1) Must reject the concept of the Trinity

2) Can not consider the Church the source of Truth and/or Salvation - Truth must come from God directly, from some source other then man or his creations (the Church being such a man-made creation), and personal prayer and reflection.

A third nice to have - not too much reliance on ritual. Ritual is not the path to a relationship with God (Eternal Life). Or at least not the only only one, and certainly not for me. But I recognize that for some people, ritual is valuable. For instance, I do have an appreciation for the power of Communion. Even though I don't really agree with the doctrine, I do feel the connectedness with God that it provides.

One other thing that is seen in some Christian religions (Catholics and Lutherans for instance) that bothers me is the believe that you can not enter heaven unless you have been baptized. Which is why they practice infant baptism. That belief is ludicrous and undermines the power of baptism. Baptism is a declaration to the world - I have accepted God into my heart. It has to be based on an intentional choice. Certainly, a baby is incapable of making that choice. Frankly, I am skeptical of even teen baptisms - a teenager doesn't know themselves well enough to make a decision like that. I always just roll my eyes when someone says they were saved at the age of six or something ridiculous like that. To me, that clearly indicates that they became a member of that religion because of social expectations, not a personal revelation.

Health Care

2009-07-01T11:10:00.009-04:00

I like this article. Yet another reason to move to Canada - their health system actually makes sense.

Debunking Canadian health care myths

I'm lucky, I actually have good health care. Our doctor has never had to adjust what she wanted to do because insurance wouldn't cover it. Not true for many people. And that's not right. I do have issues with my son's need for mental health - insurance companies are more reluctant to pay for that. And the doctor is so conditioned by insurance and it's limitations that even though we are willing to pay for it out of pocket if it will help our son be happy, healthy and safe, the doctor didn't send us to do the testing.

It has always struck me as fundamentally wrong that money gets brought up AT ALL when you are trying to deal with health issues. As if the health issues weren't bad enough. It's just not right. One of the things that struck me was a clip of Nixon talking to an aide about HMO's (saw it in the movie Sicko). He liked the idea that people could make money off of healthcare and that is why he supported it. Now we are stuck with it - a system driven by money and profit instead of taking care of people.

Another statement that always struck me is a something Dick Devos said during his run for governor. He said it is the responsibility of employers to provide health insurance. That is not right. It is true with the current system, but it's an indication of how the system is flawed. Employers should not be in the business of providing healthcare. It becomes a cost to them. And what do responsible, effective companies do? Try to minimize cost. By making healthcare the responsibility of employers, you are building a system that encourages minimum and poor healthcare. In addition, it directly drives up the cost of goods, which will lead to higher prices, lower profits, or both. Which leads to cutting costs in other areas, which leads to lower quality and less innovation. Which leads to bankruptcies and layoffs and going out of business. Automotive industry is the glaring example. Of course, not all of any company's woes can be blamed on healthcare, but it certainly doesn't help and can play a significant role.

The current system favors profit over health every step of the way. You go to a medical center, which is most likely run by a corporation that is trying to make a profit. The care will be paid for by a health insurance company (assuming you have insurance), which will try to control costs by paying as little as possible. The medical facility gets paid for services rendered, not the outcome, so they end up focusing on what services they can get the insurance company to pay for instead of taking care of the patient. The insurance company was picked by the employer, who will pick the most cost effective option, not necessarily the best option for the patient. Prescription drug companies are inserting themselves into the process as well, trying to sell their products.

Canada and Europe have systems that work. We have a system that even the clueless conservative will admit does not work. Ultimately, the fix will have to involve taking money out of the equation and provide incentives that are based on quality of care and positive outcomes instead of profits. In the meantime, we have to take whatever steps we can to get healthcare out of the control of insurance companies and other profit driven industries and in to the hands of Doctors and patients.

Future installment: Why I think all advertising for prescription drugs should be banned.

online presence

2009-06-17T07:57:00.004-04:00

Listened to a story on NPR this morning about the modern job search. They said using LinkedIn and having an online presence is essential. They also said it can be difficult to take seriously anyone who sends in a paper resume. My wife uses Facebook all the time, I'll have to get her to use LinkedIn as well, apparently. She's looking for a job as a teacher. Of course, I doubt school administrators are LinkedIn. After all, they still think the same way they did in the 1950's. More on that later, complaining about the miserable state of the education system is one of my favorite soap boxes.

I recently was involved in a hiring process. It was for an intern and it was part of an organized program, so I'm not sure how similar that is to a normal full time hire. But it consisted of picking from a list of candidates on an internal SharePoint site, reviewing the electronic resumes that had been attached, and arranging interviews. The resumes were traditional resumes, just in electronic form.

One of the things that bothered me a little bit about that process was there was a minimum GPA requirement for the program. That doesn't seem right. Personally, I would rather not even know a candidates GPA. Because it's a basically meaningless number. So you can jump through the hoops and fit the higher educational mold of testing. So what? What does that have to do with skills you need in the real world? Nothing. I was talking to a relative who is a manager at another company and he said he never even considers anyone with below a certain Grade point average. That's just stupid, I see no reason why that would benefit either the employer or the candidates. It's just a lazy way to narrow down the list of potential candidates. Especially considering college is just a money making scheme that does very little to prepare you for your actual career.

Just so you know: I was one of those people who considered a C a failing grade and rarely saw a B. My grade point was 3.7 something. I fit the educational mold of testing. My experience was that as long as you showed up to class, payed attention, and made sure you completed the graded assignments, you would get at least a C and in most cases an A or B. But some people don't test well or aren't willing/able to pay attention and get work done. Or perhaps have some sort of learning disorder. Should those people be punished by being excluded from job market?

Social rules

2009-06-16T16:48:00.008-04:00

I hate many social "rules". They are silly and pointless. Like if I don't say hi to someone I pass in the hall, I'm considered rude or antisocial. Maybe I am thinking about something or distracted, but most likely I just figure you have better things to do then talk to everyone you meet. I've always said the Golden Rule is BS. Whenever I follow it, I get in trouble. I don't chat with people in the lunchroom because I wouldn't want them to chat with me. But my manager says I come off wrong, so now I chat. Especially with certain people that I know are sensitive about that.

But the one that has always bugged me is the polite/courtesy dance where nobody really does what they want because they are worried about "offending" someone. The classic example is giving money for a neighborly deed like watching a kid for a few hours or doing some yard chore. The person doing the nice thing is offered money, refuses it, the person insists, it just becomes a ridiculous spectacle. My rule is: if you offer me money, I'm going to take it because you would be offended or feel embarrassed if I did something for free. If you don't really want me to take the money, then don't offer it. Another similar example is sending someone a check that you know they will most likely not cash. Again, I'll cash it because I don't want to screw up their checking account, in addition to the reasons stated above. I'll admit to being on the sending end of that one - the dance is a bit more bearable via mail. The flip side is the person who does something that they should do as a good neighbor and don't want to get paid, so would refuse if you offered. But they get offended if you don't. HUH? WTF? These people are stupid. It's all part of the silly social dance us humans sometimes fall prey to.

Another one that really goes beyond annoying and into hurtful. When someone doesn't say what they are thinking or what they want because they "don't want to hurt any one's feelings". HUH? You think I would prefer that you lie to me? Omissions are just as dishonest as outright lies. Lying to me is less hurtful then being honest? 2 reasons why this is stupid: 1) you could be wrong, it might not hurt their feelings, if you just tell them with a little tact 2) if they find out anyway, their feelings will be MORE hurt then if you had just had the courage to be honest to begin with. And don't pull this you were supposed to get the hint crap either. If you want me to do something, not do something, or say something - tell me! Don't assume that I'll figure it out. 1) I probably won't 2) even if I do, I will be uncertain if I am "taking the hint" correctly (could be misinterpreting or "taking a hint" that was not intended) 3) It's all a silly waste of time, effort and aggravation that could have been avoided if you had just told me what you want/felt to begin with. I've always been a firm believer in stab me in the front, not in the back. That and never make assumptions. Occasionally, you might be right to hesitate and you do end up hurting their feelings. But it is far better to know you can trust a person to tell you how it is then to never really trust any feedback they give you because they might be "trying not to hurt your feelings".

Don't be afraid to give honest feedback. If you have something to say that you are pretty sure your audience won't like, take 2 steps. 1) Is this really that important to you, to risk the possible harm to your relationship? Will it bother you if nothing is said and nothing changes? If not, then remind yourself that you decided you could live with it and don't let it become a point of resentment. 2)If it is important to you, then you need to find a way to tactfully say it. If tact is not your thing or you just can't find the tactful way to say it, you just have to say it anyway. Don't be afraid of the confrontation. Remember, you never know what the other person feels about it - they might be ready and willing to adapt their position to be consistent with your desires and feelings or maybe didn't even feel that strongly about their position anyway and easily change. Perhaps the immediate reaction will be intense and negative, but most likely they will eventually figure out a way to accept your position. Certainly, they can only do so if they are aware of it. Ultimately, confrontation is much preferred to simmering resentment or constant frustration.

One final thing that is not really a social rule, but a related major relationship thorn: be aware of the difference between advice and judgement. Some people have a very hard time accepting the fact that just because someone makes a choice different then that which they would have made, it does not mean it is wrong. Or even if it is - everyone has to make their own choices and their own mistakes, deciding for themselves if it was wrong. Usually, many of the "mistakes" that they continue to bring up were not really mistakes at all, but just different choices. You could point to several mistakes they have made, some of which they would acknowledge, but many of which they are completely oblivious. I don't point these out though, because not only would it be be pointless, but I try very hard to remember that any conclusion could be incorrect. In contrast, they think their opinions and perspectives are facts and that anyone who does things differently is being foolish. They can't help it, they think that their way is the only way. Not in their head perhaps (I hope!), but in their hearts. It ranges from the big things in life like what religion to follow to the little things like which bait to use when fishing. A good rule of thumb for this: say it once, if they heed the "advice" then that's fine and dandy, if not - then let it go and move on.

random thoughts on Jesus

2009-06-16T15:29:00.000-04:00

The heart of Jesus' message: It is not the letter of the law that matters, but the intent. He reminded people that what matters is what in your heart, that you have to form a relationship with God through prayer and study. He spent a lot of time fighting against the established religion. Any religion that lasts more then a few generations becomes about the Church and its leaders. God and the true message gets lost. That is why the Jewish leaders wanted him dead - he threatened their power by reminding the people that it is God that matters, not them. Unfortunately, Jesus did not take enough steps to avoid the same fate for future generations of those who followed his message. If he spent any effort denying that he himself is not God, that effort has been lost. It's been edited out. For some reason, the religious feel the need to make their most important leaders into gods. So 300 years later, the Church created the concept of the Trinity so that they could make their irrational belief kinda sorta fit within the only one God as taught in their holy book. This was the beginning of Church over God and the loss of Jesus' message. The first Council of Nicea was the turning point at which the Christian Church began to lose it's connection to God and His message.

Communication Methods

2009-06-16T13:51:00.013-04:00

After a struggle communicating with my taciturn father-in-law, I've made some observations about forms of communication. In my professional and personal experience, some forms of communication are more effective then others.

1) Document sharing/ emails. In many cases, this is the only effective means of communication. It is certainly the most flexible and is almost always available as an option. It gives you time to compose your thoughts and make sure everything is covered. In addition, you can read and respond at a time when you have the time to do so in the right frame of mind. It also allows for the opportunity to reduce emotion. I'm not talking about quick notes - I'm talking about documents that you have taken time to write and proof read at least once. Although it does occasionally need to be followed up with face to face or phone call, just to confirm understanding. Also, if it gets beyond 3 or 4 replies, then something is not working correctly. Usually it's because someone isn't taking the time to think about what they say rather then a problem with the method of communication. Anyone who thinks that E-mails are never the best way to address an issue have clearly not learned how to use the medium correctly. They just haven't figured it out yet. Or are just plain poor communicators, no matter the medium. Or possibly have some sort of technical hangup or legitimate reading disorder, in which case I'm sorry and I hope you find some way of surviving the digital age. Emails are almost always a safe and effective option. Sometimes less proficient users let a thread go on too long, can't express themselves clearly, or clutter up inbox with unneccesary information. However, in the hands of an experienced, concientious user, emailing is by far the best way to address any issue more complicated then what to eat for dinner tonight. It is difficult to imagine anyone being successful in business or in life without learning effective email techniques.

In my experience as a business professional, emails and document sharing are the backbone of all communication. Any other form of communication is supplemental and secondary to email/document sharing.

2) face to face, preferably with Whiteboard and/or computer available. This is usually the most effective, unless you are talking about something complicated and/or involving multiple steps with each step requiring research and thought. In that case, face to face will not work very well unless it has been preceded and followed up by document sharing/emails. In some cases, with certain individuals, emails work better because they can't think on their feet and/or emotional distance is required. The only reason face to face is superior to email is because it allows you to see body language, gestures and experience the "vibe" of the conversation, as well as allow a back and forth to help make sure the message is understood. Even that advantage can be cancelled out if someone is difficult to read or if the issue requires careful thought.

3) instant messaging - very effective for informal communication. It has the back and forth of a conversation, while allowing time for composing thoughts and/or breaks for when you are otherwise occupied. It's flaws include a lack of nuances like sarcasm and a tendency to type lazily or poorly.

4) video conference - marginal improvement on a phone call, but usually plagued by technical problems and usually the first 5-10 minutes of video conference is spent trying to get everything to work. Assuming it's even available as an option.

5) phone calls - only to be used for quick questions or when nothing else is available. If it can't be covered in less then 5 minutes and with less then 3 or 4 inquiries, then it shouldn't be a phone call. It does work well as follow up to email or face to face, but is pretty much worthless as primary means of communication. It does not allow you time to compose your thoughts, does not capture nuances very well, does not allow the use of visual aids, and can be difficult to even carry on a basic conversation due to technical difficulties and/or distractions in the environment. Not to mention if either party has some sort of accent or speech pattern that makes it difficult to understand. Basically, only to be used when communicating with someone that is still stuck in the 1980's or earlier. Be prepared to deal with multiple failed attempts before understanding is achieved (if it ever is). If you're stuck using the phone to communicate, your primary goal should be to either conclude quickly and/or setup some other means of communicating. Unless of course, you're not actually trying to get anything accomplished and just desire to talk for no particular reason.

6) facebook/twitter/online forums/blogs. Obviously not intended to be a serious form of communication and cluttered with tons of garbage. But occasionally can be effective, if you manage to find the right posting.

The incident with my father-in-law is the perfect example of how emails are extremely effective and phones are completely worthless. We are trying to plan a fishing trip. After a couple of phone calls where nothing was accomplished and nothing was resolved, I took the time to compose an email sharing all my concerns and ideas. It took me a couple of hours to compose it and I managed to cover everything. He responded with a simple - I'm not big on emails, call me. THAT made me furious! I was fuming about that for the entire day (still am, I supposse). So we had a few phone conversations, had the wives deal with it instead of us, and still couldn't get it resolved. So he finally read my email that I wrote and took the time to compose a response. We still don't have everything resolved, because that man has issues with planning in addition to communicating, but I finally know where he's coming from and what he is thinking (somewhat). I feel sorry for anyone he contacts in his professional capacity. But maybe it's just me he can't communicate with.

I admit - personal preference does play a role. I am in love with the written word. It is how I best process information. I struggle with verbal communication, both giving and receiving. It's just so difficult to figure out what is really being said and there is so much noise and irrelevancy that has to be filtered out on the fly. And I am completely uncomfortable with using the phone. I almost always screw up a phone conversation and will put it off as long as possible because I dread that stupid contraption. I would rather go to a store and find it closed then call ahead. I have been known to make phone calls at a time when I expect to get voicemail so that I can control my message without getting confused. That gives us both time to think and compose a response. I will do everything I can to avoid a phone call. For instance, just the other day, I was ordering something online and had a question that wasn't clear on the website. I called the order by phone number, asked my question, and then hung up and continued my order online. I have been called by my congressman several times to participate in a phone based town hall. I would love to participate in a Town hall, but no way would I do it over the phone. (Besides, he is a clueless conservative Republican, I could talk to an alien from Mars and have a better chance of being listened to and understood). Basically, the phone is one of those inventions that I wish had never been invented or that I wish would stop working now that superior methods of long distance communication have been invented.

Meaning of Christmas

2006-12-22T10:38:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking - Christmas is not a Christian holiday. Never hasbeen and certainly is not now. First of all, it is not the date ofJesus' birth. Also, it certainly is not a holiday mentioned or recommended in the Bible. It was created by the Catholic church hundreds of years later as part of anti-pagan propaganda. It is is not a religious holiday at all. And should not be considered one.

I think the best way to think of Christmas is similar to George Washington's Birthday. It's a day set aside to remember the example set by an excellent role model and founder of our way of life. In the case of Jesus, the man is one designed by God at the beginning of time to be the perfect servant - to show us all how he wants us to serve him.

That's why I think it's more appropriate to say "Happy Holidays" then"Merry Christmas". Because it's not really about one day. It's about a time of year, a time of renewal. A time when the days reach their shortest and turn to become longer. A time when the calendar rolls over to a new year. A time when one thinks about the future. A time when everyone should think about others more then themselves.

Christmas is also a time to spend with family and friends. It's a time to think about our relationships with family, friends, and God. It's a time to think about our life and whether we are the person we should be. A time to think about whether there is something more that we can do to improve the world and our place in it.

Presents are also important. They remind you of what you have. It allows you to be grateful and not take things for granted. It's the only time of year where it's appropriate to celebrate material things. To get things you wouldn't normally get - that you might not actually need - just because it's fun. A reminder that it is OK to be happy here on Earth because God wants us to be happy. It's important to remember that there are others that don't have as much. It's the time of year when you feel obligated to do something to help others that aren't as blessed as you.

So I thank God for giving me wisdom and understanding. I am grateful that I can have a relationship with Him. I have been blessed with a stronger relationship with God then that which pretty much everyone I know has (or at least it seems that way to me). I thank him for that. As always, I pray that Christians will someday learn to abandon the violation of the first commandment that is the Trinity and form a true relationship with God. Thank you for listening and may God be with you.

Al Queda

2006-06-29T12:38:00.000-04:00

Michael Hirsh wrote an excellent article for Newsweek. It explains how al Queda before 9/11 was a group of thugs that got lucky. The administration which allowed them an unexpected success then proceeded to change al Queda from a loosely organized group of extremists into a power created by US policy.

Hirsh's summary paragraph pretty much sums up the so called "war on terror":

The ultimate tragedy of the Iraq war was not only that it diverted the U.S. from
the knockout blow against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan—the deaths of bin
Laden and Zawahiri would likely have persuaded most jihadis it was wiser to
focus on the near enemy—but that Iraq also altered the outcome of Al Qaeda's
internal debate, tipping it in bin Laden's favor. "Iraq ended that debate
because it fused the near and the far enemy," as Arquilla puts it succinctly.
America ventured into the lands of jihad and willingly offered itself as a
target in place of the local regimes. And as a new cause that revived the
flagging Al Qaeda movement. It is, no doubt, bin Laden's greatest victory.

Immigration

2006-06-15T09:00:00.000-04:00

Americans don't have a problem with immigrants being here. We are not afraid of them taking our jobs or anything like that. We have a problem with them not accepting our culture, not learning our language. Even in my small community way up here in Michigan, I routinely encounter spanish speakers and their is a spanish speaking grocery store. This is a country known to be the great melting pot. The current generation of spanish speaking immigrants often refuse to melt into the pot. They keep their own culture, their own language, and their own social group. When they protest, they wave the flag of their former country. They want to be here to take advantage of opportunities here but refuse to integrate into society. That is unacceptable by any American standard. If your here, you speak English and do everything you can to be American. Oh, and we'd prefer if you follow the rules when getting here.

Capital Punishment

2006-05-04T12:04:00.000-04:00

I don't have any moral objections to capital punishment. I just think it's ineffective and silly. Someone who is contemplating murder isn't going to stop and reconsider because they are afraid of being executed. Prison is much scarier then death. Life in Prison without any possibility of getting out is the Ultimate Punishment, not Death. Capital Punishment is a couple of decades of death row as lawyers clog up the legal system followed by the relief of death. Unless the lawyers find a technicality, in which case it becomes life in prison anyway. Capital Punishment is not a deterrent or the ultimate punishment. It is a cost savings measure. It's cheaper to execute a person after 10-20 years of appeals then it is to keep them in prison for 30 or more years. And if the lawyers were kept in line, it would save even more money - less time waiting for death. It's also mostly revenge, which is healthy for nobody.

The Moussaoui case is a good example. He got the ultimate punishment. He's going to spend the rest of his life in a cell. For 23 hours a day, he'll be completely by himself. Even for the one hour of "recreation" time, he'll be alone. That's a hell of a lot worse then execution and going wherever it is we go after death. Especially when the person wants death, when the person believes it would make them a martyr and help their cause. Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that he got the worst possible punishment. Since he was really just a wannabe and not an actual terrorist, it may be a bit harsh. He gets to be the scapegoat. But the punishment is still appropriate.

Capital Punishment is a pointless practice. It serves no purpose and accomplishes nothing positive. It should be discontinued, not because it's immoral or wrong, but because the way it is carried out in this country is stupid and pointless. Caters to the need for revenge and saves a little money, that's the only benefit.

Modern War

2005-12-19T08:47:00.000-05:00

When are the politicians going to figure out there is no such thing as winning and losing in modern war? You cannot achieve victory in war anymore. In other words, there is no marker, no indication that the enemy has been defeated. All you can do is set objectives and when objectives are achieved, withdraw. To call that winning is a perversion of the word. Inversely, to fail to meet every objective by 100% before withdrawing resources is not losing.

The only way you can lose a war is by failing to set SMART objectives. In other words, by your own actions, not those of your enemy. Most of the time you won't even have a clear cut enemy.

Maybe the politicians understand this but think the voting public doesn't want to hear it? Or maybe even think they are too ignorant to understand? Not likely - most politicians are the lowest common denominator.

Bush and other war supporters need to take off their black and white goggles. They need to stop intrepreting the calls for troop withdrawals as conceding defeat. Both sides should push the issue to reflect reality. A new government is in place and it appears to be on the right track. Both pro-war and anti-war groups can now rally around mission accomplished, let's go home. Bushites should spin the call for withrawal into their camp - make it a victory call.

Iraq Conflict

2005-11-30T10:17:00.000-05:00

Those who continue to defend the war in Iraq say that we can't bring our troops home until we achieve victory. But what does that mean? Eliminate WMD's - Done by the UN before GW took office. Remove Saddam - Done. Write Constitution- Done. Ensure Elections - Done. What exactly do these people consider victory? The biggest problem with this war is that we should have never gotten involved in it in the first place. While we are wasting our resources on the Bush-Cheney war, we can't defend our nation from legitimate threats. The second biggest problem is no definition for victory. You can't achieve victory when you don't even know what it is.

Here at my workplace we have to write objectives every year. Then at the end of the year, our raises and bonuses are based on how well we achieved these objectives. If we exceed expectations, we get big money. If we fail to meet expectations, we get nothing.

Specific Spell out what is to be achieved and to what degree
Measurable Can be measured either quantitatively or qualitatively
Achievable The target is challenging, yet attainable
Results Oriented Identify a specific end product or outcome that is of value
Time Bound Set a timeframe for achieving the result

The Administration needs to create SMART objectives for the war. They don't necessarily have to publish what they are, but they do need to prove that they exist and that they will stick to them. It would certainly be best to share them, but not if it undermines the effort by revealing too much to the enemy. They at least have to share them with Congress. Preferably have some sort of reward if they stick to them and a punishment if they don't.

They don't need a timetable, they just need to have some way of defining victory. Some way of concretely proving we have accomplished what we set out to do and we can go home now. As it is now, we don't even know what the objectives are, yet alone whether we have achieved them.

Personal Maxim

2005-11-29T15:35:00.000-05:00

Here's an observation, a golden nugget:

If you think you're doing a good job as a parent, you probably aren't.

bias?

2005-11-23T11:51:00.000-05:00

People complain about Liberal bias in the media all the time. I don't see it. Personally, I think it's just people believing the manipulations of the Republican/Conservative propaganda machine. That's why the right is dominant right now- they have better spin doctors.

On the other hand, I see a HUGE bias on the Fox News Channel. That channel is so Conservatively biased that it's nauseating. Maybe you can only see "bias" when it's the opposite viewpoint of your own. I don't see any bias in media other then Fox News. But maybe that's just because I am Liberal so the other coverage only seems more accurate. Maybe bias doesn't exist in the media - it's just one of those words used to dismiss other points of view.

Good News

2005-11-22T09:03:00.000-05:00

I haven't been blogging as much lately because the world has been looking better. It's not as much fun to talk about good things. It's more fun to complain. :)

Good Items:
Bush is doing horrible in the polls on all counts. The country is finally realizing his incompetence.

Iraq pullout is starting to look like a real possibility. A respected pro-military Republican is pushing for a phased pull out starting immediately. The Iraqi's are getting ready to show us the door.
(Sidenote: The only ones who use the term cut and run or even imply that is an option are Republicans. They accuse opponents of encouraging immediate withdrawal. No one wants that. No One. Even people like Cindy Sheehan are willing to wait for a phased pullout. That's all war opponents want: some sort of reassurance that this war has an end point and that end point will be sooner rather then later.)

The Republican monopoly on power is starting to break up a little bit. There are signs they might take a significant hit in midterm elections. I wish I could say Democrats are taking advantage of the opportunity, but they'll probably screw it up like they did when they chose Kerry as their candidate. (The only person more clueless then somone who voted for Bush is a person that voted for Kerry in the primaries.) I still hope that someday Democrats will win back the heart of Religious People and minority groups by returning to traditional Democrat values and breaking the Republican spin machine.

This positive note doesn't sound very positive does it? Oh well, I guess I'm just a bitter person. Living in a two party state where majority rules will do that to you.

UPDATE: the "respected pro-military Republican" is actually Democrat. I'm referring to Murtha. And after reading his proposal, it does look like cut and run. The Democrat's inability to get their act together continues to frustrate.

Bush the Liar

2005-11-18T09:05:00.000-05:00

The current news cycle includes anti-war protests heating up and voices declaring Bush lied about the reason for going to war in Iraq getting louder. It also includes Bush continuing to deny it and accusing anyone that says anything negative about the war and his handling of it as being harmful to the troops.

My Observations:
Bush and Cheney are incapable of admitting to a mistake (any mistake, not just the war). It's possible they may recognize a mistake and just not admit it publicly. But I doubt it. They are the type of people that simply cannot admit mistakes. Their psychological makeup is such that their worldview become distorted as it needs to be in order for their mistakes to not be mistakes. So when they say they are doing the right thing, they honestly believe it to be so. When they refuse to admit a mistake, it is because their minds are physically incapable of admitting their judgment could be flawed. When they outright lie about WMD's or any other threat, they don't believe they are lying. They honestly believe their own bullshit. It's just how some people are - they are so full of themselves and their power that the outside world (reality) does not intrude into their worldview. A very dangerous type of person to be leading our country.

Bush likes to say that Clinton, the Democrats, and Congress all had access to the same intelligence he did before the war. That may or may not be true. Even if it is, a legislator does not have time to pore through thousands of documents. Nor should they have to. They depend on other people to read the details and give accurate summaries. And they assumed that the President would reveal accurate interpretations. A little biased in his favor perhaps, but not outright wrong. That was a bad assumption, a mistake they will not make again. (Unlike Bush, Congress appears capable of learning from it's mistakes - sometimes.)

When Clinton looked at the data, he concluded that sanctions and other measures were working and that Hussein was not an immediate threat. Even without access to intelligence data, I could tell that. Why couldn't Bush? Because he didn't care. He wanted war with Iraq and his worldview twisted in whatever manner it needed to make it justifiable. An example of twisting the evidence to reach the results you desire.

Bush says congress gave him authority, including Democrats. They gave him some authority, but he greatly exceeded their intentions. Not to mention that they were still under the mistaken impression that they could trust what they were being told about Iraq. Nonetheless, it was still pretty foolish to give him any sort of authority. They had to know he would go to war despite their wishes and that he would use their vote against them. Bush isn't the only one that makes a mistake. Now they have realized their mistake and they are being criticized for trying to correct it? Makes sense - Bush doesn't believe in correcting mistakes.

Harming the troops: I don't think protesting the war disrespects the troops. If anything, it shows greater respect then Bush does. It shows that we object to them being put in harm's way for questionable reasons and are trying to get them to be used for something useful. I don't think the average soldier knows or cares about politics anyhow. They just do their job and watch out for one another. Most of them don't care about anything other then keeping their buddies alive and well. They just go where their told and do what they were trained to do.

My prediction (worth less then two cents):
Troops will be mostly withdrawn within a year. Either the political pressure leading up to midterm elections will dictate it or the Iraqi's will kick us out. Or we'll declare war on Syria or Iran and be required to remove troops from Iraq. We most likely won't do anything about North Korea - Bush is incapable of addressing actual threats.

Small Government?

2005-11-11T10:11:00.000-05:00

I've been watching West Wing episodes on DVD. Cool quote: You Republicans like small government, so small it fits into my bedroom.

They were talking about gay marriage at the time, but it applies to almost everything on the Republican agenda. Definition of ideal government according to Republicans: A government which favors the rich and big business at the expense of social programs like feeding the poor, helping the disadvantaged and taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Spend as much as you want and cut taxes as much as you want, as long as it supports your personal agenda and ability to get reelected. Government should minimize interference with economy. On the other hand, government does have the right to legislate morals and values to encourage everyone to act as a Good Republican (Protestant White Businessman) should.

Republicans don't believe in Big Government (so they say) but they do believe in Big Brother. Given the choice, I'll take Big Government in a heartbeat.

Sidebar: I like the fact that the President on the West Wing is a Democrat that is also a strong Christian. The two are NOT incompatible, despite what the Republican spin doctors would like you to believe. As I've said before and I will say again - no true believer in God can be a Conservative Republican.

List of Presidents

2005-10-29T18:00:00.000-04:00

Just for fun and education, I researched all of the presidents and ranked them.

Lutz List of Best and Worst Presidents

The top 20 are what I consider good presidents. 21-30 were ok presidents - more negatives then positives, but qualified for the job. 31-40 are people I think never should have been president, were not qualified for the job and in some cases actually caused the country harm.

No surprise - GW made the top of the worst president list by a wide margin. Also no surprise - Abraham Lincoln made the top of the best president list. JFK surprised me. Despite his short presidency, he did a lot of things. He is basically the model that a modern president should emulate.

I find it interesting that Democrats filtered to the top of the list and Republicans floated to the bottom. I didn't do this on purpose. It probably happened because I agree with Democrats most of the time and find everything Republicans stand for offensive. The only Republicans in the the top twenty were extremely moderate or even liberal. (Roosevelt was unarguably a Liberal Republican,although they used the label Progressive at the time. Eisenhower basically flipped a coin when choosing a party. I don't consider Lincoln a Republican, but at the very least he was Liberal leaning.)

Let me know if You find some surprises or interesting rankings.

President Bush

2005-10-27T12:46:00.000-04:00

I often ask myself: How could this country have elected an incompetent fool like GW Bush? Is this country really full of that many clueless people?

I think the answer is fairly simple: In 2000, we did Not elect him. The Supreme Court took advantage of the incredibly stupid electoral college system to choose him for us. In 2004, Bush didn't win, Kerry lost. He was an extremely poor candidate and most likely would have been a poor president. Probably better then Bush, but I wouldn't bet on it. I get an email from him once in while (I signed up for his mailing list during the campaign) and three out of four of these emails reveals him to be an idiot.

Still, a lot of people voted for the incompetent boob. At least they are finally starting to realize the error of their ways, according to polls.

Iraq Election

2005-10-11T08:20:00.000-04:00

Iraq is holding an election on ratifying the Constitution this Saturday. Here's my armchair analysis of the ideal scenario:

Large voter turnout, especially in Sunni areas, results in not getting the Constitution ratified. Ideally, it gets turned down by significant portion of all voters, but even if it's only 2/3 of Sunni provinces that defeat it, that would be beneficial as well. Then the Sunni's participate in the elections for a new parliament charged with writing a new draft. With the sting of the defeat of the first draft in their minds, the new parliament provides a better constitution that can be ratified by all of Iraq and ultimately lead to stability.

This would be ideal because the current draft is significantly flawed. This scenario also makes it quite clear that Sunni's will have a voice in the government. The more actively the Sunni's are engaged in government and legitimate politics, the weaker the insurgency becomes. Of course, the extremists would become even more desperate, temporarlily leading to greater violence. But they would truly be last ditch efforts, unlikely to succeed. This scenario also does nothing to bring the date when our troops can come home closer. But ultimately a stronger Iraq is the best way to make sure our troops don't need to return.

Republican Falsehoods

2005-10-03T08:41:00.000-04:00

I often hear the Republican Party is the party of limited or small government. HUH? What the hell does that mean? I certainly see no evidence of that. Does it refer to Republican tendency to slash taxes and therefore reduce government's ability to take care of those on the edges of society? Or is just a relative thing- they believe in big government - just not as big as Democrats would like?

Another annoying phrase - this judge won't legislate from the bench. That is complete bullshit. Whenever a politician says that, what they really mean is that this judge won't overturn or overrule the laws I like and support.

Make no mistake - the Republican Party is the party of Moral Superiority. It is a group of people who believes they have all the answers, that they know right and wrong, and that they have the right and duty to force everyone to follow their example. They will do whatever it takes to enforce their moral superiority.

New Bush?

2005-09-16T13:33:00.000-04:00

GW has been on a roll lately. It took him longer then it should have to respond to Katrina, but once he did, he actually started saying the right things. He actually admitted to the possibility that he may have made mistakes! He fired, or a least allowed to depart, an incompetent official. He backed down from his more foolish positions, like being unwilling to do something about poverty. He's been saying all the right things. He appears to have found a Voice to listen to other then the one he was listening to before.

We'll have to wait and see if he actually follows through and starts doing the right thing. But at least he's starting to Say the right things. He's starting to act like the compassionate Christian he claims to be. I don't think he'll be able to do much, he's just too incompetent in pretty much everything he does. But at least there's some hope.

Joke

2005-09-16T12:53:00.000-04:00

Joke: What is the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
Answer: Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.

(I saw this in a comment on a blog somewhere)

Gay Marriage

2005-09-16T12:50:00.000-04:00

The Christian crusade against homosexuality and gay marriage doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. These are issues that should Not be decided by other people. If God decides that such behavior is unacceptable, he'll take care of it. Such things are between the person engaged in the behavior and God, no one else. When we try to prevent others from engaging in behavior that we have decided is sinful, we are out of touch with God's Will.

Personally, I don't understand what the big deal is. Marriage is just a word, the commitment and the relationship is what matters. Why should I care if someone else wants to use that word to describe their relationship with someone else? And do I think it's right to deny someone's committed partner things like health benefits just because I don't approve of the nature of their relationship? No I do Not.

I think the best solution is to make Marriage a purely religious term. Government and Law should not be allowed to recognize it at all. If you have two or more people that wish to share benefits or file taxes together or whatever, they sign a Permanent Committment Agreement. That is the only thing the government recognizes. This agreement could be made between two people of the same gender or different genders living together or even two people living together in a non sexual way. Basically anytime two or more people want to be legally recognized as a single legal entity, they would fill out a contract that says they agree to be Permanently Committed as Partners in Life (or something along those lines). If they choose to get married in a church as well, good for them.

American Values

2005-09-16T12:07:00.000-04:00

Newsweek has an excellent article- Overturning the Gospel- that talks about how American Christian values have become completely out of touch with Biblical values, something I've noticed myself. For example, the average Christian gets all worked up about abortion, but looks the other way when the poor are unable to feed themselves or their newborn children. Protect the unborn- ignore the born. That's just one example of how the average Christian does very little to live as Jesus taught. Christian leaders like James Dobson are the ultimate example of what Not to do. The current Christian political movement is leading a lot of people away from God.

Some of my favorite quotes from the article:

We as a nation -a proudly, increasingly loudly Christian nation - have somehow convinced ourselves that the selfish choice is usually the moral one, too.

Which is how "Christian" morality got to be all about other people's sex lives - and incredibly easy lifting compared to what Jesus actually asks of us.

Side Note:
My position on abortion in a nutshell: Both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice miss the point. The only relevant question is this: At what point does it become a human life? Before that point, it's just a woman deciding what to do with the developing life within her. She is not choosing what to do with her own body, she is deciding the fate of the life inside her. After that point, whatever it may be, (I think 20 weeks) it should legally be considered a human life and any decisions surrounding it should be treated accordingly.

Something else that makes no sense - Pro-Life people that oppose sex education in schools or distribution of condoms. That seems extremely counter productive. What better way to protect life then from preventing unplanned pregnancies to begin with? Yes, abstinence is the best practice, but handing out condoms doesn't discredit that message, it just addresses the reality that abstinence is not always followed and when it isn't a condom is next best thing. Yet another example of how Christian values in this country are completely screwed up.

Education and Values

2005-09-08T13:49:00.000-04:00

A teacher friend of mine responded to my post on education and I wanted to share my response.

First of all, never forget that I'm just Some Guy in Michigan. This blog is not intended to provide detailed plans on how the world should be, mostly because I don't know the details. I have lots of ideas and opinions, but don't always know how to make them work in the real world. I don't claim to Know what is required to create an appropriate educational environment. I have a vision of what I think education should be and how I think values should be taught to the next generation, but I don't know how to actually create a system that meets that vision. For instance, I would like every student to have access to the resources my son has as a special ed student, but don't know how to make that happen. That's not the purpose of this site or my writings. If I ever become a administrator in government or education, then I would have the resources and the responsibility to figure out how to make my vision reality. I freely concede that a detailed study and analysis could reveal that the system we have is the best we can do, as close as we can get to the ideal vision.

This is part of what my teacher friend had to say:

Then there is the MS [Middle School] model you describe - at what point do
parents have to be responsible for teaching their children? It is the
responsibility of the K-12 school to teach children basic academic material that
will allow students to become productive citizens. It is the responsibility of
the parents to pass their values on to their children it is not my
responsibility as an educator to pass on my values. Not everyone wants their
child to learn to meditate Some view meditation as a form of religious practice.
How would you feel if I was your child's teacher and I was teaching him my
values which included the glorification of Wicca? Be careful what you ask for -
the results may not be what you anticipated.

My biggest question to you is what part do you play in the raising of your
child? You are responsible for teaching him anger management I am responsible
for helping him learn to be organized, how to read, do math and be a citizen. I
really don't want to be the parent to your child - I already have two children
of my own.

The person stated that the responsibility of the K-12 school to teach children basic academic material that will allow students to become productive citizens. Although basic academics is an important foundation, it does not make them productive citizens. Basic academics is not enough. And parents have very limited ability to fill the gap. For instance, how can a parent that struggles with anger management in their own life possibly teach it to their children?

The MS model would have to constructed very carefully. I think it should teach Wicca and meditation and every other form of religious practice. The system just has to be very careful not to favor one value system over another. I wish I would have been taught things related to values and religion in school. I attended a Lutheran school through sixth grade, so I was at least exposed to one set of values, something public schools avoid. Despite the fact that I now wholeheartedly reject the Lutheran value system, I am grateful that I was taught values in school. It is not something I could have learned at home, despite having pretty good parents. I think the fact that I was taught values in school is a large part of my success in the education system (Although I think that there was only 3 people in my grade and the classrooms were four grades together with less then 30 people in one room was the biggest factor). I hope and pray that my children are taught and exposed to many different value systems. I can't teach them because no one ever taught me. Every person should be able to choose their own path, including one different from their parents. I guess I feel that American society proves that parents can't handle the responsibility, they need help. And sometimes that means teaching their children things they aren't comfortable with and unwisely try to shield their children from. The whole point of my model is giving the students the resources necessary to become a productive member of society by choosing their own path and finding out who they are. Most parents don't have the resources or the ability or the courage to do that. I know I don't have the resources and want help. Many wars today are fought over religion and social differences. If we can find a way to promote tolerance in our schools by exposing people to other perspectives, that just might be a path to world peace.

The person I was talking with stated "that the tools necessary for people to be successful come from families - it's all well and good to know about other faiths but it is really the faith of our families that keep our bad behaviors in check." I've never understood such statements. In my experience, family is nothing more than a group of people that you can't get rid of, a group of people that you are forced to get along with because you're going to have to deal with them over and over again. I've always felt that families have very limited relevance to individual behavior and values. I didn't find my values until I got AWAY from my family. I don't think it's possible to get values from your parents, other than rote repetition of their values with no understanding or true acceptance of them. Those sort of values should be avoided if at all possible. College and independent research is how I found my values. So that's why I say the education system should be responsible for values, not families. Family is not up to the task. They do not possess the tools.

I'm a big believer in the Maslow hierarchy of Needs. It is a theory that models what motivates people that I have always found to be pretty accurate. It has five layers of needs. Each layer supports the one above it. The theory goes that you can't meet the next layer until the layer below it is being met. I think this model can show how family does not possess the tools to meet the needs that motivate a person and form his or her values. Family can and often does supply the most basic, low level needs. For instance, Family is usually good at providing Physiological Needs like Food, Water, Shelter (First Layer). In most cases, it can provide Safety and Security (Second Layer). As you continue to progress up the hierarchy, Family become less and less able to meet the needs. The Third Layer is Love/Belonging. You would think this is where Family would excel. And maybe it does. But in my experience, many families do a poor job of meeting this need. Let's say 50/50 chance of this need being met by Family. Often, the Family provides love, but the person doesn't feel it or recognize it, so the need is not met. I should admit, however, that this need is the one most difficult for me to understand. When I think about Maslow, I can remember the bottom two layers and the top two layers, but I usually forget this one- probably because I don't feel it's very important. I spend a good portion of my life trying to avoid Love and Belonging. I believe it is just the way I'm wired. Or maybe I'm just so confident of that need being met by my family that I proceed without even thinking about that need - that's certainly a possibility. I have to admit, I'm making a pretty good case for family up to this point. But the first three layers are just the basic needs. If those needs are being met, you can usually be a pretty well adjusted, socially acceptable person. But not a happy one. And not a productive, active, outstanding member of society. The final two layers can Not be provided by Family. In fact, I think the Fourth Layer, Self-Esteem, is hurt by family probably 80% of the time. My parents are probably in the 20% that don't. Mostly because they are smart enough to know when to get out of the way and not interfere. Most parents are not that smart. In fact, my parents are the only parents I know that are pretty good at finding the right balance between support and independence. My wife's family is Really bad at that, and her extremely low Self-Esteem reflects that. Of course, Self-Esteem has to come from within. It is SELF esteem after all. Self-Actualization is an extremely difficult need to meet. It means knowing who you really are. It is impossible for family to meet this need. They can, however interfere and prevent this need from being met. For instance let's say a person realizes that they Need to be an Artist. Family is often the group most likely to oppose something like that. But, on the other hand, sometimes family is the only one to support something like that. I guess I have to conclude that Family Can be the most important part of who a person is. For the first time, I am realizing that maybe family is more than just a group of people you're stuck with. Or maybe that IS all they are - a group of people that is forced to deal with you. And because of that force, they get to know you and you get to know them. And if you know and understand a person, you are more likely to meet each other's needs.

However, I still think Education is more important then Family. Getting a Family that can support you and meet your needs is luck of the draw. And many, maybe even most, people don't get so lucky. Especially in today's Global, High Demand, High Speed, Highly in Touch World. The needs are just too difficult to meet and the consequences of failure too important to depend on Family to create productive members of society. Anyone who says it's the job of Family to provide values is just not willing to face the responsibility and the reality of the fact that it can't. At least not by itself. Our world is too interconnected and fragile to allow family to be the only source of values. That's just too risky. Even the best parents in the world don't have the resources, the ability, or the time to teach the values our children need to be productive members of society. If we avoid teaching values in our education system, we are avoiding one of our most important functions as a society - preparing the next generation for success that surpasses our own.

Side Note: The final layer that Maslow considered placing at the top and that I think belongs there is Self-Transcendence. Self-transcendence refers to connecting to something beyond self. It is usually avoided by psychologists because it mostly lies in the religious realm. Something beyond self is usually referred to as God (or an equivalent word). However, I'm not afraid to address religion and I feel that Transcendence is indeed the ultimate need. There IS something beyond self. This need is Very difficult to meet or even know when it is being met. Family can not meet this need. Neither can Church. I define Church as any formal organized religion with people making a career out of sustaining and extending that religion. The Church exists to control people by appearing to provide this need. This lie is what makes the Church so powerful. And so dangerous.

Bush's Foreign Policy

2005-09-07T11:57:00.000-04:00

This Post explains the Bush Foreign Policy perfectly and with humor.

Hurricane Relief

2005-09-07T11:43:00.000-04:00

I was leaning towards saying that the criticism of the government response to the Katrina disaster seems a bit unwarranted. Yes, what happened in New Orleans was horrible. But I'm not convinced that government could have done much better or that it's response to this disaster was any worse then other responses. But then I read this post. It talks about how disaster relief is remarkably better in swing states in even numbered years. I've noticed that as well. So if they can do it to make themselves look good in an election year, there is no excuse for dropping the ball for this odd numbered year disaster.

Wolves and Sheep

2005-09-06T18:06:00.000-04:00

Bill Whittle writes a response to Katrina that talks about society and it's tribes.

I like the analogy of sheep and sheepdogs protecting them from the wolves that Whittle steals from a book. He says he supports the war in Iraq. That makes no sense. To use the same analogy, the war in Iraq is like sending your best sheepdogs after the weak and injured wolf, leaving the sheep vulnerable to attack from the strong wolves. I don't think anyone can doubt that Iraq was a well contained wolf that was incapable of harming any of the sheep. If you actually believed Bush's bogus intelligence data, then supporting the war at the beginning was logical. But by the time the election came around, we all knew that Iraq was a case of the sheepdog chasing its own tail after taking care of the weak and harmless wolf. The war in Afghanistan was an example of the sheepdog doing its job and doing it well. War in North Korea or Iran would probably be a good use of the sheepdogs. But Iraq is a complete waste of perfectly good sheepdogs. And Katrina just might be an indicator that shows the pain of wasting our sheepdogs.

I do agree that disaster recover is mostly a local affair. New York City stood up to a tragedy in the best possible way. New Orleans rolled over and played dead. Blaming the federal government in the case of Katrina or crediting it in the case of NYC are both equally inappropriate. The Federal Government is indeed best used in supplementing the local and state resources in disaster recovery.

In this essay, he also talks about tribes. He says people choose what tribes they are in. Whether they react by fingerpointing and whining or by standing up to the plate and doing the best they can with what they have is determined by the tribe to which they belong. It doesn't matter what color their skin is, where they were born,what gender they belong to or where they stand politically. There are just certain types of people. And you choose what type of person you want to be. Experience, however, tells me that people often let the color of their skin or other such inconsequential factors dictate their choice of who they want to be. For instance, being black doesn't mean you have to be a certain type of person. But unfortunately so many black people believe the lies society tells them and choose to be become the type of person that society expects them to be. This of course applies to most other demographic groups as well.

I think this essay and the conservative ideals it is based upon suffer from a very important flaw. They see the world in black and white (or Pink and Grey in this case). But that is not the way the world works. Every single one of us belong to many different tribes, have many different colors. No one is pure wolf, pure sheep, or pure sheepdog. We all have a little bit of all three in us. And there can be no sheep without the wolf nor wolf without sheep. The sheep only exists because it is more passive then the wolf. The wolf only exists because it is more aggressive then the sheep. Good cannot exist without evil, nor can evil exist without Good. The world is a relative place and denying that is like denying gravity.

So what am I? I certainly don't live in denial- the mark of the sheep. I am very aware of all the dangers and traps that the wolves set to ensnare us. The worst of them are the traps we are unaware of. Everyone can figure out that a plane crashing into a building is a wolf's attack we need to prevent. What about more subtle attacks? Like choosing to undermine our ability to find safety by allowing incompetent leaders to control our resources? Or allowing the government to dictate what we do and say?

I don't think I'm a wolf, I certainly never contemplate violence on others. Although I don't think any wolf really thinks he's a wolf. I think most wolves probably think of themselves as shepherds or sheepdogs. They are just doing what they need to do to protect their tribe.

So I guess I'm a sheepdog. One that hopes to never have to commit acts of violence in defense of my tribe. One that's too chicken to risk himself or his pocketbook. Also one that knows when to stay out of the way of those more qualified to handle the situation. I like to think that if the situation or the opportunity came along, I would stand up and do something. Do I wish I had been on the plane that was being hijacked with the foreknowledge of what was going to happen? I don't know. Ultimately, I probably would have been unable to do anything about it. Even going against a box cutter, I would probably manage to mess it up and fail to make a difference. But maybe, just maybe, I would have been able to inspire someone else to do what needed to be done. That's my goal in life- to be the guy who inspires others to do the right thing.

The comments debated on what Bush is. The essayist called him this: simpering, sub-human village idiot from Texas. Sounds about right, if slightly exaggerated. Some of the comments said he is intelligent. That may or may not be the case, I don't know. But intelligence isn't what matters in leadership. What matters is decision making, something which is based on intuition and logic more then intelligence. And Bush has proven throughout his life to be an Extremely Poor Decision maker. I think he is ultimately a wolf. A reluctant wolf perhaps, but a wolf nonetheless. A wolf who threatens the sheep not with fangs and claws, but with misguided intentions.

One of the comments:
As a mom, I found it my role to civilize the children in my sphere of influence without turning them into sheep. Clean their room, wash their clothes, write thank you notes, tip well, give up a seat for a senior or a pregnant woman... but also to defend themselves and others when necessary.

Pink tribe moms are about "feelings" and letting kids "find themselves" and Grey tribe moms are about raising children to be decent adults.

I guess I'm a Pink tribe Dad and proud of it. All that stuff she lists is completely unimportant BullShit. None of that stuff makes you a decent adult. It just means you obey society's silly little rules. And in my book, that makes you the ultimate sheep. One that deserves to be devoured by wolves. Soon.

The only mark of a decent adult that matters is being one that respects other's people right to be different and do thing differently. Not necessarily respecting the person, just respecting his or her rights. Doing your best to avoid hurting other people is pretty important too.

Another comment:
Sheepdogs don't protect sheep, they CONTROL them

That's exactly what we need to avoid. We need the wolves in sheeps clothing (sheepdogs) to protect us from wolves so that we can have the freedom to do whatever we want (assuming it doesn't involve driving other sheep off a cliff or something). The sheep drive the wolves, not the other way around. The wolves follow their prey and pounce whenever an opportunity presents itself. The conservatives try to control the sheep, make them go where they want them to go. They think they are doing it for their own good. Bullshit. They are just trying to assert control. It's a powertrip. All people try to avoid change. One of my most basic philosophies is this: Change is Good but Transistions are Terrible. The conservative is always trying to avoid the Transition by avoiding the Change. The Liberal realizes the foolishness of that and encourages the change. The Moderate majority just tries to find the most comfortable path. Sometimes they let the sheepdogs "protect" them and sometimes they just overwhelm the sheepdogs and choose a new path. That's the way it should be.

Iraq and Homeland Security

2005-09-06T12:04:00.000-04:00

I always felt that at best, the Iraq war has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I don't think anyone but the most loyal Republican Yes Man can argue with that. To say I'd rather being fighting terrorists over there then here at home is ignorant BS. The terrorists we are fighting in Iraq will never come here. They are only terrorizing for local reasons. If we had never gone there, those terrorists would not exist. As soon as we leave, the terrorists will either stop terrorizing or will start terrorizing the new Iraqi regime. And while we are wasting our resources in Iraq, the real threats are free to increase their strength.

By attacking Iraq, we became the bullies. We gave people a valid reason to hate us. It causes middle of the road people that would be indifferent to the US to be against us. In other words, such tactics increase our enemies and makes existing enemies stronger. So the war in Iraq makes us Less Secure against terrorism. That's my opinion, one which I can't really back up with facts. (Although I think such facts do exist, just not available to armchair quarterbacks like myself.)

The recent hurricane points out a more concrete example of how the war in Iraq increases our danger and undermines homeland security. Because of that foolish war, our first responders and National Guard troops are stuck in a desert on the other side of the world instead of taking care of our own people at home. We Are able to pull in resources from other states and get enough people on the ground. But that took an extra week or two. If the National Guard in Louisiana and Mississippi had been at full strength, could the worst of the disaster been avoided? Could the Hell on Earth that is occurring in New Orleans been avoided?

John Roberts

2005-09-06T10:20:00.000-04:00

Bush moved quickly to convert Roberts from a O'Conner replacement to a Rehnquist replacement upon Rehnquist's death. I was kind of surprised he appointed a young unknown for Chief Justice. Seems kind of risky. I wonder if he intended him to be Chief all along? Considering how swiftly he bumped up his promotion, I would say that's pretty likely.

I haven't seen anything yet to make me dislike Roberts. He appears to be a good choice. He appears to be someone that will make good decisions based on the merits of the case, even if it goes against his personal values or other's expectations.

At least Bush didn't appoint Scalia as Chief. I wonder if he asked him?

Hurricane Katrina

2005-09-06T09:33:00.000-04:00

Instapundit has an excellent roundup of Hurricane postings. That guy posts constantly all the time. Doesn't he ever work or do anything else? He pointed out a pattern that I've noticed as well. The first week relief and aid is extremely hard to come by and nowhere near adequate. The second week it's available in most areas and the third week it's available in abundance. This disaster appears to be following the pattern, possibly even having third week level support available by the second week. So all the criticism the various levels of government are receiving may be inappropriate.

On the other hand, everyone knew if a level three hurricane or higher hit anywhere near New Orleans, it would be a huge disaster. And everyone knew like a week ahead of time that a level 4 hurricane was headed towards New Orleans. So why did they have such a hard time getting people out and getting things ready before the hurricane hit? People are comparing this to September 11th and saying that things have not improved. We can't handle major disasters any better now then we could then. I think that is a very valid accusation and I hope this event gives the Democrats something to rally behind and take a chunk out of the Republican Dictatorship. Of course I also hope that Homeland Security actually Improves, but I don't know if our government will ever be able to handle disasters in the best possible way. Maybe this Is the best possible way.

I heard the Homeland Security Secretary make a total fool of himself on NPR. The interviewer asked him about the Convention Center that CNN and NPR had been covering for days (probably other news outlets as well, I have no way to know). He said he didn't know anything about it and that they shouldn't listen to rumors! Reporters had first hand accounts of horrible things happening at that convention center and CNN had been showing images for days. And if they could get there, it sure seems like relief vehicles could. Millions of people knew about that place but the Homeland Security Secretary didn't?!? Doesn't make you feel very secure when the top security person in the nation is so clueless. If I was in his position I would have someone assigned to monitoring the media outlets and make sure those areas get covered as quickly as possible. Sounds unfair and opportunistic, but that's just a practical reality. GW certainly knew that and made sure to send in the Marines (figuratively speaking) and personally announce that the Convention Center was being dealt with. (Actually he implied it was completely taken care of, which it was not at that point, but we'll forgive a slight exaggeration)

I saw a post linked in Instapundit that suggested that GW called the governor of Louisiana and told her to order a mandatory evacuation before the hurricane. If it's true, it would be the first time I saw GW doing something right.

Political Goofups

2005-08-18T18:02:00.000-04:00

I was checking on InstaPundit and he referenced one of his own articles about the Department of Homeland Security. He makes a very good case that the concept is a joke and will do nothing to improve Security.

While there, I noticed another story that was even more interesting. It was an article talking about how Democrats need to recapture the religious voter. It said Democrats can't just change the subject and try to get religious and moral voters to vote Democrat for some other reason then morals. I totally agree. There is no reason why Democrats can't capture the religious vote. Personally, I don't see how anyone that considers themselves a moral or religious person could vote Republican. This line pretty much sums it up: Democrats believe in God and lead moral lives every bit as much as Republicans do. To suggest the contrary is simply a lie.

Bush's Instability

2005-08-16T09:07:00.000-04:00

I found this post interesting. I have no way of knowing how accurate it is, but it appears to be credible.

Quotes I found particularly intriguing and plausible:

Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a “paranoid meglomaniac” and “untreated alcoholic” whose “lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad” showcase Bush’s instabilities. ... “He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.”

Iraq Constitution

2005-08-12T10:00:00.000-04:00

I agree with everything in this New York Time Opinion.

I don't have a problem with arbitrary deadlines. Sometimes it's required to get something accomplished. But if the deadline is truly arbitrary, there should be the ability to delay it if progress is being made. I think that applies here. Besides, I think the deadline may have been set too early to begin with. We are talking about writing a document that needs to last a long time and can form a stable government in a volatile region. Something like that should take a while to draft. However, this is apparently just a first draft, not the final product. So sticking to the deadline at the expense of a weak document might be acceptable or even desirable.

Federal Government with autonomous regions in Iraq would be a recipe for disaster and would lead to civil war. They should produce a document that only contains things agreed upon so far and continue to make changes later. That's basically what the Framers of our Constitution did. Of course, them failing to resolve the issues of slavery and state's rights did lead to a Civil War. But they were doing something that had never been done before. They had no successful examples to draw from and democracy at the time was considered a form of government doomed to failure. Iraq has plenty of examples to emulate or avoid. It's crucial that Iraq form a stable government. We can't bring our troops home until they do. If they create a government that is on the edge of civil war or too heavily influenced by Americans, we'll never be able to get our troops out of there.

I Never understand why people object to elections by refusing to participate, as the Sunnis did in the Iraq election. That makes no sense whatsoever. It's a way to guarantee your interests will not be represented. I think the Sunnis are realizing that and will participate in the next election. Therefore, no permanent constitution should be formed until a new election can be held.

On another note, Bush is being placed under pressure to withdraw from Iraq. Although I strongly feel we do not belong there, we can't withdraw. We took down a working government for no good reason, so now we have to stick around until a new one is on it's feet. If anything, we should increase our troops there to get the job done. Except I'm not sure if more troops would help much. Not to mention that you have to get these troops from somewhere, something that's not likely to happen until you create some sort of draft. Pretty tough to get volunteers willing to die for a war that a majority of Americans and vast majority of world believes should have never been started and does nothing to improve our security at home.

Bush and Pork

2005-08-11T13:12:00.000-04:00

Does Bush ever do anything right? If he does, I haven't seen it. He signed the biggest spending bill ever, despite it being at least 36 Billion dollars above the cap at which he promised to veto. He has never vetoed anything - why should he start now?

Twenty Five Billion of the total 295 billion is pork barrel spending, according to Newsweek. That means at least 8% of the total cost is money spent on pet projects that benefit individual states or even smaller regions and don't benefit the federal tax payer at all. This is why most people want the line item veto, so that the President can remove crap like that from a bill without dumping the whole thing. They passed a bill during Clinton's term that gave the president this power, but it needs to be a Constitutional Amendment. I don't know if it should be a Presidental power, however. It should be some sort of Constitutional Committee that reviews bills to make sure they are constitutional and that all of the bill is consistent with the intent of the bill. Of couse, ideally, the legislators should actually Read the bills and vote down pork amendments and create internal rules to prevent pork. That doesn't even require Constitutional Amendment. But apparently that's not possible.

Bush's War

2005-08-09T16:08:00.000-04:00

The American public is finally starting to realize/admit that the Iraq War was a mistake. A USA Today poll showed the following:
An unprecedented 57% majority say the war has made the USA more vulnerable
to terrorism. A new low, 34%, say it has made the country safer. The question is
critical because the Bush administration has long argued that the invasion of
Iraq was undertaken to make the USA safer from terrorism.

I knew right from the beginning that invading Iraq was a Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld personal war that had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. The sanctions and UN restrictions worked, Hussein was a powerless ruler of a destitute country. He was all talk with no ability to carry out any action against it's own neighbors, yet alone the United States. This is not hindsight, I could tell that from my armchair since after the 1991 war. By invading Iraq, all Bush managed to do was create more enemies. More enemies equal greater threat to our safety. Not to mention thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed to satisfy an American Administration's agenda.

The thing I'm curious about: How long before the generally accepted consensus is that George W Bush was one of the worst presidents in American history. I think he's even worse then Buchanan or others like him that usually are considered the worst presidents. They were merely unable to stop a tragic course of events. They were unable to solve the problems of their day. GW Bush is not only incapable of solving the problems of his day - he has a long track record of creating new ones.

Education

2005-08-09T10:45:00.000-04:00

On National Public Radio, I heard a former New York School principal call the No Child Left Behind Act "All Children Left Behind". I like that, I've always felt that that is a deeply flawed law. Mandatory standardized tests have no place in the public school system. The guest left the public school system to be principal in a town where they are trying to do things differently and better. He said one of the flaws in the public school system is the compartmentalizing of the school system. His example was a student in biology class doing something that was more related to chemistry and being told to stop because that would be taught in a different class. Our school system has many flaws. I think we should do away with grade levels as well as compartmentalization. There should be three levels:

The first level (roughly equivalent to K - 5) is your basic skills that everyone needs to know - reading,writing, arithmetic,basic science,physical fitness,etc. The emphasis is on teaching the knowledge, skills, and behaviors that are the foundation of a successful member of society. A child would be assigned a primary teacher when they enter school and would spend entire time at that level with same primary teacher. My son has ADHD and qualifies for Special Education. In his case, that means he has a social worker that creates an individual development plan and monitors his progress. He also has access to a separate room when his behavior becomes an issue or his class work falls behind. In my system, this would not be special education. It would be the treatment every student receives from their primary teacher. (Sidenote: Separate Education would still be required for students with mental or physical disabilities that make it impossible to succeed in normal classroom.) Each classroom would have kids of all ages within the age limits of the level. They would change to meet the needs of the students. For example, if there is a group of kids having a hard time with multiplication, a group would be created to help them. Another group might be created for students ready to read chapter books. The child's readiness for the next level would probably be evaluated by a combination of standard tests and at least two teacher evaluations, with the personal evaluations being given greater weight. The child could move on to the next level as early as ten or as late as 13. If the child has reached the age of 13 and is still not ready for next level, some sort of separate education would probably be required, just because having a teenager being taught alongside younger kids is not very practical.

The second level is mostly keeping an eye on the kids as they go through the turbulence of puberty. The emphasis at this level is inspiring individual spirits to function effectively within a structured society. Some knowledge would be taught, particularly things that would help the students as they try to figure out who they are. Things like philosophy, history, literature, logic, ethics and psychology. Sex and Religion would also have to be covered, subjects that are avoided in current public school system. This is probably one of the reasons our public schools are less then what they should be. As long as all of the major religions are introduced and given equal treatment, no violation of the separation of Church and State exists. This is an important part of learning who you are - finding what you believe in. They would also need to have the opportunity to learn things like anger management, meditation, physical fitness, the role of health and its effects on mental well being. The role of violence in their lives would have to be covered appropriate to the environment of the school. In an inner city school or other high crime area, this would be a very important part of this level. In less violent areas, this might be more focused on the separation of violence in fiction (TV,Movies, videogames) and violence in real life. Drug education would also be important at this level, although it needs to be covered at all levels, even the first level. Of course not every student has a turbulent puberty. Some students adjust to the society around them without much difficulty and wouldn't need a lot of extra support. So resources would need to be available to students of this nature as well. Upon entering this level, the student would be assigned a primary counselor instead of a primary teacher. If implemented right now, this role would probably be filled by people educated in social work. Eventually, a whole new education degree would probably have to be created. This level would basically be a collaboration between counselor and student that allows the student to grow and learn by whatever path the student chooses to take. The counselor's job is to provide the resources necessary and redirect from a destructive path if necessary. There would be very few hard and fast requirements at this level. Some things like social studies or physical fitness would be required and reading, writing,math and science skills would be maintained at the very least. The student would be encouraged to learn as much as they can, but only required to learn a bare minimum set of skills and knowledge. They would also be encouraged to begin exploring a career path. Standardized tests would be used when possible, but success at this level would mostly be determined by evaluations completed by counselor, teachers, student and parents.

The third level would be the equivalent of high school. I think the current high school system would work within my system. For instance, most high schools already place less emphasis on grade level and have classes of mixed ages. The emphasis at the third level is on preparing the students for their careers, and I think this is already the emphasis of most high schools. I think failure at the high school level (if it exists) is a result of the poor primary school system. That and improper funding and availability of resources, for which there is no excuse. Education funding should be a top priority for any government. If you have a good primary school system and proper funding, there is no reason that I can think of that would prevent the current high school system from being successful. The only changes I can think of is the removing of grade levels completely and placing less emphasis on grades and grade point average in favor of more realistic measures of success (whenever possible). To be consistent with my first two levels, age of student has nothing to do with graduation. A student could start the third level as early as 14 and leave as late as 21. Unlike the first two levels, the student would probably not be assigned to a specific person that guides them through the level. They would be expected to make their own decisions, with resources available to help them when they need it.

While I'm complaining about the school system, I have another beef. When is the school system gonna wake up to the fact that parents work? And that they work year round, usually until 5PM or later? The system seems to think that every house has a parent at home that can watch the kids when school decides to call a snow day or in service day or half day or summer vacation. Even on a normal day, it expects someone to watch the kids starting as early as 3PM. This is just plain stupid and needs to be changed. Every school should be open until at least 5PM and should have breaks no longer than four or five weeks. This is a win win schedule. The parents don't have to come up with ridiculous day care solutions, the teachers and administrators can teach more effectively with more days to teach and shorter breaks to recover from. If changes are made at the same time to make school more productive for the students, even the kids probably won't have serious objections. (Even if they do, too bad, it's for their own good). The only drawback that occurs to me is things like air conditioning. In places like Michigan where schools don't normally operate in the relatively short period of time where air conditioning is required, air conditioning is often not installed. Even if it is, running it year round is an expense they don't currently have to address.

Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives

2005-08-08T13:03:00.000-04:00

Here's an article offering observations about the Democrats:
The only way that democrats can regain a majority

Death and Burial

2005-08-02T11:28:00.000-04:00

The King of Saudi Arabia was buried today. They wrapped him a robe, carried him on a board and buried him in an unmarked location in the desert. That's the way to treat the dead. This is how they treat a king even.

American funeral traditions are silly. We spend thousands of dollars to bury our dead. First we replace body fluids with chemicals so we can morbidly look at the body for a few days. Then we put the cadaver in a fancy box that costs thousands of dollars and will only be seen for a week at most. We buy a spot in a cemetery beside hundreds or thousands of other dead people. We place a stone, sometimes a very fancy one, to mark the location. What an incredible waste of money, time and resources. When I die, harvest me for whatever organs someone else might find useful, toss me in a fire naked and do whatever you please with the ashes, as long it's not a landfill or something weird. (You can skip the fire if there is a desert or other unpopulated area available.) Don't pump my body full of chemicals, don't waste money on a box that's never going to be seen again, and don't bother with wasting valuable real estate to bury my body. I would say don't bother with a funeral and parade either, but that's more for the living so I guess that's OK. Assuming anyone actually cares about my passing and needs closure or something.

By the way, everyone should donate their organs. It's an atrocity that anyone should die because they had to wait too long for an organ when thousands of perfectly good organs get buried in fancy caskets every day. Besides, it's the best gift you could ever give.

Great White North

2005-07-31T20:14:00.000-04:00

July 28 5:00 AM
Well here I am in the Great White North. My father in law has hosted his second annual Canada fishing trip. Our group is my father in law (who just turned 50), his father (72), his son, myself and his daughter's husband. His wife(my mother in law) came this year as well because Grandpa wanted a cook at the cabin when we came back from fishing. We're staying at the Golden Route Lodge, this dive just west of Chapleau, Ontario. We got here yesterday and got on the lake around 5 PM. I was in a boat with Rod (just like me - family by marriage and an inexperienced fisherman) and Grandpa at the helm. Fishing with Grandpa is an annoying and frustrating experience. He loves fishing and has been doing it all his life. For all that fishing, he sure hasn't learned much. He knows a lot about fishing but a whole lot of nothing about Catching fish. He has no instinct and doesn't know anything about scientifically finding the right spot and staying on the right spot. We found a good spot and the two Jerry's (father in law and his son) found the line and caught at least seven fish. Grandpa couldn't find the line or the right speed if his life depended on it. He managed to stumble across some fish so that he got two fish and Rod got one. That appears to be the limits of his abilities, stumble around until you find a fish. But he sure likes to tell Us how to fish. If you do something differently then he does, he'll try to "correct" you every time he sees an opportunity. That's the way he is with everything. (He also takes things too seriously and has no sense of humor.) A lot of times he's right, sometimes he's not. But even if he's right, sometimes I just want to try something different and he doesn't appreciate that. Add on to it that he's deaf as a post when he's at the motor and fishing with him becomes an ordealing experience. Today I think Jerry Jr is going to drive us. He's a better fisherman than grandpa and a lot easier to get along with. Plus he's willing and able to use the fish finder. So today's experience should be much more enjoyable. Hopefully I'll land the big one today.

July 30 2:00 PM
Day 4 - still haven't caught anything ( well I caught a little one we tossed back,but I'm not willing to officially acknowledge that). They're going back this afternoon, but I'm staying here. I have come to realize that God was sending me a message - I shouldn't be here. He wanted me to spend these five days in some other way and some other place. Everybody else caught at least nine fish,so it wasn't the lake or the weather. I got some bites and lost a couple, but mostly just sat in the boat feeling sorry for myself and getting in the way. Yesterday was a good day. We found a good lake. The weather was beautiful. Rod was having good luck, catching a bunch of bass. We got on the lake around seven in the morning and got off just as it was getting dark. The best part was late in the evening, after the sun had gone down. The lake was smooth as glass, the temperature was perfect and the fish were biting. Jerry put a good bait on his line and the pike bit on it as soon as it dropped in the water. He caught four fish in twenty minutes, most of which was spent taking the hook out. Technically, I caught one of those four fish because he gave me the same bait, but I'm considering it his fish. Besides, we ended up throwing it back later because we didn't need another small pike. Since I don't want the only fish I caught to be a small crappy fish not worth keeping, I'm denying credit. Besides, it was a pretty boring catch. I dropped the bait in and reeled into the boat within thirty seconds. We could have caught more, but we had no need for small pike and it was getting dark. We trolled back to the boat launch and Rod caught a nice bass. We all enjoyed watching it leap from the water and Jerry thought it was a very nice catch. He thought Grandpa would be pretty excited, but he had already caught one just a litte bit bigger. Grandpa either has the best luck of the group or is a better fisherman then he appears to be, because I think he caught the most fish and the biggest fish. Maybe his luck and his son's driving was an unbeatable combination.

Fishing is not for me. I just wasted four days. I could have and should have been working on my writing. Or doing pretty much anything else. And I think God was telling me so by not sending any fish my way. That's the only explanation, the only difference between me and the rest of the group. He's sending a pretty clear message that I should have stayed home and that I shouldn't go on any more fishing trips. When my son is old enough, I might go then. But I would feel wrong going any other time and possibly even then.

Well I'm off to work on my writing.

Instruction Manual

2005-07-30T17:30:00.000-04:00

I knew somebody at my church that had a shirt that read "If all else fails, consult the Instruction Manual". Instuctional Manual refers to the Bible. I always liked that shirt. That seems like an excellent way to think of the Bible. To Christians, it is the ultimate source for how to do things and how things are suppossed to work. But like all instructional manuals, it sometimes relys on common sense, better described as generally accepted assummptions, to fill in the blanks. Also, every instructional manual contains mistakes (usually poorly written or described instead of blatant mistakes) that the reader will have to catch, sometimes the hard way. That also applies to the Bible. Finally, every instruction manual does not tell you absolutely everything you need to know to operate. Some things are just too vaguely described, too open for different interpertations or just plain not covered. I think probably ninety percent of the Bible falls into this category.

I have read most of the Bible. I haven't read it cover to cover. I could never sit through Psalms and haven't read a couple of Old Testament books after Psalms. I think there's a couple of epistles I haven't read yet. But unlike the majority of Christians, I do read the Bible outside of Church and have even read over 3/4 of it. I have to admit, it never really did much for me. It's like reading a horrorscope. It rings true a lot of times, but the words are vague enough that every reader will gain radically different insights from the same set of words. Even the same person can get different insights at different times. In other words, the words themselves are basically meaningless and empty. It's the communion with God that it inspires that really matters. Personally, I commune with God by prayer much more than the Bible. But everyone sparks the connection in their own way.

Infomercial Faith

2005-07-30T17:00:00.000-04:00

My wife and most of her family have what I'm going to call "Infomercial Faith" They shop at Christian bookstores, listen to Christian music, spout Christian pithy sayings, decorate their homes with Christian decorations and read Christian self-help books. Their faith is anagalous to buying something from QVC or Tony Little. Improve your relationship with God for only 19.99! With three easy steps, you can work your way into heaven! Christianity has found a slick marketing plan and plenty of suckers to buy into it. Now, don't get me wrong. Just because you bought it on the Home Shopping Network doesn't mean it's not a good product. Likewise, I'm not saying my wife and her family have faith based on a marketing plan without any true connection with God. Hey if a snappy marketing plan or a good dose of guilt works, that's fine by me. But I am suspicious of anyone whose faith is strongly influenced by all of the Christian material available today. I believe it is a facade, a false front, that can hide true faith. It can make someone who has no relationship with God appear to have a good one. Even worse, the person using the material may not realize it's a facade either. The material itself is not bad. In fact, much of it is good, helpful reference material. However, it must be used carefully and must not be the center of your relationship with God. No book, video, or song can significantly improve your chances of achieving and enjoying Eternal Life. Nor can any Church or other organized group activity. All of these things can be helpful. All of these things can provide guidance and knowledge and occassionally praise or reminders of God's Power and Grace. But ultimately Spiritual Truth can only come from one place - one on one time with God.

Return to Flight

2005-07-26T13:11:00.000-04:00

Well, they finally got the shuttle program going again. woo hoo. My question: Why did they bother creating the shuttle to begin with? Why did they follow up a series of silly little moonwalks with a silly shuttle program????? Instead of wasting time and huge amounts of money on a meaningless shuttle, they should have built a colony on the moon. People were bored with the Apollo program and therefore unwilling to pay for it. Of course they were bored, all they did was plan brief missions where they bounced around on the moon for a few hours. Five or six missions of that nature is more then enough. Instead of planning endless pointless moon hops until Congress wisely cut off the money, they should have started planning a colony program as soon as Apollo 12 came back. That would have kept people engaged and the money flowing. Instead they did skylab, which nobody remembers and then created the shuttle, a stupid idea from its inception. And instead of doing the logical thing - build a lunar station- they waste time and money on a orbiting space station that can serve no useful purpose.

Getting into space is absolutely essential to our future. It will be the lifeblood of our society and our salvation. We can stop fighting useless wars on earth and shoot for the stars. We don't have to worry about population pressures. The development of space technology will provide advancement normally only possible under the impetus of war. Solving the problems of colonization in space will provide us tools for survival here on Earth. I can go on and on, the space program has the potential to be the single most important program of the nation. It could also create a global community as different nations pool their resources.

NASA is a completely useless organization that has screwed up the space program. Once it reached the moon, it's usefullness disappeared. It should be killed and replaced by an international coalition (with both government and private sector members) that might actually get something done. Probably at half the price.

Right to be Stupid

2005-07-26T05:43:00.000-04:00

Why is prostitution illegal? Why do strip clubs have restrictions placed on what the dancers can do? Why does pornography have to fight the legal system? Why are alcohol and tobacco legal but marijuana is not? Why are any drugs illegal? Why would any government discriminate against people because of race, gender, or sexual orientation? Why would government prevent two people from making a permanent, legally binding commitment, just because they happen to be the same gender? Why would anyone care if someone chooses to take more than one spouse? Why would anyone prevent a terminally ill patient in incredible pain from asking for assistance in ending their life?

These are all examples of laws that make no sense to me. Some of them are clearly problems that need to be addressed, but making them illegal is a way to avoid the problem, to avoid dealing with it and addressing it constructively. Others may have a legitimate reason for being illegal that I am not aware of. But I think most just boil down to one thing: the majority feel they have the right to tell the minority what to do. The "right" feel the need to correct the "wrongs" of others. Some of these things are sins and behaviors that individuals should not be involved with. But the real sin, the real wrong, is the moral superiority of those who passed such laws and support such laws and encourage more such laws. These are the ones who need to fall to their knees and beg God's forgiveness. God will decide right and wrong, not Man.

I have written a Constitutional Amendment that I would Love to see passed to discourage stupid laws like the ones listed above. It would never get passed in the world we live in, but a guy can dream can't he? Read it and let me know what you think.

Bush's America

2005-07-25T10:18:00.000-04:00

USA Today published an article entitled Taking the pulse of Bush's America that I think is a pretty accurate reflection.

Here's my favorite quote from a guy talking about people's view of Bush:
"They think it's un-American to say anything bad about Bush," he says. "Religion and politics have become too mixed, and that's not healthy."

Sidney Crosby

2005-07-25T07:11:00.000-04:00

I sure feel sorry for Sidney Crosby. He's been hyped as the next Mario Lemieux or Wayne Gretzky. Now he's going to be drafted by the Pittsburgh Penguins, one of the worst teams in the NHL. Of course they were so bad because they had no money. Supposedly the new player's contract will relieve that issue until they can fix the money pinch and build a new arena. But I digress. This kid will be expected to be the center of the team. To bring a team from the bottom rung all the way to the top, practically singlehanded. That's an awful lot of pressure. I sure wouldn't want to be in his skates.

PS It sure feels good to be able to talk about hockey again.

Darwin among Believers

2005-07-22T08:53:00.000-04:00

Here's an article on creationism vs evolution. This person argues that the two theories can co-exist and to deny evolution as fact is like saying gravity doesn't exist. Makes sense to me.

Election 2000

2005-07-20T16:55:00.000-04:00

This is really beating a dead horse. Bush duped the American public into voting for him in 2004, with the Democrats helping by choosing an extremely lame candidate. Nonetheless, the 2000 election still stings. The electoral college has been a fucked up way to elect the president since George Washington stepped down. The 2000 election was an excellent example of how a guy that lost the election by over half a million votes could still win on a legal technicality. The Supreme Court took the election into their own hands and elected Bush in a 5-4 decision. Apparently those 5 votes matter more than 540,000 votes.

I found this article while reading about the Supreme Court nomination process. It talks about a flawed election and the role of the Supreme Court that occured more than 5 years ago, but it's so informative and told in such a disturbingly amusing way that I couldn't resist posting it.

Legislating from the Bench

2005-07-20T08:27:00.000-04:00

Bush said over and over again that he would appoint a Supreme Court justice that would not legislate from the bench. His nomination certainly seems to fit that criteria.

What I don't understand is why is legislating from the bench a bad thing?? I'm not necessarily saying it's OK, but I don't see the problem with it. Maybe I'm just missing something. One of the organizations that Roberts belongs to is the Federalist Society. Their belief is that the role of the judicial branch is to say what the law is, not what the law should be. I'm not sure I agree with that. The job of the judiciary is to interpret the law and how it applies to specific cases. Its job is to look at the facts, including the existing laws, and find the fairest and most just outcome. Sometimes legislation falls short. The judiciary shouldn't let a flaw in the legal system prevent fair and just judgments.

Another argument often heard is appointing judges that will uphold the constitution. That's just a stupid statement. All judges, no matter what their ideology, will treat that as their primary responsibility. But when you look at the Constitution, you'll realize that it is a short document that lays out the structure of government. It really offers very little help in interpreting modern issues. After all, Roe v Wade was decided based on Constitutional right to privacy. The Constitution, by neccessity or design, is open-ended and vague. That's probably why it's lasted over 200 years - the little it says is hard to argue.

The true nature of government is fluidic and changing, adopting to current circumstance, defined by all three branches of government in equal proportion. Saying the judicial branch shouldn't legislate from the bench is a violation of one of our most important principles: checks and balances.

Politics and Defense

2005-07-19T12:38:00.000-04:00

It appears Hillary Clinton is gaining credibility as a presidential candidate. She's been making an effort to shore up her weak spots. McCain was on Leno last night and said she would make a good Secretary of Defense. That's a pretty solid boost, considering a woman president, especially a Democrat, would have to fight image problems in that area. It's what she's been focusing on lately. McCain is probably encouraging a Hillary candicacy because that would improve his own chances. I know if I was choosing between him and Hillary, I would easily choose McCain. McCain and Gore are the only contenders so far that I actually like and would Want to vote for. I know I won't vote for Kerry again.

As I've said before, Bush ignores the nation that poses the greatest threat to the world - North Korea - because it possesses neither oil nor Islam. Hillary pointed out quite clearly the result of that policy:

At an April Armed Services Committee hearing, Clinton won headlines after her persistent questioning led Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to admit that North Korea may now be able to arm missiles with nuclear warheads.

"The North Koreans have the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device that can reach the United States," she said. "Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can."

Baby Girl

2005-07-15T14:57:00.000-04:00

I have a new niece! My middle brother just had a baby girl. That makes 4 nephews and 1 niece.

Penelope Jane
Born 7/15/05 2:57 p.m.
20.5" long,
8lb 3oz

Religion

2005-07-13T18:04:00.000-04:00

I just read an email from the youth pastor at a church I used to go to. In it, he feels obligated to point out that the senior pastor runs the church in a spiritual abusive manner. He tried confronting the pastor directly, talking to the board, everything he could. Finally, after what I was sure was very difficult soul searching and fervent prayer (in addition to consulting a respected pastor), he sent an email to the congregation. The youth pastor had resigned at this point by the way. I also felt that something was wrong with that pastor and I was grateful to see someone I respect call him out on it and hold him accountable.

I also thought you might want to read about what I believe in.

Hockey and Unions

2005-07-12T09:42:00.000-04:00

Hockey is the only sport I pay any attention to. It's the only sport worth watching. It's a sport that has everything. It has grace and style. It has non stop action, both violent and non violent. Hitting is part of the game but does not define the game. It is completely possible to have a game where no one gets hit at all. It is kind of annoying when a fight breaks out (maybe 1 out of 15 games), except when it's a close game and the fight is part of the drama and tension. You can't beat the drama and excitement of a close hockey game where the stakes are high. And of course there is no equal to the Stanley Cup. No other sport has a trophy worth fighting for like the Stanley Cup. I also like the game because it is both extremely simple and strategically complex. To play or watch the game you only need to know one thing - get the puck in your opponents net. The rules are there to make gameplay better, not define the game. Unlike baseball or football, if there were no rules, you can still have a game.

American Football - the point of the game is to run until someone knocks you down, seems kind of stupid and barbaric to me - I actually find this sport offensive

Baseball- 2 hours of boredom with Maybe 2 minutes of excitement, golf is more interesting than baseball, this is a sport that has no place in today fast paced society

Basketball- The sport is kind of cool, but the professional level players are distracting. Mostly just never got into it, especially since it's on at the same time as hockey

Soccer (Football for everyone but us Americans) - Never really caught on in America, but I would probably like it - it's hockey without the smooth flowing nature of playing on ice

If I were President, I would try to change the national pastime from baseball to hockey. Instead of throwing the first pitch, I would drop the first puck (Although I think that particular thought may be motivated by an extremely strong desire that no one witness me throwing a ball - it's not a pretty site.)

The hockey lockout this season is the ultimate example of why I think unions have outlived their purpose. Manny Legace, a Red Wing, put it best when he said we lost a season for no reason. I've never heard of a union in modern society that fights to protect its members from employer abuses. Usually its the union committing the abuses, as union leaders fight to get everything they possibly can, even if it's more than the employer can afford and more than the employees really need.

I believe both unions and political parties should have a statute of limitations. Get a group of people together to rally around a common cause. Once the cause has been accomplished, the group is disbanded. If you don't then the group no longer becomes about the cause, it becomes about keeping the group alive and fighting the opposition just for the sake of fighting. Look at the UAW or the Teamsters. Those are corporations in themselves whose sole reason for existence is to be antagonistic to employers.

Multiple Supremes?

2005-07-11T09:03:00.000-04:00

This article by an Associated Press writer offers all the recent tidbits circulating about the Supreme Court. It says Bush is meeting Democrats, that's a good sign. On NPR, they also pointed out that he doesn't have to worry about pleasing his Republican base, since he cannot run again. That means he can pretty much appoint whomever he pleases. That could go either way, but I have a feeling that will be a good thing. My gut tells me Bush wants to appoint the right person for the job. I think he's going to make this pick on his own, without relying too heavily on his usual advisors. That would be a very good thing, for he tends to surround himself with poor advisors. He's not going to pick someone left wing, but I think a moderate conservative with a proven track record has a good chance. I'm just feeling positive today. I'm feeling good about the President and his ability to make this decision.

The other big question is whether Rehnquist will retire. My feeling is that he won't. If he was going to do it, he would have done it already. I don't think he will, I think he wants to work as long as possible. I've heard it mentioned that he idolizes John Marshall and that he wants to serve as long as he did. I don't think he's going to make it to 35 years as Chief Justice (he'd have to serve until 2021 and still be heathy at 97). But in January 2007, he will have been on the court for 35 years. He might be making that his goal. Another likely motivation is the desire to keep working despite the Cancer. Arlen Spectre explained that motivation pretty well: "Having being engaged in a bout with cancer myself, I know that it's good to get up every morning and have something that you have to do, something that is important to do"

Specter and others have suggested O'Conner could replace Rehnquist if he does retire. That would be interesting. She's basically been chief justice for a while anyway because of her swing vote status. She apparently would be willing to take the job if offered. Personally, I don't think Bush would do that. I think he would see her as a judge legislating from the bench, the one thing he has consistently stood against when asked about the Supreme Court. Not to mention that that would threaten his ability to create a lasting change on the court.

Word of the Day

2005-07-11T02:26:00.000-04:00

My wife and I keep encountering the work dysentery in our reading. When it came up in dinner conversation, I finally had to look it up. Apperently it's a severe form of diarrhea (which I also had to look up to be sure) where you have loose,watery, and bloody stool. The version I always hear about is caused by contaminated water. So there you go, I learned something new. I just felt like sharing my newfound knowledge. Enjoy.

Perfect Parent

2005-07-09T21:51:00.000-04:00

I had a realization as I was walking. I was thinking about God's Plan vs Worldly Demands. I walked past roadkill and breathed exhaust fumes, wondering why God would allow bad things to happen. If he's in control of everything, why is the world so messed up?

The answer is the world is not really all that messed up. Even when things seem bad, God is allowing them to happen for a reason, even if we don't know what the reason is. Another important thing to remember that God is the perfect parent. He gave us free will. He allows us to make our own decisions and make our own mistakes. He rarely interferes and simply nudges once in a while if necessary. He refuses to be overly protective and only helps when we ask Him to. He never criticizes and is always loving and supportive. (Sidenote: I count myself extremely fortunate to have parents that also have all these qualities.)

I also got to thinking about evil. I don't believe anything is inherently evil. Nothing is bad in and of itself. Take the nuclear bomb for example. Even though it was created for destruction, the very first time it was used, it ended a war and ushered in peace. If Great Britain had the bomb in 1939, they could have used it when Hitler invaded Poland. After a few German cities had been destroyed, Hitler would have backed down and World War II would have been avoided. Once the bomb was used once, it's mere existence prevented conflicts from escalating to large scale wars because everybody feared nuclear war.

Are we Alone?

2005-07-07T11:21:00.000-04:00

Whether we are alone in the universe is one of those big questions that can not be definitively answered. The Drake Equation is often used to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact. I can't quite figure out how Drake used that equation to estimate 10,000 civilization. The way I look at in a universe of at least 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone and a theoretically infinite number of galaxies, intelligent life had to appear Somewhere. Even if it only occurs .0000001 % of the time, there would still be over 200 other civilizations out there! The only way you can deny the possiblitity is a extremely literal translation of religious beliefs.

Traditional religious people who belief in the Creation will probably argue that God created the Earth and that it is the only place he created life. However, to me, there is nothing to suggest that God only created life here. You can believe in Creation and still believe in Extra Terrestials. I found a site that tries to reconcile the Bible and astrophysics, I haven't spent much time there yet, but it looked like it might have some interesting points.

By the way, I also believe that Creationism and Evolution do Not contradict each other. I don't think God created the earth in 6 days is intended to be interpreted literally. A "day" could be thousands or millions of years. I think Moses (or God speaking to Moses) was just keeping it simple so it could be understood at the time. I think natural selection is a tool that God uses to control his creation. Let creation evolve on its own and just poke your finger in once in a while to give it a nudge if you don't like where it's going.

Grass

2005-07-06T13:08:00.000-04:00

My aunt saw my book on the Republican Party I was reading over the weekend and said that was uninteresting. She suggested reading about plants growing instead. I still think politics is more interesting, but I did find this article on grass that might help me take care of my yard.

Alex Kozinski

2005-07-05T20:35:00.000-04:00

After reading the various blogs that revolve around the hub of Instapundit, I noticed a common theme: everyone likes Alex Kozinski. I liked what I saw as well, so I'm going to hope and pray that he gets Bush's attention.

Mass Media

2005-07-05T20:31:00.000-04:00

A lot of the media is being criticized for lack of objectivity, for being biased. I'm reading about politics in the late 1800's and back then each party had papers loyal to it. When you picked up a newspaper, you knew it was guaranteed to be biased and what the bias would be. Personally I think that makes a lot more sense then the pretending media does today. Fox News should drop the Fair and Balanced moniker and just admit who they are: The Network for Right Wingers. The same for New York Times, just admit they are The Newspaper for Liberal Bias. Don't hide your bias, embrace it! Then we can read or view the media and know where it's coming from and how to intrepret it.

Of course the world is not as black and white as the political right/left concept tries to make it. This is a relative world we live in, there is no escaping that. Personally, I think the "liberal bias" in the media is a reflection of the nature of journalism. The job of a reporter is to report every perspective, to show the direction the world is taking. A reporter is supposed to have his finger on the pulse of change. Entertainers also reflect change, if they are not creating the change to begin with. And of course all journalism is supposed to report the facts, to report the truth. All of these things are the values of a liberal. The liberal embraces change, embraces freedom, embraces liberty. The conservative tries to protect current values. Sometimes this means ignoring facts, fabricating truth, in order to preserve the existing worldview.

The greatest problem with mass media today is money. The networks insist on making a profit. This means they must avoid aggravating advertisers. It also means the news must be slanted to attract viewers and ratings. They spend their money on dozens of talking heads, with no money left to spend on actual research. The Truth often suffers in the pursuit of personal gain.

Political Supremes

2005-07-05T19:01:00.000-04:00

Ann Althouse has a good post with interesting comments on the stance Democrats and Republicans are taking on the Supreme Court. McCain also gets discussed a lot.

Military Enlistment

2005-07-05T16:53:00.000-04:00

The military, not surprisingly, is encouraging parents to allow their children to enlist. Although I don't think we should have gotten involved in the war that caused the enlistment problems, the best way to keep our people safe and get them out as quickly as possible is to make sure they have all the resources they need, including personnel.

There's very few things in this world worse then parents involved in and controlling every decision their children make. Parents need to let their children make mistakes, allow them to injure themselves. They must allow them to make monumental screw ups and figure out how to extract themselves. Otherwise, they will never be self sufficient confident adults. Of course, military enrollment is none of those things anyway. It's a chance for children to become adults, to gain life experience. It's a chance for them to find themselves. It seems like it would be particularly effective as a positive life experience if the child had trouble in school. Both college and the military are excellent ways to form character independent of parents. Community college is good to save money but going off to college and being completely independent of parents is even more important than the academics. I encourage minimal phone calls home and visit only when absolutely necessary. If possible, don't take any money from the parents either. That's how I went through school and highly recommend it. The military basically forces all of these growth factors and then adds plenty more. Yes, the military can be a dangerous place to be. But so can driving down the road or walking across the street. Going through life sheltered from danger is no way to live a life.

I think an incentive program that functions as a pseudo draft would be an appropriate way to improve recruitment. Even a draft would be acceptable as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think that produces the best military force, especially in today's world. In Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein everyone had to serve in the military before they could vote. That doesn't seem very practical. Perhaps it would work if you have a list of choices that a young citizen has to choose from before being allowed to vote ( or some other incentive like better job placement resources or additional college grants). Examples of civil service choices could be military service, peace corps, relief efforts, campaign workers, environmental cleanup crews. Anything that benefits greater good and requires young adults for basic tasks (gophers or grunts). Perhaps set it up so that when someone turns 18, they do more than just fill out a piece of paper and send it in. They are required to attend a seminar or something that educates them on their options. Maybe they would takes tests to determine what civil service best fits them. Perhaps just attending the program would be sufficient to gain the right to vote.

I myself have never joined the military. At the time I thought it meant becoming a mindless automaton, which is the antithesis of what I strive to be. I now realize that conclusion is not necessarily true. But I'm also a complete clutz and have no hand eye coordination. I would probably end up shooting myself or running over somebody with a humvee. And I reflexively resist being given orders - I have to agree with something before I do it. I also hate neatness and tidyness - cleaning only occurs to me when the stench gets overpowering or I can no longer use the thing that needs to be cleaned. Not to mention I'm a chickenshit with no backbone when it comes to things that require action. I also have a MacGyver style discomfort with guns. So the military was not a good fit for me. Besides, I did good in school and got a good scholarship so I didn't need the military.

PS The other way to improve recruitment would be to restore confidence that our soldiers are being sacrificed for a good reason. People don't mind volunteering for their death if it's for a cause they believe in. Bush can not provide that confidence, nor can anyone associated with him. No one who takes the time to think about it logically can believe in Bush or his administration when it comes to military action.

Supreme Court Nominees

2005-07-05T13:00:00.000-04:00

I wanted to find out who the possible nominees are.

Of course, Alberto Gonzales, Bush's lawyer and good buddy gets a lot of attention. Right Wing groups are lobbying against him as too moderate. That's a positive recommendation, as far as I'm concerned. However, I don't think he'll be nominated. I don't think the job fits his temperament/style/competencies. He strikes me as a lawyer, not a judge. He'd rather be arguing cases, not deciding them. I'm not sure if Bush appointing him to Texas Supreme Court and then bringing him to Washington a year later supports or denies that theory.

The Volokh Conspiracy is suggesting Alex Kozinski. There's other interesting posts on the Supreme Court as well. I found the post on the process Clinton went through informative, for instance.

Based on two hours of internet research and using the AP Short List as the "ballot", I vote for James Harvie Wilkinson III. Although I don't think Bush will choose someone from this list. I think he'll try to find a woman. I hope he picks a moderate conservative. But given his history of appointments, I think he'll go for someone controversial, just to see if he can get away with it, which he probably will.

Other Candidates:
Larry Thompson
Michael McConnel
Michael Luttig
Samuel Alito
Edith Jones
Emilio Garza
Theodore Olson

Underneath Their Robes offers a good summary of potential nominees. They also offer some unconventional recommendations, be sure to check it out!

The Supreme Court Nomination Blog provides pretty detailed summaries of each candidate. The links are on the navigation bar on the right.

Other sites I found, some funny, some serious:
Talk Left
Blogs for Bush
Sadly No
Melanie Kirkpatrick, Wall Street Journal

Africa Aid

2005-07-05T10:36:00.000-04:00

It looks like Bush is coming around on his position for Africa Aid and offering to increase funding.

Africa is a continent that needs a lot of support from the world's economic powers. It is the globe's biggest source of human suffering. Relief of suffering - helping those who cannot help themselves - is the responsibility of everyone. This is a central Christian value, but it is also a basic human value.

This sounds idealistic and unpractical. It is. But there are many practical justifications as well. The article I linked above has good examples. Providing aid to Africa can be part of the fight against terrorism. It can be part of the quest for oil. It can be a source of new medicines and prevention of new diseases or spreading of existing ones. But even if there were no practical reasons, aid for third world countries is a good thing to do. Such aid could easily become a source of endless spending. But if we can figure out a way to do it right and give it proper attention and priority, it's worth it.

Bush Supreme Court

2005-07-05T09:12:00.000-04:00

Bush and his Sureme Court vacancy weighs heavy on my heart. I pray for him to find a candidate who will serve God's will wisely and carefully, while also serving to make the country the best it can be. I believe a judge should be neither right wing nor left wing, neither conservative nor liberal. It is a judges job to be unbiased and impartial and to decide each case individually first by what will best serve the individual and the country now and in the future, then by Constitutional principles, then by personal principles (which are often influenced by spiritual beliefs).

This article summarizes what Bush has made known publicly about what he is looking for in a Supreme Court nominee. He says he wants someone who will "strictly interpret the Constitution" and "not use the bench to write social policy." That's politician speak for "I only want someone that intreprets the Constitution in the same way I do." Both sides will use almost that same language and when they do, they are saying exactly the opposite of what the words indicate- they are saying they do want such a person, as long as that person shares their views.

Abortion is closely related to Supreme Court nominee issues. It shouldn't be, but it is. So here's my two cents. I believe abortion is wrong. I would never have an abortion or encourage anyone else to have an abortion. But it should not be illegal. It should not be decided by federal legislators or Supreme Court justices. It is a very complex issue, and both the Pro-Life movement and the Pro-Choice movement miss the point. I believe O'Conners view is that if the child is viable (which I intrepret as able to survive on its own outside the womb), it should be protected. Otherwise, the woman's choice has to be protected. I may be mistaken in thinking that is O'Conners view, but it is certainly mine. The Pro-Choice people need to remember that a woman is deciding not only what to do with her own body, but also that of the child within her. We don't know at what point that child becomes a human life, but I believe that it occurs around week 20. Therefore, I believe first trimester abortions should not be considered murder. Third trimester abortions are the taking of a human life, I don't see how anyone could reasonably deny that. The location of the magic line that divides between human life and an organized growth of cells growing inside a woman's body has to be decided by each individual based on their own personal moral convictions.

Minority Protection

2005-07-01T13:11:00.000-04:00

On the O'Reilly Factor the other day, he spouted some poll where 75% of people polled agreed with him. The guest was against the issue and said the Bill of Rights was created in large part to protect the minority. O'Reilly discarded that argument, saying the majority should be respected. My response - it is one of government's primary responsibilities to protect the interests of All People. Since the minority needs protection the most, it is government's job to provide that protection. Majority rules is the position of last resort to be used only when no consensus is possible. Our system of government will always suffer from that fatal flaw- majority rules.

Republican Principles

2005-07-01T12:01:00.000-04:00

I am reading Grand Old Party as research for an essay comparing Republicans, Democrats, and Biblical Christian Values.

Here's what I've found so far. First of all, the party during the time of Lincoln and the Civil War had nothing in common with the Republican Party as we know it today or even by 1870. It was formed as an opposition party against the Democrats on really nothing more than an anti-slavery platform. Until Reconstruction became unpopular, it was pretty much nothing more than anti-slavery,anti-South and anti-Democrat.

After 1870, several basic principles emerged that are still present today.

Business - Republican and Big Business have always been closely related and supportive of each other

Moral Superiority - It has always been a party driven by Protestant Christian values. Even during periods of high Republican corruption, the party is driven by the believe that they have moral superiority over any other party or group of people. Therefore, it is willing to legislate it's values to force it's moral values on the Nation.

Powerful Federal Government - Since its origins, the Republican Party hasn't hesitated to make government as big as it needed to be to support their positions. This is closely related to their Moral Superiority. Although I haven't gotten to the Reagan era in my studies, I think the small government propaganda of that era was just false advertising.

Hypocrisy - Like many politicians and religious people, Republicans suffer from a belief that they are always right, even when they're clearly not. They refuse to admit or or are unable to see wrong in their own ranks. They often create a false worldview to justify words and actions (ie Trickle Down Economics,Iraq war).

Blind Loyalty - Republicans often form a united front where party platform matters more than individual values. Patriotism is often the form this blind loyalty takes, as Republican moral superiority leads them to belief they are the moral compass of the Nation. A group of politicians agreeing to stay united can be viewed as a strength, but in my experience this undermines the values held by the Founders and instilled in the Nation.

It seems Democrats have always stuggled with Morals and Ethics more so then Republicans. Neither party is perfect in this department of course, but it does seem to be a trend that contributes to Republican moral superiority.

O'Conner Supreme Court

2005-07-01T11:02:00.000-04:00

The worst has happened, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The most important member for fairness and balance, Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement. With that announcement, no matter who Bush nominates to replace her will result in an Extremely biased Court. Any hope of fair Supreme Court judgment will become almost non-existent. Bush will cement his dictatorial hold over all three branches of the government. In this case, the hold will outlast his Presidency. If any other justices retire, it will make it even worse. We can pretty much write off any hope of fairness and reason emerging from the Supreme Court. This country is heading in a very dark direction. Only a miracle could prevent the ungodly conservative movement from controlling our country.

Slow News Day

2005-06-28T12:01:00.000-04:00

Not much going on today. I hate my job and am looking forward to a 6 day weekend.

Leave a comment to let me know you were here.

Supreme Court

2005-06-27T14:49:00.000-04:00

I doubt Rehnquist will announce retirement while Court is in Session. But we might hear this week. Or just after the holiday. I don't think his retirement will have much impact. Bush will most likely appoint someone similar and not much will change. I worry a little about Scalia as Chief Justice, but still think not much will change.

I hope Bush doesn't nominate another John Bolton. In that case, he nominated a guy he knew was going to be controversial. I often wonder if he nominated him just to see what he can get away with in this administration that flirts with dictatorship. From his perspective, the UN is such a worthless body that he might as well send Bozo the Clown as Ambassador. (I have to admit I somewhat agree with that sentiment, the UN has been a joke since it's inception.)

I hope that he takes a Supreme Court nomination more seriously. I think he will. But even if he does, I'm still worried about what kind of person he might dig up. I really worry if he has to fill more than one position. He could so easily send this country further down the spiral he is currently sending it.

The whole filibuster thing - I think judicial appointments should automatically require 60% majority, especially for the Supreme Court. We are talking about a lifetime appointment here. Majority rules is a crappy way to run a country, but that's what we have. By requiring all SC nominees to be approved by 60% majority, that should encourage presidents to appoint more well rounded justices. I'm pretty sure I would feel this way even if it was my party in the majority.

Church and State

2005-06-27T12:50:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court ruled on the Ten Commandments cases. Actually, given how divided the court was and the results of the cases, I would say they didn't really decide anything. They basically said it's OK to display the Ten Commandments, but be careful where and how you do it. In other words, it has to be decided on a case by case basis. Makes sense to me.

The separation of Church and State is such a delicate thing in this country. It's kind of silly really, but it's something we're stuck with because of the way things are set up. We are a country founded by protestants who were compelled to include religious freedom provisions because of the nature of the revolution. Now we are stuck in this limbo where we pretend to be a government free of religious persecution but in reality are intolerant of non Christian religions. In other words, hypocrisy is a fundamental principle of American politics and has been since its inception.

I do not say that to be negative. It is just a fact of life that people need to admit exists. So how does that translate to practical real life decisions? As the Supreme Court said, it's a case by case decision. Personally I think the approach consistent with the founders intent and modern logic is to make sure all religions are present and given equal treatment. You can only place Ten Commandments up if you also put up other religious basic principles. Our schools should not avoid teaching religion, they should teach All religion. A class on Comparative Religion that explains all of the world's major religions and encourages tolerance and open minds should be required in every public school.

Jesus is a Liberal

2005-06-27T10:28:00.000-04:00

I feel that Biblical teachings and the values of Jesus make it quite clear that Jesus is a liberal and that liberal causes and passions should be Christian causes and passions. I also believe Republican values are for the most part contrary to Christian values.

This is a good article. It paints a pretty accurate picture of American Politics. The article was found at this site, check out the rest of the articles and read the explanation on the the home page as well.

The Price of (Replacing) Oil

2005-06-27T08:30:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite columnists is Tamim Ansary. He has written several articles for Encarta that I found incredibly educational and interesting.

His latest is one on what would happen if the oil economy was replaced by a new source of energy. The Price of (Replacing) Oil

His conclusion:
Indeed, the only thing worse than finding an alternative to oil will be not finding one. Because whether or not we have a replacement, fossil fuels will run out. And the more sudden it is--this inevitable transition to the post-oil world--the more cataclysmic it will probably be.

Something to keep in mind.

Natalee Holloway

2005-06-24T08:42:00.000-04:00

Apparently I'm not the only one that thinks the Fox News Aruba thing is a non-story. There is no reason for the ridiculous coverage of the story. It is a very uninteresting story. Let me know when they solve the case. Until then, stop covering it!!!

Here's and excellent link, the case is solved!

Social Security

2005-06-23T08:55:00.000-04:00

Bush is running into opposition even within his own party on his Social Security agenda. I think everyone agrees social security reform is needed. I also think most people agree that Bush is pushing for too much, too fast. I don't understand this push for privatization. I'm not necessarily against it, but it has to be very carefully constructed and most likely phased in very gradually. Bush even admits that they will not bring solvency to the program. So why push for it? I just don't get it. Why doesn't Bush break it into two parts? Fix the solvency first and then deal with the private accounts. Instead, he resorts to partisan name calling and blames the Democrats for blocking it.

I think something that should be done immediately is remove the salary cap that is part of the formula. Not just raise it, remove it. I don't understand why it's there to begin with. Remove it and get the rich to pay for the poor's retirement.

Republicans are proposing putting the current social security surpluses into private accounts. This proposal and removing salary caps both seem like obvious non controversial changes.

I do think that Social Security is supposed to be a safety net. It should not be something everyone gets. It should be a welfare program. It's goal should be to prevent people from living in poverty after they are no longer able to work. I also think that the taxes currently set aside Should be gradually transitioned to a 401k style mandated investment plan. By the time I retire in 2050, I would expect no social security payments because as an upper middle class wage earner, I don't qualify. I would expect the required investments in funds with high level of government oversight would be supplemented with voluntary 401k funds to provide a comfortable retirement. That's my gut feeling. I reserve the right to change my position upon further review of the facts. :)

The New York Times editorial that got me going is here.

Flag Burning

2005-06-23T08:28:00.000-04:00

The House passed a Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. For a very good explanation of why that's a bad idea, watch the movie An American President. Towards the end, Michael Douglas makes an excellent speech defending his positions, including being in favor of flag burning. Burning a flag is a very important right that needs to be preserved. It is the right of an oppressed group to send a clear cut signal that they are unhappy with their government. That is a right that must be preserved. Banning it is yet another step towards the totalitarian state.

I must admit, I have very little use for patriotism. I'm not going to be loyal to my country, my company, or any organization just because I'm a member. I think it everyone's responsibility and duty to question any organization, especially ones they belong to. Patriotism is a blind loyalty that is used when reason fails. Like most things, that in and of itself is not bad, but how it is used makes it a good or bad thing. When it's used to add emotion to an appropriate cause, it's a good thing. When it's used to accuse those who disagree with the majority, it is a very bad thing. Most of the time when someone is accused of being unpatriotic, the accuser is basically admitting they are wrong and they have no arguments left.

On a slightly related point - can we please replace the National Anthem? It's a silly little poem inspired by a battle set to the tune of a British drinking song. Doesn't sound like anything any country would want as a national anthem. It contains nothing to be proud of. Not to mention it is a just plain awful song, no matter who sings it. I vote for God Bless America. Now that's a song that stirs up loyalty and pride.

Climate Change

2005-06-21T10:51:00.000-04:00

Congress is working on legislation to fight global warming. It looks encouraging. And of course Bush wants to spend as little as possible on the legislation - he's very consistent in his abuse of the environment.

When Bush talks about the Energy Bill, he usually talks about increasing the supply, as most politicians do. Although the supply side is important, it would be much more productive to focus on the demand side. Dump tons of money into alternatives to fossil fuel dependent industries. Make cars running on fossil fuels illegal at some point in the future. Find some other way to make plastic that isn't dependent on petroleum. The goal is to make it so that by 2020 (to pick a date) no one even wants oil. For example, BMW has already created a car that has an internal combustion engine that runs on liquid hydrogen. It's a race car and there are a lot of issues around producing and distributing the liquid hydrogen, but that's an excellent direction to go.

Trouble in Paradise?

2005-06-21T10:19:00.000-04:00

I don't have cable at home, so the only way I can watch the news channels is in the cafeteria at work. It's always set to Fox News, which is why I'm complaining about it all the time.

Fox News is continously covering this Aruba girl case. I don't get it. Who Cares? I was able to watch CNN in the gym and they covered it properly- brief update at the end of the show. Fox opens every show with it and dedicates half the show to it. Why would we care that much about a missing girl in Aruba? And they make Aruba look like this nasty place to stay away from. They have one major crime and the whole island is bad? Crimes like this happen every day all over the world. The United States has the worst crime rate in the developed world. Florida is ten times as worse then Aruba. It seems like all the worst news comes from Florida - that's a place to avoid. Florida is the troubled paradise, not Aruba.

Party of Lincoln

2005-06-21T09:46:00.000-04:00

I always get a chuckle when Republicans refer to their party as the Party of Lincoln. What they fail to realize, or choose to forget, is that both parties have changed significantly since then, even switching sides of the fence. If Lincoln were alive today, he would be a Democrat! After all, Illinois is a very blue state and Lincoln would have wanted to be involved with the party of the people.

I was inspired to write this after reading this post from Ann Althouse about John McCain. It refers to an interview asking whether McCain would run as an independent. He responds with the party of Lincoln line and also mentions Theodore Roosevelt. There's another guy who might be a Democrat as the parties are defined today. If McCain did run as President, I just might vote for him. He seems to be a pretty independent thinker, which is unusual in the partisan world of American politics.

Christian Voter

2005-06-20T14:14:00.000-04:00

The Christian voter today faces a dilemma. The Democratic Party shares his or her principles as taught in the Bible. (I hope to write an essay on that when I have to time to do the proper supporting research.) However, most of the Democrats that show up on the ballot do not adhere very closely to those principles or have significant character flaws. The Clintons are a prime example of this deficiency. Bill Clinton was an excellent president, but a horrible person by most standards, including Christian ones. He upheld Democrat principles and therefore created a strong country. His successor is the ultimate example of the Republicans - good person with principles that are destructive to the nation and contrary to biblical teachings. So the moral person faces a quandary - Does he vote for the person of questionable character who shares his principles and ideals or does he vote for the person of good character who will lead the country down the wrong path?

I voted for Gore with complete confidence - he appears to be a good person who would have lead us down a good path. I hope he runs again for President. I had less confidence with Kerry- I'm not completely convinced he's a good person and I am quite confident he is not a Christian. Even by his own words, he's Catholic, which means he's not Christian. But I voted for him because I knew Bush was leading us down the wrong path and I believe that he is not a good person. Christian maybe, but not good. At the very least, he's not qualified for the job.

Currently, the respective front runners appear to be Hillary Clinton and Condeleeza Rice. Aside from the incredible fact that that would guarantee a female president, this would be a morally tearing race. We know Hillary Clinton is a person of weak morals and religious values. In addition, she has an unpleasant personality. But she has a good head for leadership and politics and would probably put the country on the right path. Rice is a product of the flawed and anti-Christian values of the Republican Party. But she appears to be a good person, a smart person, a person of good credentials and as far as I know, strong morals. This race would be the ultimate example of the quandary I stated above.

I will pray (and hope that others join me) that Democrats will remember their roots, find a platform that will connect with the people, and (most importantly) attract good, moral people to it's senior ranks.

Howard Dean

2005-06-20T13:55:00.000-04:00

I find myself agreeing with Howard Dean almost every time I see a quote from him. I've shared a few in this Blog already. But he should have learned from his mistakes. Over the top behavior lost him the presidency and he still continues it today. Other Democrats are doing it as well. I think they are trying to emulate Bush's forthrightness. What they forget is that when Bush says something stupid, everyone forgives him because they know he's an idiot. Not to mention he already has the job. Democrats can't quite pull it off. Like with everything else, Democrats are at a loss.

War on Terror

2005-06-20T12:10:00.000-04:00

I hate the term War on Terror. The word war implies something that has a beginning and end. Like the "war on drugs", terror is not something you fight against for a fixed period of time. It is something that will ALWAYS exist. You can not fight a series of battles and expect it to go away. It requires constant vigilance, constant disruption of resources, and removal of leaders as they appear. But new terrorists will always appear - there will always be some issue that motivates a group of passionate people to feel the only way to achieve their goals is through violence. Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and George Washington are good examples of such people.

I also worry that the War on Terror is an excuse to keep us in perpetual war. Being in a state of war gives political leaders ability to do things they would never get away with normally. It is an important part of creating a totalitarian state, as seen in the novel 1984.

Iran

2005-06-20T12:08:00.000-04:00

The state run news network, aka Fox News, is starting to lay the groundwork for the next stage in Bush's foriegn agenda: war with Iran. They are suggesting that bin Laden may be in Iran. That's always an easy way to drum up support: say it's part of the revenge, er I mean, protection against the terrorists. And of course they deride the Iranian elections, although I will admit that part is true.

So any predictions on when Bush will declare war on Iran?

Why does he ignore North Korea? This is a country that without a doubt has all the symptoms that Iraq supposedly had - nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, powerful despot leader. Why do they conjure up and fabricate allegations of these things against one country to justify a war but ignore proven facts in another? My answer - Two Things: Oil and Islam. The Middle East has oil, which we want and need and it is the center of Islam, which will overtake the American state religion (Christianity) in the near future. Compared to those concerns, the administration feels no threat from North Korea.

Downing Street Memos

2005-06-20T11:04:00.000-04:00

I have seen plenty of things to suggest that Bush planned to invade Iraq since day one of his administration. He was just looking for justification to sell it to the American people. It's possible his administration organized September 11th to give Bush excuse for war. Although that's probably far fetched, I think it is a good possibility that they consciously or unconsciously ignored the intelligence leading up to 9/11 because they knew such an event would benefit their objectives.

So far, this has all been theories and suggestions. The Downing Street memos are the first evidence to support the theory. Here is one reporter's summary of the memos. The memos themselves are at: afterdowningstreet.org

By the way, I think it's interesting that I haven't seen any mention of these memos on Fox News (I don't watch it 24 hours a day, maybe I missed it.)

GW Bush

2005-06-20T10:45:00.000-04:00

George W Bush is probably one of the worst presidents this country has ever had. He's not necessarily a bad person, but he is without a doubt a bad president. Every single one of his policies is rash and destructive to the American way of life. His No Child Left Behind act does nothing but hold children back and remove good teachers because they happen to be poor test takers - not to mention it is not sufficiently funded (you can never spend too much money on education). He lead us into a war that was completely unjustified and did nothing to make this country more safe and secure. He shoves tax cuts down our throats even when it is so clearly not the correct course of action. (The whole trickle down economics theory has always been a line of BS used to justify cutting taxes for the rich who fill Republican coffers.) Every decision he ever makes has been the wrong one, or at least it seems. His current passion - social security - is the least objectionable of his actions. I want Social Security reform, but not by a proven screw up like GW.

I have no doubt that he truly is a reborn Christian for whom God is an important part of his life. I don't think anyone doubts that. But, like so many Christians, he fails to carry his faith into actions. He allows greed to be a stronger influence in his life than God - as seen by war against Iraq, oil drilling in Artic, and many other policies. An excellent example is his most recent relationship with Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister that stuck his neck out to help Bush is his quest for oil and vengeance. Blair is lobbying Bush for two things: poverty relief for Africa and climate change. Although I don't know the details about what Blair is fighting for, these are issues that a Christian should aggressively pursue. The Bible contains tons of references to feeding the hungry and being caretakers for the world. It doesn't say anything about attacking countries because they have a different political system then you.

World Trade Center

2005-06-20T10:21:00.000-04:00

Here's an article about the WTC collapse I found on How Stuff Works.

It explains how it's extremely unlikely that the jets alone would have caused the collapse and that only a controlled demolition fits all the facts. I don't know what I personally believe, but I'm most comfortable with the official story that the planes took them out without assistance. I think Allah/God, whichever name you prefer, had a direct hand in it and caused the collapse. Either to answer the prayers of followers of Islam or to wake up the complacency of American Christians - or both.

However, I definitely think a coordinated attack on our own soil by our own people is possible, even plausible. That sounds like something Cheney or Rumsfeld would advocate to encourage the totalitarian state we are currently working towards. I don't think Bush himself knew. He is a puppet of stronger forces within his administration. He's not smart enough to comprehend such a subtle plan. He's not smart enough to do his job at all, but I digress. I do believe that Bush's faith is real, but like most Christians, his faith has little influence on his actions.

Bad News

2005-06-18T20:30:00.000-04:00

Our fears have been realized. This morning, my wife started bleeding, similar to a period. This is what happened last time we had a miscarriage, so naturally we were worried. We called the doctor and she said these things can happen and don't worry about it. When a 10 cm long blood clot came out, we called the doctor again. She said not to worry, it can happen. This was a Saturday, so the office was closed. She said we could go to the emergency room for an ultrasound or wait until Monday. Since there was nothing they could do either way, we decided to wait until Monday. Then, when we were down the street at a community potluck, my wife had to go back to the house to go to the bathroom. She came back and told me she was pretty sure she had passed the baby. When I saw what had come out of her, I had to agree. It was a sac, about the size of a thumb and I thought maybe I saw the dark spots of the developing eyes inside the sac.

We told our eight year old right away. He took it relatively well. He was sad and kept saying that he couldn't believe he had lost a second brother or sister. We told him that we would bring the baby to the doctor and they would try to find out what happened. He said maybe they could make him alive again, but we firmly told him that the baby was dead. We told him no one knows why these things happen and that it's nobody's fault, no one did anything wrong. It just happens.

None of us cried, but we all came close. Our friends and relatives, whom we told over the phone, cried. My wife's favorite theory is that her body rejects the babies as foreign matter. I think she likes that theory because that would mean there are medicines that can fix it. My favorite theory is that there is something about my chromosomes combined with hers that is producing offspring that nature or God naturally allows to die because that is what is best. I think our primary reaction is confusion: Why is this happening? What is God's Plan? Why does he allow us to get pregnant at all if he's going to take it away?

Terri Shiavo pt 2

2005-06-16T08:24:00.000-04:00

The New York Times came out with an editorial on the autopsy results. It says the politicians should be embarrassed. I think the politicians and the family should not only be embarrassed, but ashamed of themselves. Maybe even guilty of criminal conduct, although I can't imagine what the crime would be.

The autopsy results released yesterday should embarrass all the opportunistic politicians and agenda-driven agitators who meddled in Terri Schiavo's right-to-die case. There is no evidence that Ms. Schiavo's husband did any of the awful things attributed to him, and no hope that her greatly damaged brain would ever have recovered. The courts were right to conclude that she should be allowed to die after 15 years in what her doctors described as a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

Here's the link, but I don't think it will be active for very long:
Autopsy on the Shiavo Tragedy

Retirement

2005-06-15T13:55:00.000-04:00

I like this article written by the Instapundit.

It points out that lifespans are going to continue to get longer, making social security funding an increasing problem. He suggests discarding the retirement age altogether and having people work until unable, at which point disability benefits could kick in. Sounds good to me.

By the way, as a person in my twenties, I don't consider Social Security part of my retirement plans. I expect to have to provide for my own retirement. The program should probably be available as a safety net, but no one who lives above the poverty line should be entitled to benefits.

Personal Accounts would have to be handled very carefully. I'm not oppossed to gradually phasing them in for people under fifty. Basically a mandated 401k. Maybe it should be on top of existing tax?? If Bush has anything to do with changes, he'll bungle it like he does everything else and probably bankrupt the program altogether.

Terry Shiavo

2005-06-15T12:15:00.000-04:00

The autopsy results are in for Terry Shiavo. Read Here As I expected, it confirmed she had very little brain left and no evidence of spousal abuse. For all intents and purposes, she died fifteen years ago. Hopefully her soul departed then as well.

This case amazed and disturbed me, as it did most people. I know if I'm ever in that state or anything resembling it, I want the plug pulled. Fox News and other conservatives were spinning that this was an issue of life. But as a spiritual person, I felt the only moral thing to do was remove the feeding tube. As far as I am concerned, her family prevented her from going to heaven and being with God for fifteen years. That's the atrocity, that's the wrong of the case. Her parents were being incredibly selfish and made her husband fight in the court system to do the right thing. The court system carefully reviewed all of the facts and came to the proper conclusion. Anyone who wanted that tube kept in is going to have to face their relationship with God, I suspect it's not up to par.

Guatanamo Bay

2005-06-14T09:53:00.000-04:00

There has been buzz to shut down Guatanamo Bay, the place where the US likes to stick prisoners for shady purposes. I don't see the point of that. I have no doubt that human rights are being violated there. I have no doubt that the Koran is being abused in addition to prisoner abuse. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being naive. The United States is far from the perfect saint Americans seem to think it is. The argument being made is that the existence of such a place gives the terrorist a recruiting tool. That's true, but shutting it down won't help relieve that. Shutting it down would make it more difficult to track human rights abuses. Instead of it happenning mostly in one place, it will happen all over the world. And the final word: sometimes it is necessary to do unpleasant things to protect the general population. With a designated place to carry out those unpleasant things, we can keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't go too far.

Pregnancy News

2005-06-14T09:41:00.000-04:00

We told our eight year old son about the new baby on the way Sunday. We were avoiding telling him because we are worried about miscarriage. But with him out of school, my wife was having a hard time keeping the secret from him. We told him it was a secret until the fourth of july, but he can't keep a secret - he tells everyone he sees, even complete strangers.

Jackson Verdict

2005-06-14T09:38:00.000-04:00

Well I guess I'm not a good jury predictor. I am disappointed he didn't get at least one conviction. I think it's pretty clear that his behavior is borderline if not outright illegal. If he would have had to face one conviction, he Might have had to face the fact that maybe he was doing something wrong. Instead, he's probably going to use it to get a brief career spurt.

Personal Page

2005-06-10T21:21:00.000-04:00

Here's my Personal Page, if anyone is interested. It contains a lot of stuff from 1998. Eventually, I intend to put more essays and stories out there.
http://www.geocities.com/dorkchatter/personal.html

Republicans

2005-06-10T18:44:00.000-04:00

Howard Dean is getting a little bit of heat for saying the following about Republicans: "not very friendly to different kinds of people, they are a pretty monolithic party ... it's pretty much a white, Christian party." Read Article
I agree with that assessment, but I've always wondered why. Why do Christians tend to be Republican? It is just because they agree with them on the abortion and gay marriage issues? Surely, people wouldn't be so narrowly focused would they? (note sarcasm) Is it because Republicans are more comfortable with religious language? Is it because Republicans and many Christians have a significant flaw in common: hypocrisy?
I am a Christian. I also happen to be white. I am actually more devout than most. I don't accept everything the Church teaches, but I know the Bible well and have most of the knowledge. More importantly, I can feel God's presence every moment. I have a very close relationship with Him. He guides my life, my actions, and my words. Because of that, I am completely mystified as to why anyone that calls themselves a Christian could also call themselves a Republican. The Republican values and the values of the Christian as taught in the bible are directly opposed to each other. (not completely of course, nothing is ever black and white.) Even more clear is the ties between Democrat values and Christian values: fight against poverty (Bush isn't willing to pay for that), protect basic needs of individuals, turn the other cheek, etc.

The only conclusion I can reach is that the Democrats are going through a slump where they can't find good people to support their causes. When the front runner of your party is someone like Hillary Clinton, you know your party is in a bad spot.

Personal Note

2005-06-10T18:17:00.000-04:00

I plan to use this blog to share an important event in my life: the pregnany and birth of my child. My wife is currently pregnant. She's due January 20th, so she's in her 8th week. We haven't told the families yet. We want to tell them in person, and we're going to do it July 4th weekend. We lost one about a year ago at 17 weeks, so we are a bit nervous about it. We've been trying since we got married (it will be five years in August).

Fox News

2005-06-10T18:12:00.000-04:00

I really dislike the Fox News Channel. They should not be allowed to call themselves a news channel, they are an entertainment network that presents sensationalized bits loosely based on current events. And they definetely can not be considered Fair and Balanced. That is the most atrocious thing about the channel. They claim to be Fair and Balanced, but are so obviously not. They have such a right wing conservative bias that it's ridiculous. Everything about the channel, from the shows they put on, the anchor's personalities, to the stories they cover screams Republican bias. That doesn't bother me, but don't claim to be Fair and Balanced and then act unfairly and unbalanced with every opportunity.

Anchors: All of the anchors, with the possible exception of Brit Hume, are very right wing biased. They just leak it from every pore. When they editorialize, it's obviously biased. That's fine, that's what editorial is suppossed to be. But every anchor has the same bias. Doesn't sound very balanced to me.

Format: All of their shows are slanted towards Republican values. For instance, they place much more emphasis on business then CNN. They love putting on oppossing pundits and having them argue on the air (very annoying and unpleasant). When they do, they almost always steer the interview in favor of the Republican, conservative, or right wing pundit.

Stories: They prefer covering stories that favor the Republicans. There is no such thing as in depth coverage on Fox News. They never cover anything for more than 2 minutes. Even when they are talking about the same story all day, it's just the same 2 minute blurb over and over again. When the Terry Shiavo thing was going on, I was stuck in a room with that channel in the background. I couldn't change it. Despite the fact that they talked about it constantly for 8 hours, they never once went into coverage deeper than the 2 minute high level summary. And their bias also showed: they made a complicated, convoluted issue look pretty one sided. They seemed to condem anyone that thought letting her die was the most moral thing and spirtiually responsible thing to do (my position by the way). And they seemed obssessed with making the judicial system the bad guy, when it was actually doing its job very well.

Michael Jackson Case

2005-06-10T17:37:00.000-04:00

My prediction: 1 or 2 convictions, definitely the alcohol charges. Spend a couple of months in jail and then house arrest like they did for Martha Stewart. And most likely civil cases to follow, which is probably what the mother was really working towards.

Jackson is basically a guy that has some serious psychological issues. He probably should be in a mental institution. Who knows, maybe while he's in prison they'll end up transferring him to a mental institution. He is way past his prime, he only stays in the media because the media likes weirdos. A coworker posted a joke news item that said Jackson was abducted by aliens several years ago and replaced with an alien. I almost could believe it...

Senate Filibuster Controversy

2005-05-20T21:10:00.000-04:00

This is not about Judicial Nominees. This is about an incompetent President choosing poor candidates. This is about the Democrats trying to stand up for themselves against an overaggressive Republican majority. This is about abuse of power. This is an excellent example of how the two party system is not the ideal system. If any of the candidates deserve the job, it's too bad they got caught in the middle.