Cynical Optimism

2008-02-04T11:16:00.000-05:00

A little something I whipped up here...

And from Mark Levin here.

McCain's Electability [Mark R. Levin]
I wanted to post a sober thought. If McCain is the Republican nominee, how will he position himself as a candidate? This weekend Obama already telegraphed the Democrat strategy by picking apart McCain's inconsistencies on taxes and immigration. If McCain moves to the right during the general election to try to appeal to more conservatives, Obama will be able to portray him as a disingenuous flip-flopper. If McCain moves further left to try and blunt those charges, he will continue to alienate a portion of the base. What is he going to run on? If he runs on the surge, how many Democrats and Independents will that attract? Is he going to run against earmarks and for a balanced budget? I don't think that's going to resonate with too many voters. The Democrats will be talking about saving the poor, sick and elderly, in the tradition of FDR. McCain will be talking like Herbert Hoover. And since McCain is running on his personal story, let me suggest that neither McCain's age nor temperament will be ignored by the Democrats. Do we ignore Obama's age and Hillary's temperament?

So, I would encourage Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, David Brooks, VDH, et al, to pause and reflect about what they're urging Republicans and conservatives to embrace. I don't think John McCain can win in November because of his record, not "unfair" criticism, talk radio, or what have you. If the issue is electability based on current polls, that's an absurd position. Six months ago Rudy was the inevitable Republican nominee and Hillary was the inevitable Democrat nominee.

He's got a real point here. Who is McCain going to court? He has no natural base because he's spent the last 8 years alienating them. As for his inevitability and potential for competing in the general election, you'd think they would have learned their lessons from Giuliani and Hillary already. And if I'm not mistaken, Kerry beat Bush in early polls too. That worked out well.

I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself...

2008-01-30T09:00:00.000-05:00

Based on the results from Florida, this post by Michael Graham sums things up pretty well…

It's All Over – Michael Graham

Assuming there is no shocking revelation or health issue, the GOP nomination is over. Conservatives need to start practicing the phrase "Nominee presumptive John McCa....."

Sorry, I can't say it. Not yet.

But it's true. When the campaign comes here to Massachusetts on February 5th, I'll proudly cast my vote for any option on the GOP ballot other than You-Know-Who. But it will be a futile gesture. Mr. "1/3rd Of The GOP Primary Vote" is going to be the nominee.

He's going to win the big, left-leaning states on Tuesday. Huckabee will stay in and deny Romney a one-on-one contest for GOP voters that Captain Amnesty would almost certainly lose. The result: More wins for He Who Must Not Be Named, and fewer wins for Romney—regardless of delegate count.

Florida has launched the one ship that Romney's money and Rush Limbaugh cannot stop: The U.S.S. Inevitable. It's gonna happen. Even if there were a realistic pathway to stop him, the media have seized control of the process now and are declaring him inevitable. He is, after all, the favorite son of the New York Times.

So it is over. Finished. In November, we'll be sending out our most liberal, least trustworthy candidate vs. to take on Hillary Clinton—perhaps not more liberal than Barack Obama, but certainly far less trustworthy.

And the worst part for the Right is that McCain will have won the nomination while ignoring, insulting and, as of this weekend, shamelessly lying about conservatives and conservatism.

You think he supported amnesty six months ago? You think he was squishy on tax cuts and judicial nominees before? Wait until he has the power to anger every conservative in America, and feel good about it.

Every day, he dreams of a world filled with happy Democrats and insulted Republicans. And he is, thanks to Florida, the presidential nominee of the Republican party.

And on that note, I'm off to climb into a bottle of Bushmill's. It's going to be a LONG nine months.

Huckabee's a Democrat

2008-01-10T22:34:00.001-05:00

He raised hope... Raising taxes is raising hope. Evev when the question said he raised taxes, he tries to contend that he lowered taxes. That's a lie.

And he said he made the highways of his state accessible to every kid. I'm going to come out with a radical position: keep our kids off the highway!

Ron Paul on the Mideast

2008-01-10T22:11:00.001-05:00

He advocates total abandonment of the Mideast which would end really badly for Israel. He's out of touch. But he seems to have pretty good crowd support...

McCain's burka and one-way ticket joke was really strange... More of a laugh line in a stump speech; didn't work in a debate.

Second Guessing The Iranian Incident

2008-01-10T21:57:00.001-05:00

Is stupid. Why does Brit keep belaboring this? Several candidates made good point but the whole question is stupid...

Ron Paul's Supporters

2008-01-10T21:51:00.001-05:00

Many of Ron Paul's supporters are nut jobs. 9/11 Truthers, white supremacists, etc . Ron Paul has failed to adequately distanced himself from these supporters. Again, when given a chance, he refused. I do NOT believe Dr. Paul holds these positions but his continued refusal to condemn these people is wrong.

Reagan

2008-01-10T21:46:00.000-05:00

I like Reagan and all that. But he's not perfect. Just because Reagan did or didn't do something doesn't mean it's right.

Romney and Fred on Reagan

2008-01-10T21:33:00.001-05:00

Great answer on the Reagan Coalition by Romney. That's what he needs to do; inspire optimism and inspire.

Fred just SLAMMED Huckabee (to applause). GREAT answer.

Huckabee

2008-01-10T21:30:00.001-05:00

Seems to be off tonight. His answers have been stunted and the likeability seems to be gone. Maybe he's just not comfortable talking about him representing the Reagan coalition (as he should be).

Fred Thompson

2008-01-10T21:27:00.001-05:00

Solid answer from Fred. He said things that weren't necessarily popular, but are true. Like low income people probably don't need a tax cut...

Tax Cuts Raise Revenue

2008-01-10T21:23:00.005-05:00

This is established! The Bust tax cuts led to RECORD GOVERNMENT REVENUES. Read that again. Giuliani's right, cut the right taxes and you raise revenue. Cutting spending is critical.

McCain's straight talk is turning a little. Apparently now he supports the Bush tax cuts. Why didn't he do this originally?

It's the Economy, Stupid...

2008-01-10T21:23:00.003-05:00

First question in the South Carolina debate is on the economy. This is where Romney needs to hit it out of the park. The voters of Michigan are listening.

McCain's rebuttal was good. He's right, there are jobs that have left Michigan that aren't coming back. Props to Romney for saying he'll cut taxes but point to McCain.

Ron Paul is Unelectable...

2008-01-10T21:23:00.001-05:00

You can't talk about the Gold Standard, Austrian Economic Theory and Artificially Lowered Interest Rates and win... Even if you're not as nutty as he is...

McCain Cutting Pork

2008-01-10T21:22:00.003-05:00

If McCain can cut pork so well, how come he hasn't used his bipartisan strength in the Senate to do that now???

McCain Cutting Pork

2008-01-10T21:22:00.001-05:00

If McCain can cut pork so well, how come he hasn't used his bipartisan strength in the Senate to do that now???

More Trouble for the Mid-East Peace Process

2008-01-10T17:34:00.001-05:00

Canaanites Demand Place in Mideast Peace Talks

by Joe Bob Briggs

The Wittenburg Door, 8 Jan 2008

As President Bush pressed for more intensive Middle East peace talks and dispatched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region to propose boundaries for a possible settlement, 27 additional nationalities asserted land claims in what is traditionally known as Palestine.

"We refuse the imperialist names of Palestine and/or Israel," said Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General, recently hired to represent the various claimants, including people calling themselves Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. "The proper name is Canaan."

Clark held the press conference at a site three kilometers east of Bethel called Et-Tell -- literally "the ruin heap" -- chosen because it's all that's left of the royal city of Ai, where Israeli warlord Joshua allegedly ordered the "smiting" of 12,000 men and the burning of the entire metropolis, then hanged the king, then buried the king's corpse, then covered the corpse with a mound of stones, like a monument.

"And there's never been an apology," said Clark, standing next to a woman who described herself as a descendant of Horam king of Gezer.

"I wasn't in Ai, and neither were my ancestors," said the woman, Yilla Og-chephirah, "but this is where the bloodlust started, and it didn't get any better -- we all know what happened in Gezer, not to mention Kirjathjearim. Before these people showed up, my family didn't even like Kirjathjearimites, but going through that kind of hell kind of draws you together. In my opinion, all the Canaanites are the same now."

Holding up placards reading "Imperialists Out of Canaan Now" and "Love Israel? Take Interstate 56 South to Egypt," the various groups issued a list of demands ranging from monetary compensation to war-crimes trials to "right of return" laws that in some cases would require the unearthing of cities like Hazor, Madon, Shimron, and Achshaph.

Especially incensed are the former inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, and Beeroth, who all demand "slave reparations" for what they claim was centuries of work as "hewers of wood and drawers of water." ("It was ridiculous," said their representative, Zolfikar Soweda. "I mean, how much wood and water did they need? You'd think people who knew how to make bricks out of straw would have a little sympathy, you know.")

"The bottom line here," said Clark, "is that sometime in the 12th century BC, all these peace-loving people were driven from their land, chopped up with swords, robbed, looted, burned, except for -- get this -- the family of a hooker! What kind of sadists would do this and then, for their own amusement, rescue this prostitute and her family so they could laugh about it later? It's disgusting."

Clark said he would welcome any overtures from the American State Department, the Israeli Foreign Ministry, or the Palestinian authorities, but there were some things that were not negotiable. "First, the original aggression must be addressed for what it is -- sustained terrorism -- -and an apology must be proffered. Second, Israel needs to return to the pre-1200 borders, which would be, I don't know, wandering around somewhere, we'll figure it out, they can have something in Sinai. And third, everyone must recognize the right of self-determination of the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites and the Hivites. The Hivites are especially upset because they tried to make peace with these people."

Spokesmen for Israel, the United States and the Palestinians all declined comment, but sources inside the American State Department said they had been in touch with the Anakims, the last Canaanite people to be eviscerated during Israel's extended military campaigns, and confidential sources inside those talks said most of the Canaanites would release all of their claims in return for being allowed to use Canaanite archaeological sites for casinos.

My Dream Administration

2008-01-10T17:17:00.001-05:00

President: Mitt Romney

Pretty obvious. If you want to know why, see here.

Vice-President: Fred Thompson

OK, confession time. You could swap these and I wouldn’t be upset; both good guys. I think Thompson provides Romney something he badly needs; credentials in the South (and vice-versa). I get the feeling that a lot of people in the South are afraid of a northeastern Republican and I think Thompson could provide some serious credibility with Conservatives in the South.

Secretary of Defense: Duncan Hunter

His experience in the military and in Congress would serve him well as Secretary of Defense. There is no doubt in my mind, with Duncan Hunter, we would have a military prepared for the challenges that lay ahead.

Secretary of State: John Bolton

One big reason? Sticking it to the Democrats. Don’t want him to go to the UN? Fine. We’ll send him directly to Iran… While ordinarily I’m not in favor of negotiating with Iran, I’m fine if Bolton wants to go. Seriously, John Bolton is just the man for this job. Or we can keep Condi if she wants to stay; I have no problem with her either.

Secretary of Homeland Security: Tom Tancredo

This man will seal the borders. The fact that he looks like a detective from some 70’s cop show is just a bonus.

National Security Advisor: Rudy Giuliani

I may have qualms with Rudy as President, but I have no qualms with Rudy as NSA

Attorney General: Ted Poe

This former judge and founder of the Congressional Victims’ Rights Caucus is a principled man of integrity who would bring a no-nonsense approach to AG.

Bonus Appointments:

Secretary of Agriculture: Charles Bronson

Gotcha… While he looks nothing like (and considerably softer than) the tough guy actor Charles Bronson, it’d be great to have a tough sounding Commissioner of Agriculture. Not sure why, but somewhere down the line it’ll come in handy… It’s always reassuring to see Mr. Bronson’s name on the gas pumps here in Florida. I know if I ever have a problem with a bad pump, I can call on him and he’ll come beat the crap out of the offenders.

Press Secretary: Rush Limbaugh

Because watching the press have to deal with Limbaugh every day would instantly make White House Press Conferences prime-time viewing.

Secretary of Down-Home Folkisms: Mike Huckabee

I’m as big a fan of politicians who can relate to me as the next guy, but Huckabee takes it to a Clintonesque-level (Bill, not Hillary. Tears aren’t effective for me). He seems to have cut back on this lately (or maybe I’ve become oblivious to them) but back when the “Huckaboom” started they seemed to come two or three to a point.

Ambassador to New Hampshire: John McCain

McCain seems to have a special relationship with the people of New Hampshire so we’ll give him this (admittedly ceremonial) post. And who knows, it can’t hurt his run in 2012 or 2016…

Letter to the Editor on Romney

2008-01-10T08:44:00.000-05:00

I sent in a letter to the editor on Romney which was published in our local paper yesterday.

As the Jan. 29 primary draws closer, I’ve spent some time considering my choice for the Republican nomination. I see the 2008 election as critically important and so it’s equally crucial that the Republican Party field a strong, articulate nominee. What I’m looking for in a presidential candidate is a “complete conservative.”

By complete conservative, I mean both fiscally and socially conservative. A conservative should stand for three main things: fiscal conservatism, strong national defense and social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism consists of limited government, low taxes and eliminating wasteful spending. Strong national defense requires a strong, effective military and secure borders. Social conservatism is morals, supporting families and taking a stand for a culture of life, in all phases.

Mitt Romney is the only Republican candidate who has shown himself to be an effective communicator, a consistent conservative, strong on defense and who has strong leadership experience. His business executive background and mentality will serve him well as he works to control spending and government waste. His faith and values lead him to promote a culture of life and support a federal marriage amendment. Gov. Romney is a strong opponent of judicial activism and will appoint strict constructionists, not judges who will make policy or further curtail constitutional rights like the Second Amendment or the Kelo case.

Mitt Romney is also against amnesty for illegal immigrants and believes in enforcing our immigration laws and punishing “sanctuary cities” and employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Gov. Romney truly does have a “strategy for a stronger America.” He has the vision to lead and the ability to communicate and inspire others with that same vision. For that reason, I support Gov. Mitt Romney for president of the United States. For more information on Mitt’s vision for America, go to his website at www.mittromney.com.

A woman called our house at 8:00 this morning and thanked my wife for the letter. While I appreciate her thanks, I thought it rather strange (and a touch creepy) that she would look up our number in the phone book to call. Is it just me?

Where Does Romney Go From Here?

2008-01-08T22:28:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney HAS to win Michigan next week. He's from Michigan, his father was governor of Michigan, Michigan is critical. Should he lose Michigan, it's over. He won't win South Carolina (Goes to Huckabee) and the loss of momentum from three straight losses will create an avalanche, sucking support away from his campaign.

Where that support goes is another matter... Personally, there's no way I can go to Huckabee or McCain; leaving Thompson and Giuliani. Maybe this is the shot in the arm that Thompson needs. More likely, I think Romney supporters will break for Giuliani, but is he too far out of it? Combining Romney supporters with Thompson supporters in the South might provide a winning coalition against Huckabee. Otherwise, I think you'll see Huckabee win most the South and a few states in the midwest and west, a few going to Romney and Giuliani and the rest going to McCain. Not sure who the nominee would be between Huckabee and McCain (Probably McCain), but either way, I don't want them.

And I think there's a real likelihood Thompson drops out after tonight. So far, he's done miserably tonight. Last I saw, he had less than a thousand votes to McCain's 30,000 votes. He'll probably hold on until South Carolina, but whether he drops out now or then, if he endorses McCain, it's over...

For Romney to win, he is going to have to inspire. For all the tribute to Reagan this campaign, the only candidate that comes close to the optimism of Reagan is Obama. Romney CAN do that from time to time and is good at it. His latest emphasis seems to be "change" which isn't going to work. For one thing, Change just doesn't work for the Republicans as well as the Democrats. For one thing, there have been 8 years of Republicans in the White House. Romney's policies aren't radically different than current policies for the most part. He needs to inspire.

McCain

2008-01-08T21:25:00.001-05:00

"Came to New Hampshire to tell voters the truth." He sure wasn't telling the truth the other night in the debate about amnesty and taxes... He also "didn't go to Washington to go along to get along". He may not have gone there for that, but that's sure what he's done. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Leiberman... This is the same McCain people were seriously talking about running in 2004 AS A DEMOCRAT!!! How are people forgetting this?

He's the only speaker I've seen yet to read his speech. I would've thought he could memorize a ten minute victory speech...

Romney's Concession

2008-01-08T21:03:00.000-05:00

Good speech. He needs to stick with the inspiring message of optimism and dump the "policy wonk" talk apparently... People want something to believe in and his speech tonight was very good. Personally, I like specifics over the warm and fuzzy stuff, but I'm probably in the minority there... Don't get me wrong, I want to be inspired, but I also want some substance. But hey, that's just me.

Huckabee Comes in Third

2008-01-08T20:33:00.001-05:00

Pretty good showing for the Governor from Hope. 12% is much more respectable than the numbers he'd been showing a few weeks ago. About as good as he could expect, considering the dearth of Evangelicals.

Giuliani is mired in fourth, just 1% over nutty Ron Paul. He's done.

Early Democratic Returns...

2008-01-08T20:28:00.001-05:00

Are not looking good for Obama. That may change. But he's down 5 points. Hillary may be alive yet.

Early New Hampshire Returns

2008-01-08T20:22:00.001-05:00

Less than 15 minutes after the polls close, and they're already calling the Primary for McCain... Now McCain won New Hampshire in 2000 and lost the nomination, so it's not a huge shock, but coupling this Romney's loss in Iowa and McCain's strength in Michigan and this is bad news for Romney. Romney needs to close the gap (37/28) from where it stands now to claim any sort of "victory" out of here.

Lessons From Iowa

2008-01-08T12:58:00.001-05:00

I realize the world has moved on to New Hampshire, but I’m just now getting to Iowa, so there. A few quick lessons we learned from Iowa.

First, the Republican side. Romney’s in trouble. Huckabee is very unlikely to win the nomination because there isn’t the same proportion of evangelicals in most of the more populous states that he needs to win to get the delegates required for the nomination. The evangelicals are the ones who gave Huckabee the win. It’s looking like Romney’s going to lose New Hampshire to McCain. If he does, this will give McCain a boost going into Michigan, which will further snowball, positively for McCain and negatively for Romney. Mitt needs to start donating to Fred Thompson’s campaign so he’ll stay in the campaign as long as possible. If Fred drops out, he is widely expected to endorse McCain; more bad news for Romney. Obviously, Mitt Romney’s not out of it yet, but I do think he’s more wounded then most people seem to. I think Giuliani’s out, but I could be wrong. His “National Campaign” strategy worked well until we got into the actual primaries. People want to go with a winner. Once the results start coming in from the early primary states where Giuliani is coming in fourth or fifth, people are going to start abandoning Giuliani, continuing his recent slide…

As for the Democrats, this is a big win for Obama. To go into a state with no appreciable black population and beat the Clinton machine is no small feat. I really think his win in Iowa will sweep him to the nomination. If he wins New Hampshire, which I think he will, Clinton is done. She won’t drop out, but she’s finished and the Clinton era is over. Honestly, there’s not much else to say about the Democrats. I really think Obama has just about sewed things up with his win in Iowa and his resultant surge.

Progress? I Think Not...

2008-01-07T22:37:00.000-05:00

So I had another trip to Naples today... For Christmas, my wife got me a GPS unit. On the way over, it routed me pretty well although I had to ignore the polite, if somewhat insistent, lady a few times until she got things right. On the way home, I hit the "Home" button and away I went... This is a trip I've made probably close to a hundred times and could do in my sleep (I almost have a couple of times)... But the route my very intelligent GPS suggested was different. I thought I must have overlooked a quicker route home, so I figured I'd give it a shot. Long story short, I ended up getting home about an hour later than if I'd taken the route carefully selected by me while thumbing through an atlas in the 7-Eleven...

But it's OK, with Satelitte Radio, drive time is great. The BCS Championship Game was tonight, so I was looking forward to listening to the broadcast on the radio. One problem; Sirius didn't have the game... Why??? So I set off scanning the AM dial for the game. I've always loved AM at night. Briefly, I picked up 650 WSM out of Nashville, a station from Austin (traffic info was surprisingly unhelpful) and a couple of different Atlanta stations. Finally, I found a fuzzy station carrying the game. I couldn't tell what was crowd noise and what was static, but I caught most of the plays... Brent Mussburger drove me nuts, so it must have been clear enough. It's a wonder how we live with technology; an extra hour in the car and still no football game...

Pay It Forward - Starbuck's Style

2007-12-21T15:50:00.000-05:00

As much as I might disdain Starbuck’s, pretty cool story out of Washington State. Apparently one woman bought the drink of the person behind her. This person then bought the next person’s, etc, until over 1,000 people repeated it, many of them making additional donations to a Starbuck’s charity. Very cool and one of the things I like about this time of year.

Just a couple of things, though… The Starbuck’s is so busy that a continuous string of one thousand people came in? Wow, that’s a busy little store… I feel bad for the employees. I can’t imagine serving 1,000 consecutive patrons with no break in between. How long must this have gone on? Which brings me to my next point. It ended at 6:20 in the morning. They’d already served a thousand people before 6:30? Holy crap… Assuming each person’s order took 15 seconds (an unreasonably short time estimate) that’s still 4 hours. Are there really big Starbuck’s out on the West Coast? All the ones I’ve seen are small and I can’t imagine it taking less than a minute to serve each person, meaning this would have gone on since about 2 in the afternoon yesterday. Are Starbuck’s open 24 hours a day?

Who’s the curmudgeon that ended this thing? A chain of 1,000 people must have generated quite a buzz. I’m sure people were talking about it, etc. Who’s gonna walk in, find out their drink is free, find out this has been going on for many hours, and not continue it? Surely such a person is worthy of Scrooge’s (pre-visitation) highest respect. Bah! Humbug!

Semi-related Movie Plug: If you haven’t seen Pay it Forward, please, check it out. It really is one of the most moving movies I’ve ever seen and it’s a great reminder that we can make a difference.

Hillary's Holiday Wish List

2007-12-21T15:25:00.001-05:00

If you haven’t seen Hillary’s holiday wish list, check it out here. It’s ridiculous on a number of levels.

First, whoever wins the Republican nomination should remember this ad well. If they’re running against Hillary, just break it out and you’ll have all the reasons not to vote for her.

Second, Hillary wrapping presents? Right… Very funny. I dare say I've wrapped more presents than Senator Clinton.

Third, what’s up with the spooky “happy holidays”? It looks like a gothic type font more appropriate for Halloween than Christmas [excuse me, the “winter holiday (or non-holiday) of your choosing]. I don’t mean to nitpick, but it really doesn’t fit in with the general brightness of the ad. Just kind of strange.

Finally, all these things are her “gifts” to the American people. In other words, when she’s elected, these things will magically appear; no fight, no consequences, nothing. Just vote for Hillary and all your dreams will come true. The idea of universal healthcare should be rejected on the surface for its inefficiencies and inadequacies, but to not admit that “free” healthcare is paid for by higher taxes (Quick lesson here: If Government decides to spend money they’re not spending now, said money has to come from somewhere. Government is funded by taxes) is incredibly dishonest and pandering of the worst level. Portraying these policies as free gifts, free of consequence, is disgusting.

Huckabee and Giuliani

2007-12-21T14:48:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine asked for my thoughts on this article about Huckabee (and to a much lesser extent, Giuliani). I’ve been meaning to post on both of these candidates for a while (I even have the Huckabee post saved in my drafts, just haven’t gotten anywhere with it), so I figured now is as good a time as any… The article I reference is a short one and helpful for some of the context of my e-mail. My e-mail was as follows:

[Start of e-mail]Of course George Will sees Huckabee’s transgressions from party doctrine as more offensive than Giuliani’s. Will, who I for the most part like, is still a Northeast Republican, in that he is fiscally conservative but not socially conservative, same as Giuliani. His assertion that abortion is a “recent Republican stance” is rather odd to say the least. And while gay marriage may be an actual recent stance it’s only because it’s become an issue recently. I think if you asked Republicans of 20 years ago what they thought about gay marriage they would have answered the same. It’s a recent stance because the issue is recent; the principles used to arrive at that stance have remained consistent.

That being said, I find Huckabee and Giuliani almost equally objectionable. I think they both would destroy the Republican coalition for the upcoming election, if not well into the future. Conservatism is three core principles: Strong National Security, Sound Fiscal Policy (e.g. Limited Government, Low Taxes, etc) and Social Conservatism (Value of life, Family Issues, etc.). A candidate who disregards one of these three pillars as irrelevant is not a candidate for me, which is why I have trouble with either of the two. Unfortunately, we see more and more an attitude that Religion=Big Government and Fiscal Conservatism divorced from moral values. Admittedly, if your view of politics and proper governance is all that informs your worldview, you will divorce yourself from religion and moral values because those are primarily private matters and matters for churches and individuals. Conversely, if you don’t recognize that there’s a difference between what you as an individual or you as a church should do and what the government should do, you will start seeing roles for the government to fill where they have no business.

My problems with Huckabee stem primarily from the latter. He is a “Compassionate Conservative”… I, however, am not compassionate. Somehow the fact that I have given well over $1000 in the last few months privately to people that I knew needed help, without wishing the government would help them and pushing for further social programs, that all makes me uncompassionate. The fact that I think if you want to do something unhealthy and die (be fat, smoke, etc.) you should be able to without government unduly restricting your ability to do so; this too makes me uncompassionate. Governor Huckabee has confused his responsibility as an individual (and in his opinion, the responsibility of the church) with the responsibility of the Government. The two are not similar. In fact, I would argue the two are almost diametric opposites. What the church and individual should do, in most cases the government should not do. What the government should do, in most cases the individual and church can not do. I understand the realities of this day and age. Yanking public welfare and social programs is not practical. However, expanding them in the name of compassion is foolish and dangerous. This is who Mike Huckabee is and I can’t support that. Setting social policy aside (and the necessary high taxes which must attend to it), Huckabee’s a nut job on foreign policy. He’s worthless on immigration. His understanding of the world and the war on terror is frighteningly similar to the Left’s. His statements about Bush’s “arrogant bunker mentality” are wrong and disrespectful.

Personally, I find Huckabee to be manipulative and divisive. His “innocent question” about Mormons believing Jesus and Satan are brothers is as retarded as asking if you support gay marriage because you believe you’re married to Christ (CLARIFYING ASIDE: Eph. 5:25-27 and other passages portray the church as the “Bride of Christ”. As members of the church, one could argue we are “married” to Christ. Mental gymnastics to be sure, but no more than required and no more disingenuous than Gov. Huckabee’s “question.). He has attempted at every turn to prove that “he’s the real Christian” and his politicizing of his faith is getting a little old. All the while, he refuses to release his old sermons and distances himself from it when it’s convenient… (While Romney is running somewhat as a “candidate of Faith” there is a major difference between his campaign and Huckabee’s in the role that they have placed their faith in, which I may detail in a later post.)

I have my own set of problems with Giuliani… His personal life is, shall we say, distasteful. I still believe “Character Counts” and so have a problem with him solely on this issue. His stance on abortion is certainly not mine; however he has stated that he is a strict constructionist of the constitution and would appoint likeminded judges. The Court is likely the only way abortion will be overturned and I don’t think we can hope for better than strict constructionists. I’m not totally informed on his stance on gay marriage, but my understanding is that he supports some weak form of civil union but that it’s an issue best left up to the states, which is not that dissimilar from say Fred Thompson’s position. His record on the 2nd Amendment is a serious issue for me. While he says he’s changed his ways from his time as Mayor, I’d like to see more evidence of that… [End of e-mail]

While I have fairly equal distaste for either candidacy, I see Huckabee as a larger danger, personally. For one, his nomination appears far more likely than Giuliani’s at this point. Second, I see Huckabee’s policies as, in some ways, more dangerous than Giuliani’s. Giuliani is at least honest with his positions, something I’m not sure we’re fully getting from Huckabee. Giuliani probably would be the run away leader right now had he come out in the beginning of the campaign and said he’d had a “Come to Jesus Moment” and revised his position on abortion. Even hedging around it would have earned him a number of friends. But he was and has been completely honest and for that I applaud him. As I said in the previous paragraph, possibly Giuliani’s most dangerous issue in my mind is that of the 2^nd Amendment, but I don’t think even he would or could appreciably affect that issue on a national level. So, while I support neither candidate these are the reasons why I reserved most of my ire for Governor Huckabee.

The Real Global Warming Agenda

2007-12-17T18:30:00.001-05:00

I have previously poked fun at the Global Warming agenda here, here and here. Unfortunately, it’s quickly becoming clear this is no laughing matter. The people that are pushing the global warming issue are deadly serious and they’re after one thing. Reduced carbon emissions, right? Saving the earth? Averting global disaster? How about redistributing wealth? How about taking the first step to making the UN a viable organization with taxing and global governance abilities?

Emma Brindal, a “Climate Justice Campaign Coordinator” with Friends of the Earth, had this to say about one of the meetings at the recent conference in Bali: “Another point was that as this current economic system got us here in the first place, a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” “This economic system” of course referring to a free-market, capitalist economic system. Redistribution of wealth and resources; that sounds great, where do I sign up? Even Al Gore agrees carbon taxes and trading is the way to go. Such a scheme by its nature is a redistribution of wealth from the developed nations to the undeveloped nations. Rural Kenya doesn’t have near as many power plants as New York City, so guess where we’re going to be buying carbon credits from? In 2000, French President Jacques Chirac called the Kyoto Protocol, “the first component of an authentic global governance.” Once the UN exerts their authority to tax and redistribute wealth over climate change and execute “environmental justice” what stops then in another arena?

Senator Tim Wirth, from Colorado, had this to say about Global Warming: "We're got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." So is it about the truth or is it about “doing the right thing”? Do you believe, like Mr. Wirth and countless others on his side, that this is a chance to right past wrongs brought about by capitalism or is this a chance to study the issue honestly and fairly? And while we laugh at the idiots flying to their Climate Change Conferences in their private jets while they rail on me for driving to work, and while we get annoyed with their endless propaganda and just change the channel, let’s remember they, at least, are serious about this and unless we stand up to them, they’ll get what they’re after. And it sure seems to be a lot more than controlling climate change…

And before you buy the line about “scientific consensus”, consider this letter written by over 100 scientists questioning the view that global warming is manmade and the efficacy of the UN’s efforts to fight it. “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.”

Our New Baby

2007-12-17T17:42:00.000-05:00

Just a couple of pictures of our new baby... Brought her home Thursday night and she seems to be fitting in quite well. She's a mix between a Havanese and a Bichon Frise; a "Havachon" I'm told. Apparently the politically correct term in Designer Breed as opposed to mutt...

Fireworks in Florida

2007-12-13T08:31:00.001-05:00

The Florida Legislature has created a Task Force on Consumer Fireworks to study the issue of further legalizing (or banning altogether) the use of Consumer Fireworks in the State of Florida. If you are a resident of Florida or interested in this issue, please check out the Task Force website here. There are a number of presentations on injury and use data, as well as some draft solutions on the website. Currently in Florida, consumer fireworks can be purchased at “wholesale” for a number of exemptions, including agricultural use and signaling for railroads. Such exemptions are not verified beyond signing a simple affidavit which is never audited or followed up on. Needless to say, large quantities of fireworks are sold every year for personal consumption, surprisingly unrelated to agriculture or railroads… It really is a terrible situation because no one enforces the law and there is an implicit endorsement that nobody cares if you break the law, as long as you’re not too much of a nuisance. Here is the comment letter I submitted.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Task Force:

Thank you for serving on this very important committee and I appreciate the opportunity to make my voice heard.

First, I must say that I find it imperative that something be done to address this issue, one way or the other. The condition that exists now is unacceptable because it is a system that implicitly encourages flouting of the law. We are a nation of laws and those laws must be respected and enforced. While fireworks may seem like an inconsequential matter in the grand scheme of things, I believe the current situation breeds an unhealthy contempt of the law due to lack of enforcement and the “wink and a nod” system at the stores. That being said, I don’t believe it’s the job of the fireworks stores to police their customers. Make a law that’s clear (which, personally, I believe the current law to be) and enforce it.

Given that I think we all agree the current situation is untenable, I’ll move on to why I think further restrictions for firework use are not necessary. Everyone talks about the injuries and deaths caused by fireworks. I know y’all saw injury/death statistics in the November meeting, so I’ll try not to belabor this point too much. I did want to point out a few things from the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s 2005 (the latest edition I could find) Fireworks Annual Report. There were four deaths reported in 2005 due to fireworks. Two were caused by people improperly transporting fireworks in a car, one was caused by a person using a professional class shell illegally and the final one was caused by somebody holding a mortar tube while he launched the firework. The imprint of the base was on his chest afterwards. Unfortunately, you can’t fix stupid… I don’t mean to sound callous, but really, more regulation isn’t going to help people that are using professional grade fireworks or placing a launching tube on their chest. As for the other two deaths that occurred in a car, no information is available as to how the fireworks were ignited. Let’s assume that these are tragic accidents in which there was no misuse or stupidity involved. An average of 9 kids a year die from furniture tipping over. Can you regulate that? It seems we have a much more serious problem with that than from fireworks.

A popular position I’ve heard, even from one of your task force members, is being “anti fireworks that explode or launch”. According to the CPSC’s 2005 report, in the busiest one month period for firework usage, fully 20% of firework related injuries occurred from sparklers, fountains and novelties, not items that explode or launch. Over 55% of the injuries that occurred to children under age 5 were caused by sparklers. In fact, mortars, cakes and roman candles combined didn’t cause as many injuries as sparklers alone. Those who advocate this position are deeming the level of risk posed by sparklers and fountains to be an acceptable risk, while saying a lower risk level posed by other types of fireworks is not acceptable. How can this be explained consistently?

The fact is, used as is, legally or illegally, correctly or incorrectly, fireworks aren’t that dangerous… Or should I say, everything is dangerous. People get injured and killed on bikes, in cars, with toaster ovens. I’ve taken my 5 year old son to the emergency room 3 times. He broke his arm running down the driveway. Mandate rubber pavement? He busted his head open on the corner of a wall. Require padded rooms? Is it tragic when people get injured by fireworks? Absolutely. Are there people that abuse fireworks? Obviously. So go after those people and let us responsible users enjoy a safe product.

The practical reality of this world is a more tender matter, I understand. This is an emotionally charged issue and I realize when emotions become involved logic usually suffers. I would be open to a “Consumer Licensing” or permitting program, as it seems y’all are considering, provided the cost was not prohibitive ($25-$50 seems reasonable). I guess I wouldn’t oppose a “County Approved Area” where items that explode or launch could be used, provided it was mandated that every county has at least one such area. Surely you won’t relegate all fireworks to such an area. Thank you for your time.

Romney for me Please

2007-12-12T17:53:00.001-05:00

I think I’ve finally made a decision. For a while now, I’ve been undecided on the Republican Primary. Part of me wants to vote for Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter because I believe their ideas to be most in line with mine. Unfortunately, they’re unelectable. I’m also not sure they’re the best men for the job because I don’t think they are effective enough to get their message across. I like some of Huckabee’s agenda, but that gets less and less with every liberal social program, each folksy witticism (“weapons of mass instruction”, “I can’t part the Red Sea, but I can part the red tape”) and his brand of “compassionate conservatism”. Fred Thompson’s starting to come around, but for me, it’s too little too late.

What I’m looking for in a Presidential candidate is a “Complete Conservative”. By Complete Conservative, I mean both fiscally and socially conservative. A Conservative should stand for three main things: Fiscal Conservatism; Strong National Defense and Social Conservatism. Fiscal conservatism consists of limited government, low taxes and eliminating wasteful spending. Strong national defense requires a strong military and secure borders. Social conservatism is morals, supporting families and taking a stand for a culture of life, in all phases. Giuliani is a fiscal conservative and strong on national defense, but he is certainly no social conservative, being pro-choice. Huckabee is a social conservative, but on national defense and fiscal issues he’s a nightmare. Both of them have issues with border security. Both of these candidates have a real chance of tearing apart the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement due to their weakness on one end or the other. In my mind, Romney is one of only two viable Complete Conservatives; the other is Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson was a wasted opportunity in this campaign. Fred has the established conservative credentials that the other main candidates lacked early on. It’s taken a while for me to be fully of convinced about Romney. Fred didn’t have to worry about; he walked in #1 for a lot of Conservatives. His policy proposals have been detailed, well founded and good. However he hasn’t demonstrated himself to be effective connecting with people. His performances in the debates have been mixed. His campaign has seemed lackluster and somewhat half-hearted. He seems to be coming into his stride now, but Iowa’s less than a month away and he languishes in third.

Romney is the only legitimate candidate who has shown himself to be an effective communicator, a consistent Conservative, strong on defense and who has strong leadership experience. His business executive background and mentality will serve him well as he works to control spending and government waste. His faith and values (I know he’s an evil Mormon, but still) lead him to promote a culture of life and support a federal Marriage Amendment. Governor Romney is a strong opponent of Judicial Activism and will appoint strict constructionists; not judges that will make policy or further curtail Constitutional rights like the 2^nd Amendment or the Kelo case. Mitt is also against amnesty for illegal immigrants and believes in enforcing our immigration laws and punishing “Sanctuary Cities” and employers who hire illegal immigrants. Governor Romney truly does have a “Strategy for a Stronger America” and he has the vision to lead and the ability to communicate and inspire others with that same vision. For that reason, I support Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States. For more information on Mitt’s vision for America, go to his website at http://www.mittromney.com/.

Choose Life

2007-12-12T15:16:00.001-05:00

For those of you expecting an anti-abortion rant out of me today, sorry to disappoint. The winner of the Wacky Warning Label Contest advises users of a bobcat type tractor to “Avoid Death”… Good advice in most situations, but especially when you’re using a Bobcat. Second place went to a label on an iron-on T-shirt transfer that advocates not wearing the shirt while ironing. The contest is hosted by Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch to point out how our insane civil court system and sue happy lawyers have taken things a touch too far… Pictures of the winning entries can be seen here. (Warning: Apparently they’re getting too much traffic, so the sight may be down. Please don’t sue me.)

McDonald's Wants You to Move Along...

2007-12-12T13:08:00.001-05:00

Ran across this story today, which I’m not sure I understand… Drive-Thru customers at 40 McDonald’s in England are given 45 minutes to finish their meal and leave the parking lot or they’re issued a $225 ticket. Oddly enough, I find myself having trouble grasping the behavior of the customers, not McDonalds. First off, isn’t the whole purpose of going through a drive-thru so you eat on the road? If you’re going to sit in your car to eat, why not just go inside? And 45 minutes? Holy cow, how slow of an eater are you? You can’t eat a Big Mac and fries in 45 minutes? Shoot, I can be done at most sit-down restaurants in 45 minutes and that’s with three kids! I know people are different in Europe, but this story really confuses me…

Maybe we should get us some of that reform, Pappy?

2007-12-10T12:57:00.001-05:00

I couldn’t help but think of the above quote from one of the most quotable movies of all time (O, Brother Where Are Thou?) when I read this today about how the Democrats are going to run as the “Change Candidate” in the ’08 elections... Apparently they don’t have enough Democrats to actually accomplish things, so even though they’re the Majority that’s presided over one of the least effective congresses of all time they want to run on change… From Harry Reid:

Have we stopped the war in Iraq? No. Have we gotten health care? No. Have we improved education? No. But we have been able to do what we’ve done. We’ve done a lot of things.

Let me translate. We haven’t done anything we said we would, but hey, will you elect more of us? Sounds like an effective strategy. Unfortunately I’m not sure the Republicans have fully learned the lessons of ’06 enough to take advantage of it.

Oh well, more O, Brother quotes. Much more entertaining…

· Even if that did put you square with the Lord, the State of Mississippi's a little more hard-nosed.
· You ain't no kind of man if you ain't got land.
· Mrs. Hogwallop up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T.
· We ain't one-at-a-timin' here. We're MASS communicating!
· You don't say much my friend, but when you do it's to the point, and I salute you for it.

You're a Genius

2007-12-10T09:23:00.000-05:00

Apparently if you can read and understand this blog, you're a genius! Yeah... No idea what their criteria is over at criticsrant.com, but hey, they must be right...

Well at least you can tell people you're a genius...

More Global Warming Insanity

2007-12-07T13:19:00.001-05:00

By now, you’ve probably heard about the list of things caused by Global Warming produced by British mathematician John Brignell. If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out here. It’s an astounding list of all the things that have been attributed to global warming in some media source or another, with links (some are broken). I’m astounded at all the “matching pairs” of mutually exclusive items, such as:

·       Atlantic less salty – Atlantic more salty
·       Avalanches reduced – Avalanches increased
·       Bananas destroyed – Bananas grow
·       Coral reefs dying – Coral reefs grow
·       Desert advance – Desert retreat
·       Earth slowing down – Earth spins faster
·       Fish stocks rise – Fish stocks decline

There’s a number more, but that’s enough for now; you’ll have to find the rest on your own. Some of my personal favorites were “circumcision in decline”, “brothels struggle”, “boredom”, “early marriage” and “inflation in China”. Now maybe it’s just me, but it seems this might be something we don’t have a real good handle on if we’re blaming everything under the sun on global warming, including things that directly contradict each other.

And another thing, “Carbon Cap and Trade” schemes have been in the news lately with Democrats wanting to attach them to the latest energy bill. Now basically, this is the Carbon Credits, which I discuss here, on a grand scale. So today on my news reader I get this from HowStuffWorks.com. It’s a great little article expounding the many virtues of a carbon tax… I had a number of issues with this article. First off, there is no real neutrality here. One of the things I’ve liked about HSW in the past was that they were even-handed on things I’d read. This article takes global warming as fact and carbon emissions by humans as the cause. Setting that aside, it says that “Carbon tax is one of two major market-based options to lower emissions, the other being cap-and-trade schemes.” Now maybe it’s just me, but we’re talking about a tax and government regulation. How exactly are those “market-based”? They sound as “market-based” as rent ceilings and the minimum wage… Now let’s look at their arguments as to why this is such a good thing…

First, it encourages people to stop using fossil fuels. Here’s your first tip this isn’t a market-based solution. Government action is changing the behavior of consumers. If the Market was driving this action, it wouldn’t require a tax. Second, “Carbon tax also encourages alternative energy by making it cost-competitive with cheaper fuels.” Note here that all this is going to do is raise energy prices. I don’t know about you, but I would love nothing more than to hand over more of my hard-earned money every time I fill up at the gas station or pay my monthly bills. If you want me to use alternative energy, fine. Come up with an alternative energy that’s cost-effective (oh wait, we already have. It’s called nuclear power). Don’t jack the price of everything up to make alternative energy competitive. And yes, it’s the cost of everything. You’re not the only one that depends on fossil fuels to get to do your job and run your lights. Finally, “don't forget about all the money raised by the tax”. Absolutely. We all know the government is such a good steward of our money. What they need is more of my money to waste. And I don’t see this tax being manipulated like all the other taxes out there. You know, those with the best lobbyists suddenly finding their carbon emissions are “tax-free”. No, that would never happen…

Finally, good news on the environmental front from an unexpected source. It seems we may all be saved by sweet-smelling kangaroos. Well, I’m not sure if they smell sweet, but presumably their farts don’t stink because the bacteria in their digestive tracts don’t create methane, a “potent greenhouse gas”. Now, scientists are going to try and transfer this bacteria to other species, which seems like a great idea. Perhaps this device would serve the same purpose?

He Still Can't Spell

2007-11-29T15:31:00.000-05:00

I've always heard a contractor had a third grade education, a pickup truck and a backhoe. Apparently that's too high of expectations for this guy...

Loyalty Oath

2007-11-28T17:12:00.001-05:00

From the Washington Post:

Voters in Virginia's Feb. 12 Republican presidential primary will have to sign an oath swearing loyalty to the eventual GOP ticket. But there is no way to enforce it, because a voter's actions in a booth are secret.
The State Board of Elections has approved a state Republican Party request that all who apply for a GOP primary ballot vow in writing to vote for the Republican presidential nominee next fall.
Voters in Virginia do not register by party. Since the mid-1990s, the state's Republicans have fretted that Democrats might meddle in their primaries, which are open to all registered voters.

A little further research finds that the oath will be as follows: “I affirm that I intend to vote for the Republican candidate in the general election."

This is surprising and disturbing to me. It seems to me this is aimed as much at Social Conservatives who won’t vote for Giuliani in the General Election as it is at Democrats creeping over for the Primary. I realize there’s no way to “enforce” this, but I might remind the Washington Post that some of us like to actually keep our promises. A novel concept inside the Washington Beltway to be sure, but still… All this is going to do is have the effect of reducing social conservative participation in the primary, and maybe that’s the point. I fully understand the concern of a “split party” should Giuliani become the nominee. I don’t think it would serve anyone’s interests for a social conservative like Ron Paul to run on a third party ticket splitting votes from the Republican nominee and handing the election to whoever the Democrats put forward. Even as a staunch Social Conservative I’ll take Giuliani over Hillary or Obama any day… That being said, I really think trying to bully and intimidate those voters before it even becomes an issue runs the risk of alienating them over a potential non-issue, not to mention the fact that I think it’s just plain wrong…

English Just Wasn't His Subject...

2007-11-19T23:56:00.001-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving

2007-11-19T16:20:00.001-05:00

I’m skipping town tomorrow and heading south to Puerto Rico to spend Thanksgiving with my parents and sister. To everyone out there, Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. We truly have so much to be thankful for.

Mark Steyn had a good article on some of the things we should be thankful for…

“Three hundred and 86 years ago, the Pilgrims thanked God because there was a place for them in this land, and it was indeed grand. The land is grander today, and that, too, is remarkable: France has lurched from Second Empires to Fifth Republics struggling to devise a lasting constitutional settlement for the same smallish chunk of real estate, but the principles that united a baker's dozen of East Coast colonies were resilient enough to expand across a continent and halfway around the globe to Hawaii.”

The Chavez-Hess Connection

2007-11-19T13:11:00.001-05:00

Back last year when Hugo Chavez, the Marxist President of Venezuela, started making his anti-American statements, there was a large outcry over how CITGO was a wholly owned subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). What I don’t understand is why nobody is saying a word about Hess Stations. The Hess Corporation also owns HOVENSA, “a joint venture between a subsidiary of Hess Corporation and a subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA)”. PDVSA owns a 50% share of HOVENSA, which has a crude oil processing capacity of 495,000 Barrels Per Day (BPD), making it one of the largest refineries in the world. HOVENSA is located in St. Croix, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, 550 miles from Venezuela. So guess where HOVENSA gets its crude? You guessed it; Venezuela. So not only does Chavez get money from refining the oil at HOVENSA, he also gets money selling the oil to HOVENSA to refine. Then that gasoline (over 175,000 BPD) gets shipped to the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and sold in more than 1,300 Hess locations from New Hampshire to Florida. I understand that you can’t track every drop of oil to make sure it doesn’t come from PDVSA, but it seems to be pretty simple to figure out that Hess Oil is really PDVSA oil and PDVSA oil is money in the coffers of an anti-American, Marxist government.

Just another reason to get off oil and find alternative sources of fuel, like nuclear power…

EDIT: All of this information may be verified on Hess Oil's Website.

Friday Headlines

2007-11-16T13:19:00.001-05:00

Just some great stories I ran across today…

Tip to Parents: If your car’s about to be repossessed, don’t leave your children alone in it… Now I don’t know much about the repo business, but do they normally stalk you to the grocery store and grab your car while you’re grabbing a bag of hot dog buns and a paper?

Cambridge, Massachusetts, home to Harvard, reinforces the belief that they’re populated by nothing but nut jobs… They shut down the Boy Scouts’ Care Package Drive for American Soldiers because it was a “political statement”. Apparently the local Boy Scout troop had set boxes at local polling places on Election Day to collect supplies for Care Packages to send to Soldiers in Iraq. Not so fast my friend… Obviously, supporting the troops is an implicit endorsement of Republicans (surely this wasn’t supposed to be a benefit to the Democrats, but I don’t know) and so would constitute campaigning, which is not allowed at polling places. I always thought you could support the troops, but not the war. No?

And from Howstuffworks.com (in the interest of full disclosure, my sister works there), the 19^th of this month is World Toilet Day. So please, this weekend, clean your toilet. You wouldn’t want it to be dirty for World Toilet Day…

Finally, it’s a sad day for baseball, as Joe Nuxhall has died at the age of 79. Mr. Nuxhall first played in a Major League game in 1944, at the age of 15, making him the youngest player ever in a MLB game. He started doing Reds’ broadcasts in 1967 and in 1974 teamed up with Marty Brenneman, with whom he spent the next 28 years doing broadcasts. Having lived in Lexington, KY, I used to pick up the Reds games on 700 WLW and always enjoyed Joe and Marty. To me, they’re what sports casting should be… It seems so many of these old broadcasters are either hanging it up or dying and it’s really sad. There’s something about that familiar voice on the radio when you’re teams playing. “This is the old left-hander, rounding third and heading for home…”

Bonds, Perjury and Politics

2007-11-16T09:23:00.001-05:00

So baseball superstar Barry Bonds was indicted for perjury yesterday. For those that haven’t followed the story, Bonds has been suspected of taking steroids for some time. A couple of years ago, he was called before a Grand Jury to testify and said that he had never knowingly used performance enhancing drugs. So 18 months ago, the Feds started investigating Bonds for perjuring himself before a Grand Jury. Now whether or not Bonds took steroids isn’t a major concern of mine. I do think that the pervasiveness of performance enhancing drugs in sports is a dangerous thing and a bad example for the youth who look up to these athletes. But to a large extent, Barry Bonds is just a figurehead in the fight against steroids. And steroids aren’t really the point of this post.

I was listening to ESPN radio last night on the way home and of course they were discussing Bonds’ indictment. Former MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent was on and was talking about the seriousness of perjury. He said if people come in to testify and lie under oath our entire justice system breaks down. The entire system is based on truthfulness and honesty. We cannot tolerate those who will lie and distort the results of justice. To me, the example of lying under oath is far worse than the example of taking steroids. It doesn’t matter what you’re lying about, whether it’s steroids or sex. Oh wait, that sounds familiar…

Lieberman on Iraq

2007-11-13T16:21:00.001-05:00

Finally a Democrat telling the truth about Iraq. If there were more Democrats like Lieberman, we might could get along with them. (Emphasis Mine)

Over the past nine months, American forces have begun to achieve the kind of progress in Iraq that, until recently, few in Washington would have dared to imagine might be possible.
Working together with our increasingly capable Iraqi allies, U.S. troops under the command of General David Petraeus have routed al Qaeda in Iraq from its safe havens in Anbar province and Baghdad — delivering what could well prove to be the most significant defeat for Osama bin Laden's terrorist network since it was driven from Afghanistan in late 2001.
As al Qaeda has been beaten into retreat in Iraq, security conditions across the country have begun to improve. Iraqi civilian casualties are dramatically down. IED attacks have plummeted, while mortar and rocket attacks are at an unprecedented twenty-one month low. The number of U.S. soldiers killed in action has fallen for five
straight months and is now at the lowest level in nearly two years. And as a result, U.S. commanders on the ground have begun a drawdown in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq.
According to the BBC just this weekend: “All across Baghdad... streets are springing back to life. Shops and restaurants which closed down are back in business. People walk in crowded streets in the evening, when just a few months ago they would have been huddled behind locked doors in their homes. Everybody agrees that things are much better.”
Unfortunately, congressional opponents of the war have responded to the growing evidence of progress in Iraq not with gratitude or relief, but with unrelenting opposition to a policy that is now clearly working.
Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, anti-war advocates in Congress have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of retreat and defeat in Iraq — reluctant to acknowledge the reality of progress there.
Rather than supporting General Petraeus and our troops in the field, anti-war advocates in Congress are instead struggling to deny or disparage their achievements — and are now acting, once again, to hold hostage the funding our troops desperately need and to order a retreat by a date certain and regardless of what is happening on the ground.
It bears emphasizing that none of the progress we see today in Iraq would have happened, had these same anti-war activists prevailed in their earlier attempts this year to derail General Petraeus' strategy.
In fact, throughout the past nine months, anti-war advocates in Congress have confidently and repeatedly predicted that General Petraeus' strategy would fail, and that the war in Iraq was ‘lost.’
It is now clear they were wrong.
Rather than another ill-advised, misguided attempt to cut off the funding for our troops in the field, it is time for anti-war forces to admit that the surge is working and stop their futile legislative harassments.
It is deeply irresponsible for anti-war forces in Congress to hold hostage the funds that our men and women in uniform need to continue their successful efforts. Congress should support our troops in Iraq, not undermine their heroic achievements by imposing a formula for failure.

Plato's Guardians

2007-11-12T18:20:00.000-05:00

With the presidential season in full swing, my mind has turned to politics of late. Personally, I’ve always had an interest in running for office and obviously I think I’d make a darn good Congressman or President. So I’ve pondered it some and lightly researched it. How could I, as a normal guy with a family, run for political office? Basically there are only four offices that I see (Governor, US Representative, US Senator and President) that would allow me to support my family without working another job. But you typically don’t start out in one of these offices. What job do you have where you can walk in to your boss and say, “Listen, I’m going to need the next 60-90 days off to go to Tallahassee for the next legislative session”? How do you live on the $30,000 salary that you make as a Florida State Congressman? This is to say nothing of all the time that must be spent “paying your dues” to the party before you could ever hope of getting the support necessary for a nomination. So just how’s a guy to make it?

I want to be very clear here. I got married young and had a family young. These are decisions I do not regret, though these decisions obviously “hamstrung” me in certain respects (as all decisions do, to some extent). In addition, great pursuits require great risk. A pursuit of public office should require a single-mindedness of purpose. My question is, are we evolving to being governed by a class not unlike the Guardians of Plato’s Republic? And with the rising cost of political campaigns, is this class, instead of consisting of those educated from birth to be the most effective rulers, composed of the well off and those who inherited wealth, allowing them to work for peanuts without having to worry about sustaining a family on $30,000 a year? It seems to me that most of our politicians are “out of touch” with “Average Americans”. Is this because you can’t be an “Average American” and get elected? To be sure, there's something to be said for a politician not being dependent on winning the next election to make their mortgage payment, like Mitt Romney was taught. But at what point does an "exclusive class" entered only by the persistent and those who desire it strong enough to make the necessary sacrifices, become an "exclusive class" dedicated only to those with enough money to buy their way in, to the exclusion of your "Average Americans"?

Isn't it Fairly Obvious?

2007-11-09T08:18:00.000-05:00

This morning out of Detroit, we have this little gem...

NORTHVILLE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — The Detroit News and Free Press are reporting that a burned and beheaded body found by a utility crew is that of a convicted sex offender.

A single fingerprint from the victim's burned hand has allowed Michigan State Police to identify him as 26-year-old Daniel Gene-Vincent Sorensen.

The print reveals that Sorensen had been a registered sex offender in Illinois. Northville Township sewer and water department crews found the body at the end of a cul-de-sac about 20 miles northwest of Detroit about 9:30
a.m. Thursday.

Sorensen's head has not been found.

A cause of death has not been determined.

Maybe it's just me, but when the head is missing, I'm gonna go with that every time...

Selling Carbon Credits - Unethical?

2007-11-08T13:42:00.000-05:00

So the capitalist in mean was wondering… As a "non-believer" in Global Warming, would it be unethical for me to sell carbon offset credits?

Here’s the numbers. According to www.Terrapass.com, my carbon footprint is approximately 80,835 lbs. Now according to www.carbonplanet.com approximately 5.33 trees are required to mitigate 1 metric tonne of Carbon. I, and my family, produce approximately 37 metric tonnes of Carbon per year. Using 6 trees per metric tonne, 222 trees would be required to totally mitigate my carbon footprint. Based on a planting rate of 600 trees per acre (seemed to be a low end of my brief internet search) it would take approximately 1/3 of an acre for mitigation.

Now Carbon Planet would charge me approximately $64.51/month to mitigate my carbon credit. TerraPass would charge $420 yearly. Taking the lower number, I could make roughly $1,200 per acre per year selling offsets. Now, if I had two-hundred acres, I would make $240,000 per year. Now, I couldn’t do this on my own. I’d need a Certified Arborist or Tree Dude of some sort. So there’s a salary of $80,000. Here’s this property on www.realtor.com. About the right size and $350,000. Monthly mortgage payment with a $15,000 downpayment and a 6% interest rate would be $2,008, putting annual debt service at $24,000. Now that leaves me with $136,000 to advertise, invest and live off of. Of course this doesn’t count other income such as hunting leases (the conservation easement would only be on the trees, not anything else, including wildlife), promotional merchandise (nothing looks better than your carbon neutral bumper sticker on the back of your Prius), etc. And as I get money and/or investors, I can obviously expand the acreage. Me and my Tree Dude can manage the forest to increase the carbon capacity, freeing up more credits. And I can invest in alternative fuel sources that would also reduce carbon impacts (this is what TerraPass does). This is the sweetest of all possibilities. Basically, you take other people’s money and invest it in companies that you hope will make a handsome profit for you. Sounds great, huh?

So, as you can see there’s good money to be made here. Is it unethical to separate suckers from their money? There’s nothing wrong with growing trees, right?

Environmental Action Day

2007-10-19T12:38:00.000-04:00

So Blogger hosted Environmental Action Day on Monday. I was supposed to participate but alas, duty called... So here I am, a couple of days late and more than a few dollars short...

When talking of the environment this week, one would be remiss to not mention the noble (no pun intended) Mr. Gore's Nobel Peace Prize. No one has done more to bring Global Warming into the American consciousness than Al Gore. Interestingly, in the same week that he wins the Nobel Peace Prize, his movie is also declared "political indoctrination" by a British Court, and found to be rife with material errors. For a list of the errors, look here. In what might just be the final nail in the coffin for the "credibility" of the Nobel Peace Prize (I know, I know, those were driven with Carter and Arafat) Gore wins a Peace Prize for false political propaganda? Unbelievable. Yet it is once again a demonstration of the lengths to which the radical environmentalists will go to to advance their agenda. "Thank you Al Gore, you're super awesome..." (PG-13)

At least some politicians aren't taking all this pseudo-science at face value and are standing up to it. Czech President Vaclav Klaus was "surprised" that Gore would win a Nobel Peace Prize, saying, "The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct." He also added, "It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace." I guess the Czechs get it anyway...

Here's where I'm at on Global Warming. It's probably happening. There does seem to be some sort of global tempature rise in the past little bit. Just like there was a global tempature decrease of 0.7 degrees between 1950 and 1970. Like now it was, "freak out everybody, we're all going to die"... Be that as it may, there is little evidence that human impact is solely to blame for this warming, there is further a smaller amount of evidence that we can accurately forecast this increase in tempature or that we know how to prevent it. How can we work to solve a problem we dont' know how to solve? From the highly touted IPCC Report, "The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible." And yet they ask us to spend an estimated $300 Billion per year (the estimated America cost of Kyoto) to solve something they can't predict? Another quote from the IPCC: "Climate models now have some skill in simulating changes in climate since 1850." So these models that you're basing your predictions of doom and gloom on have "some skill" at modeling the past? Um, how do you think they're doing on the future then? Should we really throw billions and billions of dollars at a problem in vain hopes that they will somehow solve a problem of sketchy origin, undetermined future and uncertain effect?

If you are at all interested in this issue, I would strongly suggest that you pick up a copy of Michael Crichton's book State of Fear. Setting aside the fact that Michael Crichton is just a phenomenal writer, the book is fascinating in the way it looks at (and takes apart) much of the data we always hear espoused in support of global warming. He also has a speech here where he lays out the case for a skeptical approach to global warming. One of Mr. Crichton's fears with this whole global warming ordeal is that there is a definite political agenda driving the entire movement. The findings of scientists are replaced with the propaganda of politicians and passed off as undisputable fact. Another great speech of his is located here. He talks about how Environmentalism has become the religion of the radical left.

Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief... I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.
I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century... They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

In his book State of Fear he talks about another "scientific consensus" that was all the rage less than 100 years ago, was promoted by "leading scientists", celebrities and politicians, and yet had disastrous consequences for millions of people.

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago....Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated...
Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with. Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis. (Excerpt taken from here)

The similarities between eugenics (and so many other looming "scientific" crises) and global warming are indeed striking. We need to be aware of what's going on here and watch things carefully. Don't accept things at face value because it's "consensus" or everyone knows it's true. And please, pick up a copy of Mr. Crichton's book, State of Fear.

All Michael Crichton quotations are taken from his website, http://www.michaelcrichton.com/ and are used with permission.

Aw C-A-T-S! Cats! Cats! Cats!!!

2007-10-13T20:10:00.001-04:00

Finally. Kentucky redeems the Bluegrass Miracle with a miracle of their own, beating the #1 team in the nation, the LSU Tigers. In a thrilling 3 Overtime game, UK wins 43-37. It's just an incredible game in what has been an incredible season...

The Need for a Standard Definition of Marriage

2007-10-11T12:39:00.000-04:00

This story from Rhode Island highlights the need for having one, country-wide standard for the definition of marriage. No matter what side of this issue you're on, having some states allow gay marriage, and most not, just isn't a workable solution. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution reads as follows:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

How can one State give "full faith and credit" to a marriage that is unconstitutional or illegal in its State? In addition, how can one State (Rhode Island, in this case) recognize a homosexual marriage for the purpose of dissolving that marriage but not recognize a similar marriage for the purpose of creating one? How long after Rhode Island grants this divorce will they be sued to allow and recognize a gay marriage? This is the slippery slope we so often embark on with these types of issues. Once and for all, a standard definition of marriage needs to be promulgated on a national level. In my opinion, this should be done with a Constitutional Amendment specifically defining marriage as being between One (1) Man and One (1) Woman. Then, there are no more questions...

More Proof About the Inherent Evil of Cats (and the Goodness of Man's Best Friend)

2007-10-11T12:31:00.000-04:00

From the AP yesterday:

GREENVILLE, Maine - Thumper, a black Labrador retriever, is getting credit for saving a Greenville man when a fire swept through his home.
Roland Cote says his wife and their 7-year-old grandson were away when the blaze started early Sunday in a converted two-story garage. He says Thumper grabbed him by the arm to wake him, leaving just enough time for him to dial 911 before fleeing the fast-moving fire.
While the dog is the hero, a cat is the bad guy in this story.
Cote says the fire marshal investigator believes the blaze was started when Princess, the family cat, tipped over a kerosene lantern. Cote says he and his pets escaped safely, but he says Princess did get her tail singed by the flames.

As if we needed more proof that cats are evil...

An Interesting Post From National Review

2007-10-10T11:00:00.000-04:00

Mark Levin posted this on NRO this morning. Some interesting thoughts on both Fred Thompson and Giuliani. The bit on Thompson is reassuring and the part about Giuliani unfortunately confirms most of my thoughts on the man...

Fred Thompson

2007-10-09T12:39:00.000-04:00

Now it's time to take a look at Fred Thompson. Fred is a bit of a late comer to the race, but if there's one person who has the name recognition to overcome the late arrival, it's probably Fred. Apparently everyone in the world watches Law and Order and has seen Fred on there, but I had no idea he was on that show; possibly because I've never watched it... That being said, I haven't really heard anything from him since he announced his candidacy. Looking at the issues, Fred Thompson should be my candidate. I think I agree with him on just about all of the issues spelled out on his website. And he may well be my candidate before it's over. But the rumor I've heard is that he's lazy, and what we've seen out of the campaign so far seems to bear that out... I watched an interview the other day on FoxNews.com (of course I can't find it now) and he just seemed rather disinterested and lackadaisical. Side note: He also had his kids in his lap, which was pretty odd. You have a 4 year old and a 1 year old sitting in the lap of two adults conducting a serious interview... Just strange. I'm not a big fan of the "kid as political prop". Aside from his personal demeanor, there has just been nothing out of the campaign. There was all the build up of will he run, etc. and now he's virtually invisible. He needs to be a little more agressive to attract supporters.

With Fred, I think you have a social conservative with strong moral values, a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, a fiscal conservative with proven credentials at cutting government spending and presumably a good communicator, if he just will communicate... The debate tonight will be important. I think he really needs to come out and show some fire tonight. I really think he's a candidate that a lot of people could get behind, but he's just not inspiring at all right now...

Best Dilbert Ever

2007-10-09T08:08:00.001-04:00

Mitt Romney

2007-10-08T12:22:00.000-04:00

So I'll start my examination of the candidates for President with my own personal front-runner. So far, I like Mitt. He seems like a solid, moral candidate who has great "business" experience that he can bring to government. He does look a little too "political" and seems "overly-polished" at times. And I've got to say it because everyone's thinking it; Your selling point is strength and you show a picture with some sort of stupid scarf thing tucked into your suit? What's that all about? Man up dude...

Romney's a Mormon. Am I the only one who is who doesn't really care about that? To me, that's a bit of a selling point because I have found most Mormons to be honest, family values kind of people, but of course, Harry Reid's a Mormon too, so then again, maybe not... But it seems all the coverage is about Mitt the Mormon. This Newsweek article can't talk about anything but that it seems... Is anybody really that worried about a "Mormon President"?

Setting aside those issues. Romney seems strong on border security and national defense, which is good. He seems pretty solidly pro-life, but also leaves it to the states, which is probably the best way to go. Socially, I don't have any trouble with him. Fiscally, he has pledged against raising taxes and wants to cut government spending and waste. With his background in business, he's probably the man to do it. He has pledged to give Congress dollar targets for appropriations bills and if they exceed those targets he will veto the bills. My one concern with him fiscally is his Universal Health Care plan he passed in Massachusetts. I in no way support Universal Health Care, either on the state or federal level, so voting for someone who authored a plan isn't real comfortable for me. I still need an answer on this one.

What you have with Romney is a candidate who may not have the national security experience that Giuliani has, but he's a candidate who knows his values and I think I share them. I think he's a religious man who will stand up for what he believes in against all odds.

We Are Who We Thought We Were...

2007-10-08T11:06:00.000-04:00

So I watched the Kentucky game last Thursday and have had the weekend to ponder it. The first thing that came to my mind was Denny Green's tirade from last year on the Bears. (Look it up on YouTube). To paraphrase, "We are who we thought we were"... We started off the season rolling off 5 straight wins and sitting in first place in the SEC East. But Thursday night, reality came crashing back down. We're still Kentucky... We still know how to lose.

Woodson had a dreadful game, looking nervous and overexcited most of the game. His two fumbles killed us, and the second one especially was inexcusable. You've got to make better decisions than that. For once, our defense was actually let down by our offence. They played well until the 4th Quarter and they were just worn out. Our inability to capitalize in the 3rd Quarter when South Carolina could do nothing was the clincher. When your defense plays to that level, you have to score touchdowns.

So now it's on to LSU at home. I'm honestly not sure what to expect. I think we played so poorly against South Carolina, it's hard to judge what kind of team we are. I'm not sure if that's what we look like against good teams or everybody had an off-night on the same night...

Presidential Primaries

2007-10-05T12:38:00.000-04:00

I'm back... Surprisingly, people still stop by here every once in a while. I hope to become more regular myself...

The '08 election season is in full swing it would seem, as we've already had approximately 3,672 debates for each party. So I ran into one of those Presidential Candidate Selector websites. You just answer a few questions and voila, they provide the right candidate to vote for...

My order of candidates was as follows:

Duncan Hunter - 92.31%
Tom Tancredo - 92.31%
Fred Thompson - 89.23%
Mitt Romney - 86.92%
Sam Brownback - 83.08%
John Cox - 81.54%
Mike Huckabee - 81.54%
John McCain - 73.85%
Ron Paul - 64.62%
Rudy Giuliani - 63.08%

There's my top 10. The democrats run from about 33% (Obama) to 7% (Kucinich). Hunter and Tancredo are great, but unelectable. I'd say 95% of American's couldn't tell you who they were. Romney is who I like the most right now, but I like Thompson too; he just seems disinterested... I don't have a clue who John Cox is. Huckabee's another good candidate. McCain and Paul are definitely out. I don't like either one of them. Giuliani, for some reason still keeps my interest, but I think that's fading. There are too many character questions for me with Giuliani. Soon, I hope to do some posts on some of the candidates and why i do or do not support them. In the meantime, lets see who your top 10 (or 3 or 5) are for candidate.

Livin' That Dream

2007-03-19T05:17:00.000-04:00

So I haven't been around in a while... The good news is, my work on the West Coast should be wrapping up shortly. Anyway.

I was driving in this morning, flipping through the stations on my Sirius Satellite Radio (I may have to revisit my Greatest Inventions post. After about 1,000,000 hours of driving in the last three months, this could easily knock the internet off its pedestal.). A great morning, after a perfect weekend. I used to work with a guy who when you asked him how he was doing, he always replied, "Livin' that dream". You know what? In the pre-dawn darkness, I realized something. I am livin' that dream. I've got a great family, a great job and things are good. Life is great, financially and otherwise. Honestly, things couldn't be much better. Livin' that dream... My guess is you are too. So take a minute today to realize how blessed you are and thank those people that make your dream possible.

Where HAVE I Been???

2007-02-01T23:15:00.000-05:00

Yeah, so I haven't been around for a while... I've got a big project at work that's taking a lot of my time both in the office and over on the west coast of Florida in the Collier County area. I've put in 60+ hours for the last three weeks, so I haven't exactly felt liking sitting in front of the computer when I got home... I've made several 3 and a half hour trips over to the west coast and despite it's length, it really is a nice drive. To me, that's the pretty part of Florida; the pasture lands, the orange groves, the pine scrub. I've got a few pictures that I've taken of the trip over and I hope to get some more in the next couple of weeks. The problem is I'm usually leaving before sunrise and getting back after dark, so pictures are hard to come by... Here's what I've got so far.

Morning fog over wetlands - Northeast of LaBelle, FL

Sunrise over the Caloosahatchee River - LaBelle, FL

Hendry County Courthouse - LaBelle, FL

This One's for Free

2007-01-09T17:51:00.000-05:00

Ran across this interesting perspective on France's civil unrest and increasingly overburdened social welfare system. Just thought it was an interesting read...

Random Thoughts Tuesday

2007-01-09T13:02:00.000-05:00

So... I had every intention of posting today over lunch, but I had a meeting from 11:00 to noon and then some urgent work related items came up so I took an abbreviated lunch. In the interim, here's something I ran across on one of my RSS Feeds from Thomas Sowell. Just some random thoughts. For anyone that's not familiar with Mr. Sowell, I would certainly recommend you checking him out. He's a good, common-sense guy. You can check out his website here. His book, The Quest For Cosmic Justice, is really a good read. In that, he addresses the notions of social justice and vision and how these ideas can often lead to the perpretrations of greater injustices. Anyway, check it out. On with the random thoughts...

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Who says that there is no difference between the political parties? When Democrats are criticized, they counter-attack. When Republicans are criticized, they whine that they are innocent.

We all enter the world knowing nothing but, by the time we are teenagers, we know it all. Sometimes it is decades later before we know enough to realize how little we know.

Nothing is called "second-hand" any more, except "second-hand smoke." Why is it not called "pre-owned" smoke?

Civil rights used to be about treating everyone the same. But today some people are so used to special treatment that equal treatment is considered to be discrimination.

Some people seem to think that we live in more "liberated" times, when all that has happened is that one set of taboos has been replaced by another and more intolerantly enforced set of taboos.
If people had been as mealy-mouthed in centuries past as they are today, Ivan the Terrible would have been called Ivan the Inappropriate.

Sometimes you need a vacation just to recover from all the preparations you made before going on vacation.

Whatever the political benefits of making decisions by committees, the need for consensus virtually guarantees the lowest common denominator. A bipartisan committee with people of widely differing views has to paper over these differences and issue mushy pieties, like those of the Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq.

What is especially disturbing about the political left is that they seem to have no sense of the tragedy of the human condition. Instead, they tend to see the problems of the world as due to other people not being as wise or as noble as themselves.

The next time somebody says that the government is forced to intervene in the economy to protect the poor, ask why the government is forcing taxpayers to subsidize municipal golf courses, the ballet, opera and -- the biggest subsidy of all -- surrounding affluent communities with vast amounts of expensive "open space."

Some days I don't seem to have much energy. Perhaps worse yet, I don't particularly want much energy.

One of the scariest aspects of our times is how easy it is for glib loudmouths to turn us against each other, weakening the whole framework of society, on which we all depend.

Despite the shameless propaganda of the environmentalist zealots about the loss of animal habitat, more than 90 percent of the land in the United States is undeveloped. Animals already have vastly more habitat than human beings have. How much is enough?

As much as I have enjoyed traveling, the older I get the sooner I become homesick.

The Detroit "big three" top automobile manufacturers in America have already become the "big two," as Toyota replaced DaimlerChrysler as the third largest seller of cars in the United States. An internal memo from the Ford Motor Company indicates that they expect Toyota to replace them in the number two spot.

It is hard to think of any word that has confused more issues than the word "rights." Nowadays, almost anything that anybody wants is called a "right" -- a magic word that does away with the need for evidence, logic or even common sense.

Many of the same people who are urging us to get out of Iraq are also urging us to go into Darfur. They say we should "do something" about the murderous horrors in Darfur. But you cannot simply "do something." You have to do something specific. Those who are urging intervention won't take the responsibility for specifying what we are to do -- and at what cost in American lives.

We can only hope that the rumor that Israel is going to take out Iran's nuclear weapons facilities is true. If they do, Israel will be widely condemned by governments that are breathing a sigh of relief that they did.

Honestly, some day soon you'll get a full, legitimate post from me. Soon...

Forthcoming Posts

2007-01-04T07:30:00.000-05:00

One of my few loyal readers complained about my recent dearth of posts. Could be a reason I have few loyal readers... I just haven't been inspired lately. At all. And I've been "busy". It's amazing how busy you can be and how little you can actually accomplish on those four-day holiday weekends... Anyway, in an effort to coerce inspiration and, hopefully, shame myself into posting, here's a list of topics I plan on posting about in the near future.

Topics to Post on:

Words Mean Things - Whatever happened to, "My word is my bond"?
Just Because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should - Thoughts on the "edginess" of Society.
'08 Basement Talk - It's never too early to talk about the 2008 election, right?
On Wal-Mart - My contribution to the debate on the world's largest retailer.

I don't promise to post on all of these, and certainly not in that order, but these are topics that I've either started posts on or been thinking about. Hopefully there will be more to read here soon. Until then...

I Believe In Santa Claus

2006-12-23T22:36:00.000-05:00

So I watched the Polar Express the other night with the kids. Good movie. A little odd, but overall good. I was struck at the end by the whole "hearing the bells" thing. If you haven't seen the movie and you don't want me to ruin it for you, skip the rest of this paragraph and pick up later on. In the movie you could only hear Santa's bells if you believed in him. When he brought the bell back, only he and his sister could hear; his parents were deaf to its tones. After time, even his sister couldn't hear it because she had lost the belief.

All right, end of spoiler, so I'll start a new paragraph. In this movie (and countless others like it) we're led to feel that believing in Santa Claus is a noble thing, something worthwhile and, to a point, selfless. Why is it that believing that one man could produce and deliver toys to all the children of the world in one night is a good thing? Why do we care? Yeah, it's a great story for the kids, but why has it lasted all these years? I think the reason is not the man or his actions, but the symbol. What does Santa Claus stand for?

To address this question, I go straight to an authority; the 1947 classic, Miracle on 34th Street. If you haven't seen this movie, where on earth have you been? Go watch it. In this movie, Santa Claus gets put on trial, basically for being crazy. As the movie progresses, it comes out that Santa Claus is a representative of all that's good in this world. See, in Santa, we have a man who gives his life to make others happy. We have a man who's given his life in a completely selfless manner. He is pure and selfless and full of joy. As Fred Gailey puts it, "It's not just Kris that's on trial, it's everything he stands for. It's kindness and joy and love and all the other intangibles." Santa Claus represents that better part of ourselves, the part of giving, of charity, of love and kindness. It's that part of us that too often gets lost in the shuffle while we're making a buck and looking out for me and mine. To quote Kris Kringle, "For the past 50 years or so I've been getting more and more worried about Christmas. Seems we're all so busy trying to beat the other fellow in making things go faster and look shinier and cost less that Christmas and I are sort of getting lost in the shuffle." So this Christmas, don't forget Christmas. Don't forget it's not about the new iPod or all the presents under the tree. And if you've got the Christmas Spirit, don't lose it in a month when you move on to something else.

So, from our house to yours, Merry Christmas. And may the Spirit of Christmas follow you throughout the year.

Thanks for the Advice

2006-12-20T12:28:00.000-05:00

To all my friends who have barraged me with those countless informative e-mail's, thought I would show my appreciation with a big thanks!

To whoever sent me the one about rat poop in the glue on envelopes because I now have to use a wet towel with every envelope that needs sealing. Also, I now have to scrub the top of every can I open for the same reason.

I no longer have any savings because I gave it to a sick girl (Penny Brown) who is about to die in the hospital for the 1,387,258th time, but that will change once I receive the $15,000 that Bill Gates/Microsoft and AOL are sending me for participating in their special e-mail program.

I no longer worry about my soul because I have 363,214 angels looking out for me, and St. Theresa's Novena has granted my every wish.

I no longer eat KFC because their chickens are actually horrible mutant freaks with no eyes or feathers. As soon as I get my free dinner coupons from Applebee's, I can eat out again.

I no longer use cancer-causing deodorants even though I smell like a water buffalo on a hot day.

Thanks to you, I have learned that my prayers only get answered if I forward an email to seven of my friends and make a wish within five minutes.

Because of your concern I no longer drink coca cola because it can remove toilet stains.

I no longer can buy gasoline without taking someone along to watch the car so a serial killer won’t crawl in my back seat when I'm pumping gas.

I no longer drink Pepsi or Dr. Pepper since the people who make these products are atheists who refuse to put "under god" on their cans.

I no longer use saran wrap in the microwave because it causes cancer.

And thanks for letting me know I can't boil cup water in the microwave anymore because it will blow up in my face, disfiguring me for life.

I no longer check the coin return on pay phones because I could be pricked with a needle infected with aids.

I no longer go to shopping malls because someone will drug me with a perfume sample and rob me.

I no longer receive packages from UPS or FedEx since they are actually Al-Qaeda in disguise.

I no longer answer the phone because someone will ask me to dial a number for which I will get a phone bill totaling $2,374.76 with calls to Jamaica, Uganda, Singapore, and Uzbekistan.

I no longer have any sneakers -- but that will change once I receive my free replacement pair from Nike.

I no longer buy expensive cookies from Neiman Marcus since I now have their recipe.

And thanks to your great advice, I can't ever pick up $5.00 dropped in the parking lot because it probably was placed there by a sex molester waiting underneath my car to grab my leg.

Oh, and don't forget this one either! I can no longer drive my car because I can't buy gas from certain gas companies!

Thanks to you, I can't use anyone's toilet but mine because a big brown African spider is lurking under the seat to cause me instant death when it bites my a--.

And remember, if you don't send this e-mail to at least 144,000 people in the next 7 minutes, a large dove with diarrhea will land on your head at 5:00 pm this afternoon and the fleas from 12 camels will infest your back, causing you to grow a hairy hump.

I know this will occur because it actually happened to a friend of my next door neighbor's ex-mother-in-law's second husband's cousin's beautician ...

Thank you, and have a wonderful day.

See the wonderful things that the internet has brought us? For those that don't use this already, if you ever need to verify the veracity of an e-mail, try Snopes. Snopes has just about any urban legend you're likely to get and they can tell you if it's true or false.

And The Winner Is...

2006-12-14T23:35:00.000-05:00

The Internet... As much as I wanted to pick radio, I think I have to go with the Internet. In spite of all the bad things the internet brings, it really is a great thing. It helps people stay in touch, be entertained, keep up with news, as well as share information across the entire globe. I'm a firm believer that the internet has contributed greatly to the spread of freedom across the world and will continue to do so more and more in the future. It really is impossible to stop its spread and reach of information.

For those that are wondering, the final standings are like this.

The Internet
Radio
Cars
Railroads
Television
Sliced Bread

So, next time you're tempted to say, "It's the best thing since sliced bread", correct yourself and say "It's the best thing since the internet"...

Best Inventions

2006-12-12T11:40:00.000-05:00

All right, these are the things I think about. What's been the most societal-changing invention in the last couple of hundred years? I limit the scope because I don't want to be considering the wheel and other such things. The criteria is whatever I say it is and I'm the final arbiter of all decisions, but you're free to disagree.

And the nominees are (insert drumroll here):

Radio
Television
The Internet
Sliced Bread
Railroads
Cars

Now let's take a closer look at the candidates.

Radio: From my limited research (you don't expect me to do lengthy research for this do you?), it appears that the first real radio broadcasts occured around the turn of the last Century. Radio provided for the first time the true ability to "mass communicate". People all over the world could hear news and music almost instantaneously. From FDR's "Fireside Chats", to the 1922 World Series, to the panic-inducing "War of the Worlds", to "The Grand Ole Opry", radio made information, sports, entertainment and music available to people on a grand scale, as well as allowing one on one communication across long distances. And what's better than driving at night and picking up an AM station from half way across the country? Nothing beats a late night listening to 650 WSM. Radio sparks the imagination in a way I think few other media forms do. It forces you to draw the mental pictures much like a book. One of my favorite songs is I Watched it All (On My Radio) (Go here to listen. Scroll down past the first song and click on the little music note by "I Watched It All (On My Radio)")by Lionel Cartwright. He talks about all the things he "saw" on his radio. Unfortunately, I think that aspect of radio is dying. The AM dial seems to be dead these days and the FM side is filled with nothing but the Pop Station of the Day.

Pros:

Mass communication ability.
Relatively inexpensive equipment, even from the early days.
Long distance communication.
Fosters the imagination and mental pictures.
With the exception of the relatively new Satellite Radio, it's free.
Doesn't require your full attention while listening. Can be combined with other activities.

Cons:

No pictures. Let's face it, we're "visual based" beings.
Limited to no reception is some areas.
Difficulty transmitting AM long distances during the day.
Difficulty transmitting FM long distances period.

Television: Television is basically radio with pictures. It allows for the same broad dissemination of information, sports and entertainment except it includes pictures and we all know "a picture's worth a thousand words". With the advances in Satellite TV, it's basically available anywhere (In the Continental United States. Fees and restrictions do apply.)

Pros:

The same information dissemination as radio, but with pictures. Allowing you to literally see what's happening and pick up body language, etc.
Available almost anywhere.

Cons:

A "passive" experience. You sit. You watch.
Robs the imagination of the opportunity to paint the pictures.
Cost of equipment and typically some service.
TV has a much deeper influence than radio. Pictures become burned in your memory. This is good if you're watching something positive. They have positive programming on TV?

Internet: The internet has completely revolutionized our world. No invention has allowed the dissemination of information to a truly global extent like the internet has. It doesn't matter where you are (within limits), you can read viewpoints from all over the world. The best part is, you can also watch porn from all over the world too. OK, so maybe that's not such a good thing. While the internet has expanded the borders of information and freedom, it has also expanded access to pornography and destructive influences of all sorts to unprecedented levels. Anyone can get anything anywhere.

Pros:

Global dissemination of information and communication.
User generated content. Even I can have a "blog".
Most content is free.

Cons:

Global dissemination of "all kinds of bad stuff".
Spam...
Pop-Up ads...
User generated content. Even I can have a "blog"...
System costs and access costs

Sliced Bread: I'm not sure where to go with this one. I mean, it's sliced bread... But. It's Sliced Bread, that golden standard to which everything else is held. So I felt compelled to include it. But ask yourself one question. What was the best thing before sliced bread?

Pros:

Makes handy sandwiches.

Cons:

Molds
Goes stale
Very "crumb-y"

Railroads: Railroads united this country and allowed/expedited the development of half of this continent. Railroads allowed for transportation of goods and people across vast expanses of open space, allowing for people to sell their goods to markets far away, as well as allowing the import of goods from long distances. This reduced the need for specific regions to be "self-sufficient" in providing their needs, allowing regions to specialize in industries they were most suited for (i.e. the Great Plains in food, the industrialized and populated East Coast in equipment and manufacturing).

Pros:

Allows low(er) cost transportation of goods across long distances.
Gives some predictability and efficiency to transportation of goods.
Allows specialization of economies.

Cons:

High cost of infrastructure.
Destinations limited to somewhere along the tracks.

Cars: While railroads may have built this country, cars populated it. Distances that once took days to cover on foot or horseback now takes hours. For the first time in history, people weren't restricted to where they wanted to live based on proximity to water, jobs, etc. People could still survive, even when isolated from the necessities of life. People can choose where they live based not on where they work but based on where they want to live. Throw in the trucking industry and you have a significant replacement of the railroads for freight hauling

Pros:

Flexibility of transportation.
Allows travel at (relatively) low cost.
Allows transportation of goods and people to virtually all areas of the country.

Cons:

Global Warming! Freak out everybody...
High gas costs (recently anyways).
Cost of infrastructure for roadways.
Cars lead to urban sprawl. I'm not sure how bad "urban sprawl" is, but I'll throw it in there...

So there's the candidates. In a later post, we'll pick a winner. Hopefully tomorrow (or sooner), but given my track record, we'll see...

Going Bowling...

2006-12-05T14:07:00.000-05:00

Well, after 6 long years, the University of Kentucky has finally made it back to a bowl game. Rich Brooks has actually done a pretty good job of coaching this year, which is surprising. I fully expect to get trounced by Clemson, mainly because our defense is incredibly inept, but we're going to a bowl game all the same. So, Go Cats! Wildcats, that is; not Tigers.

Perfection is Unattainable...

2006-12-05T12:43:00.000-05:00

This whole blogging thing is hard. As the two people (NOTE: The recent posting droughts may have driven those two people away...) that read here have probably noticed, I'm more about long posts than little blurbs about how my day went. Problem is, long posts take time. Time I don't have. I have these grand visions of posts on various topics. I flesh out the issues; I issue my opinions; I stand on my soapbox and espouse great words of wisdom (OK, maybe not the last one). But I don't get around to posting them. I've got two posts started on paper (Technically, electronic media is the proper term, but "paper" sounds better) and a dozen more swirling in my head. I just haven't got around to them. So I figured in the meantime, I'd throw out a stop gap. Nothing earth-shattering here, just a couple quick things. As a more long term solution, I may put up a paypal button and all of my flocks of loyal readers can contribute money to me to allow me to eliminate extraneous things in my life like work and lawn care. I can guarantee that my blogging quantity, if not quality, would improve. Let me know if you're interested and I'll post an estimated amount needed.

Christmas:
It's about that time of year again. I got the lights up on Friday night, along with the lighted "garland" that says "MERRY CHRISTMAS" and the animated (Their heads move) reindeer (matched pair, 1 buck, 1 doe). The deer and the Merry Christmas are new additions for the year. I wanted one of the big snow globes, but the wife said no... No snow globe. If anyone's in the holiday spirit, you can get me one of these. Post here and I'll get you my shipping address. Anyway, got the lights up, we put the tree up last night and I'm listening to Christmas music as we speak. All's well. It really is a great time of year, you know. I feel bad for all you people buried in the snow, but the weather's even great here. It's been in the 70's most days. And as we reach this time of year, let's take the time to remember those less fortunate than ourselves. Most places seem to have some sort of program buying toys for kids in bad family situations. While you're out shopping for yourself and your family, buy a couple of things for someone else too. Better yet, those of you with kids, take your kids out and let them buy something for someone else. If you can't do that, do something. Just remember, Christmas means more than presents and lights, or even snow globes... So, I'm sure I'll say it again, but for now, "Merry Christmas".

Charity:
Speaking of thinking of others. I ran across this article the other day and I found it very interesting. Americans are often criticized for being stingy or cheap and yet that appears to be untrue. It appears that unlike other nations, we give out of our own pockets instead of waiting on the government to give. It's a different approach than most of the world and one that most of your celebrities (Bono, Former President Carter, Angelina Jolie were all quoted in the referenced article) and other world organizations fail to recognize. Perhaps they fail to see it's much more effective than government programs that are rife with corruption and waste.

On Success:
Another article I ran across in "the layoff". It's about a man named Chris Gardner, who you may have heard about since he's been making the media rounds lately about a new movie with Will Smith along with his book, The Pursuit of Happyness. Chris Gardner is a man who came from a broken and abusive home and whose life was turned around by a chance encounter with a man driving a ferrari. Read the article, it's great. To paraphrase a line from Jerry Maguire, "I was inspired. And I'm an engineer." It really does go to show that you can have anything in this country if you'll set your mind to it and work to achieve it. Several years ago, I was reading a book of George H.W. Bush's letters and I had something of an ongoing discussion with a friend several years ago about what makes a man (to be PC, "or woman") "great", as opposed to "ordinary". A few months after we determined that we didn't know, I had an encounter with someone in a small town in the middle of Kentucky. This guy was full of a vision and ideas and he was alive. He knew what he wanted and you could tell he was committed to achieving it. From that I determined that two things are necessary for "greatness": Vision and Determination. I guess I always knew that, but you expect there to be something more. Anyway, the friend I was discussing this with said, "But how do you do this when you come from a broken home or a disadvantaged background?" Ask Chris Gardner. I'm sure it's not easy, but it can obviously be done.

Now all we've got to do is go out and find that vision...

On Societal Coarseness

2006-11-27T19:13:00.000-05:00

First off, I must apologize to those one or two people that are actually reading my blog. Take my trip to Dallas, work, family coming into to town and Thanksgiving; throw them all into a week and voila, you have no posts for almost two weeks. Again, my apologies to the two people who were disappointed. Now, on to what you came for.

A rather disappointing trend I have noticed as of late is the general coarseness, crudeness and vulgarity of our modern society. Part of what inspired this post is I was having a discussion with a friend the other day and we were talking about how so much of the internet is crass and vulgar. It seems to be "successful", you have to be "shocking". Another part of what inspired this post is I was standing in the store the other day with my three young children and my wife. It was a small store; there was our family, two employees, a group of four twenty-somethings and a couple of other people. There, in the middle of the store, one of the twenty-somethings dropped an F-bomb, right out loud. No one even noticed. Me, I did a double-take. Come now. It’s bad enough to use that language in front of ladies, but my children? Really. Unfortunately, this seems to have become a pervasive problem in our society. Primetime television has no problem with “the B word”, SOB and innumerable other “lesser” swear words and profanities. Why has this become acceptable?

And it’s not just language. Sex sells. Nudity sells. Have you seen underwear commercials lately? There was a time such things were spoken of in hushed tones. Advertisements were discreet. Now, put the fliers in the Sunday paper. Splash them across the screen in primetime. Show the women prancing around the house in their underwear (Side note here. Who prances all over the house doing all kinds of stuff in nothing but your underwear?). Shoot, take products that aren’t even related to underwear and throw panties in there. Perhaps I’m just noticing things in the last few years as my kids get older, but it seems these things have changed. It seems I can’t even watch a ball game without scantily clad women acting suggestively in commercials (we’ll leave the cheerleaders and the excessive cleavage shots out for now). Now, I’m not a prude and I won’t deny that I “appreciate the female form” but I don’t need to be exposed to this on a constant basis and my kids surely don’t. But far from protecting our kids from these things, we embrace them. We wrap these things into our kid’s lives. May I point you to the Bratz?

Besides the materialism and shallowness that things like these obviously promote, hello, are you raising your daughter to be a hooker? Oh wait, perhaps it's a "Porn Star in Training". You've got to be kidding me. I can't imagine a parent anywhere who would be proud or even OK if there 30 year old daughter became a "Porn Star". People actually encourage that at a young age? And what of the skimpy girl's panties that have "yummy" printed on them (This I have seen with my own eyes in a national retailer). What? I don't want anything printed on my nine year olds underwear, much less a reference I'm not sure I completely understand and I certainly don't want her to understand. The sexualization of our children and of all of our society is indeed disturbing.

And there are other things too. For instance, what's up with all the tattoos and piercings? It seems you don't see a girl under the age of 30 these days without a tattoo somewhere. A quick side note here. The small of the back seems to be the location of choice. Setting aside the fact that that should be covered by a decent outfit, doesn't that seem incredibly painful? I cringe as I think about it. Perhaps I'm just a wimp; back on topic. Seems like most guys have at least one ear pierced, if not a tongue or, heaven forbid, some other area. There was a time that things like this were reserved for societal outcasts and oddballs. Today, they're mainstream. Now I'm not saying this is a horrible thing and will lead to the downfall of Western Civilization. But what ever happened to a sense of decorum? What happened to some semblance of class? Shoot, it's hard to find jeans that aren't "destroyed" anymore. Now I'm not saying we should all walk around in a suit and a tie, I mean, khakis and a button-up is about as dressed up as I like to get, but honestly, would it be that bad if people looked halfway decent before they walked out of the house? You know, put on jeans that don't have holes in them, shirts that aren't faded and without piercings sticking out of your body at all sorts of odd locations and angles. Perhaps I'm just a curmudgeon, but it really does seem to be getting out of hand.

What gets me is I'm not sure what's causing it all. I do have a theory though. Nothing's right or wrong. It's all about "expressing yourself" and "following your heart". People have no meaning in their life, so they look for meaning in fashion, sex, being "different" (even though they end up being just like everyone else). People have got to realize that your meaning and worth are not established on these physical trappings, but on something bigger, something outside yourself. The only place I see you can find meaning is in God.

Texas, Here I Come

2006-11-16T06:17:00.002-05:00

So tonight, I leave for Texas... I'm just going to be there two days for a meeting and then spending some time with my grandparents and (hopefully) cousins. I was born and raised in Texas for the first 8 years of my life. Once a Texan, always a Texan. Just for some reason, I'm not sure that I'm really a Texan. I'm not ready to call myself a Crucian, but I spent more of my "formative" years there than anywhere else. I haven't set foot in Texas in 4 1/2 years and I can't say, I "miss it". While I wouldn't mind living there, I don't know that it holds any more sway on me than any other place in the union. And I think I'd rather take my wife to St. Croix than Texas, because St. Croix "defines" me more. I know my family's liable to disown me if they read this, but hey... Personally, I consider myself a Floridian because that's where I live now. I guess I've never been tied to one location as much as most people are because I moved so much in life. If people ask me where I'm from, I'm just as likely to say Kentucky as Texas. Anybody else experienced this "locational identity" crisis, or is it just me? Anyway, I look forward to seeing my family and obtaining some precious chili (see previous post). I won't go so far as to say I'm "going home", but I'll borrow a line from the Backyardigans and say, "Texas, here I come."

The Finest Food Know to Man

2006-11-16T06:05:00.000-05:00

Neighbor, How long has it been since you had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?
Well, that’s too long!

This evening, I leave for Texas on business. As part of my trip though, I'm picking up around 50 cans of the finest food know to man, Wolf Brand Chili. For some reason, Wolf Brand Chili (always referred to as, "Wolf Brand Chili", not Wolf Chili, not Chili. Wolf Brand Chili.) is not widely distributed outside of Texas. For those that have not had the pleasure of enjoying this delicacy, may I point you here. I have no idea why I was surprised this is offered on eBay, but I was... I can't wait to lug two suitcases full of canned goods through the DFW airport, but trust me, it'll be worth it...

Just Call Me Angel...

2006-11-16T05:53:00.000-05:00

So I'm driving in to work this morning. It's that perfect time of day; 5:15 and dark. I'm awake, I'm alive, raring and ready to go and meet the world. I'm listening to Sirius 62, Classic Country. It's Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings, back to back to back. I'm rocking out, singing along with every word; life is good. A minute later, I hear myself singing, "Just call me angel of the morning, just touch my cheek before you leave..." Juice Newton. Juice Newton?!? Yeah. All the "coolness" that I'd felt I possessed just moments before was gone in that brief instant. It was, shall we say, an uncomfortable moment... So I put in Gary Allan and made sure that wouldn't happen again...

By the way, for those who haven't checked out Gary's new CD Tough All Over, I would heartily recommend it. His song, Life Ain't Always Beautiful, could easily be one of my favorites of all time.

Glenn Beck Extremism Special

2006-11-14T17:51:00.002-05:00

I know we're all busy and we already have our TV lineups cards filled out for each night of the week, but I would strongly encourage you to watch tomorrow's special on the Glenn Beck show. Glenn is doing a show on Islamic Extremism, using their speeches and videos. See what they say when they don't think we're listening. I've heard some of the translated speeches and videos and they're sad and disturbing. It's important that we know exactly what we're facing and the depth of their hatred. Please, take the time to check it out, it's running at 7:00PM EST and reairing at 9:00PM EST. TiVO, record, whatever; just please watch it...

Blog Changes

2006-11-14T13:56:00.000-05:00

So I'm new to the whole blog thing. I'm feeling my way as I go, so last night I made some changes. Changed names, logo and I also added a RSS Feed. Be warned, the RSS Feed pulls up an advertisement every time your reader updates. I wouldn't pay the $5 a month to get rid of ads, so that's what you've got. Seems there's a common theme here. I wouldn't pay $5 a month, so I started a blog. I wouldn't pay $5 a month, so we've got ads in our RSS Readers. Well, the capitalist in me applauds the capitalist in them for wanting to make money. It also applauds me for not spending the money... If you have any trouble with the RSS Feed, let me know and I'll see if I can fix it.

My Comments on "'Consumer' Religion"

2006-11-14T13:50:00.000-05:00

As promised, here are my thoughts on the article I posted yesterday. First some overall comments and then I’ll hit the highlights on some passages of particular interest.

I was discussing this article with the Preacher where I go to church and he thought it had a somewhat “anti-capitalism” feel to it. Personally, I didn’t get that at all. I got more that we need to be careful that: a) We don’t become “consumed with consumerism” and b) We don’t think religion is like picking a grocery store, done out of convenience and not on matters of principle.

a) As the prosperity of this nation has increased, we have become increasingly defined by our possessions. The “American Dream” is more and more defined as a certain level of “stuff” as opposed to doing better than previous generations, having a good family, etc. Some of you may have seen the story about the boy who used his dad’s credit card to fly to Cuba to live with his mother. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060927-1421-cubanboy.html Here’s what his dad had to say: “I'm hoping he will spend a couple of months there without his computer, plasma TV, iPod, and he'll want to come back,” Diaz told The Miami Herald. “My son likes the good things in life. He won't find that in Cuba.” The “good things in life” are his plasma TV and iPod? How empty and shallow his life must be. How shallow his father must be if he thinks those things will make his son come back. Unfortunately, I think this is an increasingly common perception; we are what we have. How futile and dangerous this is.

b) As Thomas Jefferson once said, “On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock.” It seems these days, it’s all about me. What makes me happy? How can I satisfy my immediate desire? And religion has become yet another place to find fulfillment. But it’s one of many, all equal and there are many variations, all equal. Moral relativism has invaded our churches and reduced their differences to a matter of style, nothing more than a personal preference.

Anyway, on with the highlights…

Margaret continued, "Faith Community has so much to offer our family, and I think it's really important to go someplace the boys like. When your kids are teenagers, you'll understand." Having played the evangelical trump card (the kids), Margaret sat back in her chair believing no further discussion was necessary.

It seems kids are the ultimate trump card in everything. “It’s for the children.” Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got three kids who I love to death, but your world does not and should not center on kids; especially in matters of right and wrong.

When we approach Christianity as consumers rather than seeing it as a comprehensive way of life, Christianity becomes just one more brand we consume along with Gap, Apple, and Starbucks to express our identity.

And the demotion of Jesus Christ from Lord to label means that to live as a Christian no longer carries an expectation of obedience and good works, but rather the perpetual consumption of Christian merchandise and experiences—music, books, t-shirts, jewelry.

Approaching Christianity as a brand (rather than a worldview) explains why the majority of people who identify themselves as born-again Christians live no differently than other Americans. According to George Barna, most churchgoers have not adopted a biblical worldview, they have simply added a Jesus fish to the bumper of their unregenerate consumer identities. As Mark Riddle observes, "Conversion in the U.S. seems to mean we've exchanged some of our shopping at Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, and Borders for the Christian bookstore down the street. We've taken our lack of purchasing control to God's store, where we buy our office supplies in Jesus' name."

I thought these three paragraphs were just great. Christianity has to be a life-changing thing to be real. It can’t just be “one more brand… to express our identity”. Couple that with the point the author is making about our unbridled restraint and how we think Christianity is something you purchase in a store, and I think it’s extra effective.

Being fully formed in a consumer worldview, Greg and Margaret intuitively accepted that the personal enrichment and fulfillment of desire is the highest good. As a result, they chose the church that best satisfied their family's preferences without bothering to consult their community, the Bible, or the Holy Spirit to gauge the legitimacy of those desires. After all, in consumerism a desire is never illegitimate, it is only unmet.

How many people believe that? “A desire is never illegitimate, it is only unmet.” Isn’t that what “believe in yourself”, “follow your heart” and all that drivel’s really saying? If you want it, you should have it. I’m not sure that’s ever an acceptable form of decision making, but it’s for sure not the way to go in religion.

This constant manufacturing of desires has created a culture of overindulgence. Obesity, sexual promiscuity, and skyrocketing credit card debt are just a few signs. Although lack of self-control has always plagued humanity, for the first time in history, an economic system has been created that relies on it. Now, if people began suppressing their desires and consuming only what they needed, our economy would collapse. To prevent this, satisfying personal desires has become sacrosanct.

I’m not sure I agree with much of the section preceding this paragraph, but it’s hard to argue with this. I would say the “constant manufacturing of desires” coupled with a loss of restraint due to the erosion of morals, is largely responsible for these things. As for the whole economic system, I would say that businesses are, and always have been, all about making money. That’s not a bad thing, just the way it is. It’s up to the consumer to rein in their consumption.

According to Finke and Stark, the American church adopted a consumer-driven model because the First Amendment prohibited state-sanctioned religion. Therefore, faith, like the buying of material goods, became a matter of personal choice. And "where religious affiliation is a matter of choice, religious organizations must compete for members and … the 'invisible hand' of the marketplace is as unforgiving of ineffective religious firms as it is of their commercial counterparts."

This explains why marketing strategies and secular business values are pervasive in today's ministry—we're in competition with other providers of identity and meaning for survival. We must convince a sustainable segment of the religious marketplace that our church is "relevant," "comfortable," or "exciting." (One billboard in my area proclaims, "Kids love our church. It's FUN!") And we must differentiate our church by providing more of the elements people want. After all, in a consumer culture, the customer is king.

Again, I go back to Jefferson. On matters of Principle, stand like a rock. Does truth exist or not? Can we customize truth to our liking? I believe the answer is a resounding, “No”. As such, we are competing, but we’re not marketing. We have one model to sell, no bells, no whistles, no special offers.

When I arrived at Starbucks to meet with Greg and Margaret, I first went to the counter to order a drink. The simple menu on the wall is deceptive. There was a time when ordering coffee meant regular or decaf, cream or sugar. Today, Starbucks provides literally 20,000 beverage permutations.

All right, it’s time for the partially pointless aside. I hate Starbucks. There are three choices when it comes to coffee: Decaf or Regular? Cream? Sugar? That’s it. No mas. You’re done. 20,000? Talk about a reason for societal collapse. Not to mention Starbucks gives 82% of their political contributions to liberal causes. Domino’s Pizza on the other hand? 93% to Republicans. Anybody in the mood for a 5-5-5 deal tonight?

At one church, upon arriving each family member can choose the worship setting that fits their personal desire. Simultaneously, grandma can sing hymns in the traditional service, mom and dad can enjoy coffee and bagels in the worship cafe, and the teenagers can lose their hearing in the rock venue. The value of shared experience and congregational unity is drowned out by consumerism's mantra of individual choice.

What about using the Gospel to attract people for a change? Paul said, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1:16) Seems like Paul had a one size fits all solution.

Consumers demand options, but this poses a problem. Formation into the likeness of Christ is not accomplished by always getting what we want. In ages past, choice was not heralded as a Christian's right. In fact, relinquishing our choices by submitting to a spiritual mentor or community was prerequisite to growth in Christ. Believers were guided through formative and corrective disciplines—most being activities we would never choose if left to our desires. But surrendering control ensured we received what we needed to mature in Christ, not simply what we wanted.

“Formation into the likeness of Christ is not accomplished by always getting what we want.” How true is that? In fact, it’s the subrogation of our desires to those of God that make us in the image of Christ. How can we think that ignoring the Bible and elevating our choices to the highest good is what God would want?

Tragically, consumerism has led us to commodify parts of God's creation, too. Sexuality, for example, is commodified through pornography and prostitution. Human life is commodified when we begin thinking a person has a right to live only when wanted.

In our society the only value something or someone has is the value I give it. It should surprise no one that in our culture God also has no value apart from what he can do for me.

Great points. I can’t really add anything here, so I won’t.

Christian Smith, a leading sociologist of religion at the University of North Carolina, after five years of researching the spiritual lives of American teens, concluded that the faith of most teenagers, including those who attend evangelical churches, is MTD: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. Smith explains:

"By 'moralistic' I mean being good and nice. … By 'therapeutic' I mean being primarily concerned with one's own happiness in contrast to focusing on glorifying God, learning obedience, or serving others. Finally, by 'deism' I mean a view of God as normally distant and not involved in one's life, except if one has a problem one needs God to solve. In other words, God functions as a combination divine butler and cosmic therapist."

Most teenagers hold this self-centered perception of God because it is the faith most American adults have as well. This god of consumerism shows no resemblance to the Consuming Fire described in Scripture. People may say they believe in Jesus, but the archaic Lord, who calls forth sacrifice, promises suffering in this life, and demands obedience for his glory, the one Barth described as "wholly other" is not what they have in mind. They're thinking of the Jesus that adorns t-shirts and SUV tailgates.

As always, we as humans are concerned with finding meaning in our life. This is just an attempt at finding meaning, without having to “inconvenience” ourselves by subjecting our will to that of God. If we can find the same meaning and benefit without making any sacrifices, why wouldn’t we? But the truth is we can’t.

The church does not exist to supply comfort, ease, and convenient services to religious consumers. And God is not a commodity that exists to make you feel better.

“Religion” is a way of life, not a consumer choice. It’s not about “feeling good about yourself” and satisfying a desire. It’s about completely subjecting your will to that of your Heavenly Father. We must never forget that and always pray as Christ did, “yet not as I will, but as You will."

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Anybody else have something?

"Consumer" Religion

2006-11-13T08:23:00.000-05:00

I ran across this (rather long) article and found it rather interesting. I don't agree with all of the author's points, but I did find a number of them very insightful. I'll post my comments on it later, but here it is for your reading pleasure...

iChurch: All We Like Sheep

Is our insistence on choices leading us astray?

by Skye Jethani

I don't drink coffee but that hasn't stopped me from using the Starbucks across the street from my church as a second office. I sip my overpriced beverage in the armchair near the window. On this afternoon I was meeting Greg and Margaret—members of our church I'd worked with closely for the last few years.

"We've decided to leave Blanchard," Greg started. "For two months we've been church shopping." Church shopping—where did that dastardly term come from? I thought while gazing out the window at the swarm of suburbanites fluttering between The Gap, Banana Republic, Barnes & Noble, and Williams-Sonoma.

"We really love Blanchard," Margaret added to soften the blow. "It's been a great church for our family, with a wonderful children's program. Greg and I really like it, but our boys are teenagers now and they prefer the music at Faith Community*." I took a sip of my preferred drink—a tall, no whip, Tazo chai latte. Maybe I should have gotten the low cal, non-fat, grande Earl Grey, with Splenda.

Margaret continued, "Faith Community has so much to offer our family, and I think it's really important to go someplace the boys like. When your kids are teenagers, you'll understand." Having played the evangelical trump card (the kids), Margaret sat back in her chair believing no further discussion was necessary.

"What are you going to do when your boys leave home in a few years?" I asked.

"I'm not sure," said Greg. "Maybe we'll come back to Blanchard."

"I hope you don't," I replied, meaning no malice. I did, however, relish the stunned look on their faces, if just for a moment. "I hope that you commit yourselves so fully to Faith Community—building strong relationships, serving with your gifts, participating in its mission—that you could never see yourselves leaving that church. I really believe God grows us most when we are committed to a community."

For the next hour we had a difficult but edifying conversation about their decision to leave. Then I prayed for Greg and Margaret in the middle of Starbucks, and watched from my chair by the window as they drove away in their SUV, a chrome fish on the tailgate.

From Lord to Label

Christian critiques of consumerism usually focus on the dangers of idolatry—the temptation to make material goods the center of life rather than God. This, however, misses the real threat consumerism poses. As contingent beings, we must consume resources to survive. The problem is not consuming to live, but rather living to consume.

We find ourselves in a culture that defines our relationships by our purchases. As the philosopher Baudrillard explains, "Consumption is a system of meaning." We assign value to ourselves and others based on the goods we purchase. One's identity is now constructed by the clothes you wear, the vehicle you drive, the music on your iPod. In short, you are what you consume.

This explains why shopping is the number one leisure activity of Americans. It occupies a role in society that once belonged to religion—the power to give meaning and construct identity. Consumerism, as Pete Ward concludes, "represents an alternative source of meaning to the Christian gospel." No longer merely an economic system, consumerism has become the American worldview—the framework through which we interpret everything else, including God, the gospel, and church.

When we approach Christianity as consumers rather than seeing it as a comprehensive way of life, Christianity becomes just one more brand we consume along with Gap, Apple, and Starbucks to express our identity.

And the demotion of Jesus Christ from Lord to label means that to live as a Christian no longer carries an expectation of obedience and good works, but rather the perpetual consumption of Christian merchandise and experiences—music, books, t-shirts, jewelry.

Approaching Christianity as a brand (rather than a worldview) explains why the majority of people who identify themselves as born-again Christians live no differently than other Americans. According to George Barna, most churchgoers have not adopted a biblical worldview, they have simply added a Jesus fish to the bumper of their unregenerate consumer identities. As Mark Riddle observes, "Conversion in the U.S. seems to mean we've exchanged some of our shopping at Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, and Borders for the Christian bookstore down the street. We've taken our lack of purchasing control to God's store, where we buy our office supplies in Jesus' name."

I Can't Get No …

During my conversation with Greg and Margaret at Starbucks, I asked how they came to choose Faith Community as their new church. "Did you pray as a family about this decision?" No.

"Did you involve your small group or seek the wisdom of an elder in the decision?" No.

"Did you investigate the church's doctrine, history, or philosophy of ministry?" No.

"Did you base your decision on anything other than what you 'liked'?" No.

Believe it or not, Greg and Margaret are educated professionals capable of making intelligent decisions. How then do we make sense of their impulsive church shopping?

Being fully formed in a consumer worldview, Greg and Margaret intuitively accepted that the personal enrichment and fulfillment of desire is the highest good. As a result, they chose the church that best satisfied their family's preferences without bothering to consult their community, the Bible, or the Holy Spirit to gauge the legitimacy of those desires. After all, in consumerism a desire is never illegitimate, it is only unmet.

People have not always lived this way. Consumers, like the goods they buy, were made not born. The advent of mass production during the Industrial Revolution created previously unimaginable quantities of goods—far more than the market needed. Manufacturers suddenly needed a way to artificially increase demand for their products. Advertising was born.
Ads became the prophets of capitalism—turning the hearts of the people toward the goods they didn't know they needed. They subtly or overtly promised more comfort, status, success, happiness, and even sex to people who purchased their wares. In 1897 one newspaper reader said that in the past we "skipped ads unless some want compelled us to read, now we read to find out what we really want."

Today, according to The New York Times, each American is exposed to 3,500 desire-inducing advertisements every day promising us that satisfaction is just one more purchase away. Rodney Clapp writes, "The consumer is schooled in insatiability. He or she is never to be satisfied—at least not for long. The consumer is tutored that people basically consist of unmet needs that can be appeased by commodified goods and experiences."

This constant manufacturing of desires has created a culture of overindulgence. Obesity, sexual promiscuity, and skyrocketing credit card debt are just a few signs. Although lack of self-control has always plagued humanity, for the first time in history, an economic system has been created that relies on it. Now, if people began suppressing their desires and consuming only what they needed, our economy would collapse. To prevent this, satisfying personal desires has become sacrosanct.

During World War II, for example, the government severely restricted public consumption of certain goods needed for the war effort. Following 9/11, however, Americans were repeatedly told that to refrain from buying, traveling, and continuing our lifestyle was tantamount to "letting the terrorists win."

For consumers, fulfillment of desire is the highest good and final arbiter in making decisions—even deciding where to worship.

Kingdom Competition

It isn't difficult to see the incompatibility of consumerism with traditional Christianity. Scripture champions contentment and self-control, not endless pursuit of personal desire. Unfortunately, teaching and modeling these Christian values is not a high priority in most churches. In fact, many churches use the same techniques pioneered by consumerism to draw people through their doors.

Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, co-authors of The Churching of America, 1776-1990, argue that ministry in the U.S. is modeled primarily on capitalism, with pastors functioning as a church's sales force, and evangelism as its marketing strategy. Our indoctrination into this economic view of ministry may prevent us from recognizing how unprecedented it is in Christian history.

According to Finke and Stark, the American church adopted a consumer-driven model because the First Amendment prohibited state-sanctioned religion. Therefore, faith, like the buying of material goods, became a matter of personal choice. And "where religious affiliation is a matter of choice, religious organizations must compete for members and … the 'invisible hand' of the marketplace is as unforgiving of ineffective religious firms as it is of their commercial counterparts."

This explains why marketing strategies and secular business values are pervasive in today's ministry—we're in competition with other providers of identity and meaning for survival. We must convince a sustainable segment of the religious marketplace that our church is "relevant," "comfortable," or "exciting." (One billboard in my area proclaims, "Kids love our church. It's FUN!") And we must differentiate our church by providing more of the elements people want. After all, in a consumer culture, the customer is king.

When I arrived at Starbucks to meet with Greg and Margaret, I first went to the counter to order a drink. The simple menu on the wall is deceptive. There was a time when ordering coffee meant regular or decaf, cream or sugar. Today, Starbucks provides literally 20,000 beverage permutations.

While enjoying our drinks of choice, Greg and Margaret proceeded to explain how Faith Community Church had multiple services, including Saturday, so they could choose a time that fit their busy schedule. Blanchard only has three services—all on Sunday morning. The youth group had multiple worship teams for their son, a drummer, to play on. Ours only has one. And, because Faith Community was "way bigger" than Blanchard, it had more to offer Greg and Margaret too.

Ironically, they had come to Blanchard years earlier from a smaller church. What goes around comes around, I guess.

Decisions, Decisions

One of the core characteristics of consumerism is choice. With each new option, the shopper is better equipped to construct his unique identity. Customization, creating a product that conforms to my particular desires, has driven businesses to offer an ever-increasing number of choices. This trend is seen most clearly in the iPod. No longer is a listener required to buy an entire CD to enjoy just one song. You now have instant access to millions of songs, and download them individually for a personalized playlist. The demand for more choices also drives modern churches. The goal is to provide religious consumers with as many individualized choices as possible. The latest permutation is "video venues."

At one church, upon arriving each family member can choose the worship setting that fits their personal desire. Simultaneously, grandma can sing hymns in the traditional service, mom and dad can enjoy coffee and bagels in the worship cafe, and the teenagers can lose their hearing in the rock venue. The value of shared experience and congregational unity is drowned out by consumerism's mantra of individual choice.

"The inspiration for what this church is doing," one journalist reports, "comes from a place where freedom of choice and variety are celebrated: the American shopping mall." To which the pioneering pastor responds, "I am very comfortable with a consumer mindset and use that tool to help reach people."

To Meet, or to Discipline Desire?

Consumers demand options, but this poses a problem. Formation into the likeness of Christ is not accomplished by always getting what we want. In ages past, choice was not heralded as a Christian's right. In fact, relinquishing our choices by submitting to a spiritual mentor or community was prerequisite to growth in Christ. Believers were guided through formative and corrective disciplines—most being activities we would never choose if left to our desires. But surrendering control ensured we received what we needed to mature in Christ, not simply what we wanted.

In consumer Christianity, however, church leaders function as religious baristas, supplying spiritual goods for people to choose from based on their preferences. Our concern becomes not whether people are growing, but whether they are satisfied. An unhappy member, like an unhappy customer, will find satisfaction elsewhere. As one pastor enthusiastically said, "The problem with blended services is that half the people are happy half the time. With a video venue, you can say, 'If you don't like this service style, try another one!'"

Ironically, this demand for choice that has fueled the consumer church may ultimately be its undoing. According to George Barna's book, Revolution, 20 million Americans are no longer satisfied with the options available at institutional churches. Instead they're "choosing from a proliferation of options, weaving together a set of favored alternatives into a unique tapestry that constitutes the personal 'church' of the individual."

It's the logical conclusion of consumer Christianity: iChurch.

The new breed of Christian consumers, Barna's "revolutionaries," customize discipleship the way iPod users customize a playlist. They might find encouragement at a community support group, worship at a Third Day concert, listen to a podcast sermon, and read about the topic of the day at the Christian bookstore. While the church as we've known it fades into memory like vinyl LPs.

Divine ButlerUltimately, our greatest concern should not be consumerism's erosion of the church, but the commodification of God himself. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, most of the food, clothing, tools, and furniture people used was made at home or by someone nearby. Every item had a story and person attached to it that was known by its user. A rocking chair had value not only for its comfort, but because Uncle John made it.

Today, as I sit in my favorite armchair at Starbucks enjoying my tea, I have no idea who assembled the chair, who grew the tea leaves, who designed the cup—I barely know the guy with the nose ring behind the counter who poured the hot water. Consumerism has stripped the goods I use everyday from their context—they have no story or value apart from my consumption of them.

Tragically, consumerism has led us to commodify parts of God's creation, too. Sexuality, for example, is commodified through pornography and prostitution. Human life is commodified when we begin thinking a person has a right to live only when wanted.

In our society the only value something or someone has is the value I give it. It should surprise no one that in our culture God also has no value apart from what he can do for me.

Christian Smith, a leading sociologist of religion at the University of North Carolina, after five years of researching the spiritual lives of American teens, concluded that the faith of most teenagers, including those who attend evangelical churches, is MTD: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. Smith explains:

"By 'moralistic' I mean being good and nice. … By 'therapeutic' I mean being primarily concerned with one's own happiness in contrast to focusing on glorifying God, learning obedience, or serving others. Finally, by 'deism' I mean a view of God as normally distant and not involved in one's life, except if one has a problem one needs God to solve. In other words, God functions as a combination divine butler and cosmic therapist."

Most teenagers hold this self-centered perception of God because it is the faith most American adults have as well. This god of consumerism shows no resemblance to the Consuming Fire described in Scripture. People may say they believe in Jesus, but the archaic Lord, who calls forth sacrifice, promises suffering in this life, and demands obedience for his glory, the one Barth described as "wholly other" is not what they have in mind. They're thinking of the Jesus that adorns t-shirts and SUV tailgates.

Any resentment I had toward Greg and Margaret quickly waned. Like many others at my church, they were simply doing what they had been formed to do. I may as well be angry at a fish for swimming. Immersed in a consumer culture, Greg and Margaret were simply living like consumers. The truth is I failed Greg and Margaret. I failed to teach them that the core values of consumerism are incongruent with the Christian life. That making choices to satisfy immediate personal desires is not the goal of life.

The church does not exist to supply comfort, ease, and convenient services to religious consumers. And God is not a commodity that exists to make you feel better.

Perhaps I failed Greg and Margaret because I was too busy being a spiritual barista, not a pastor protecting Greg and Margaret from the 3,500 wolves in sheep's clothing they encounter every day. Whatever the reason, because of my failure, that responsibility now rests with the leaders of Faith Community Church.

Skye Jethani is assistant teaching pastor at Blanchard Road Alliance Church in Wheaton, Illinois.

Who's Smarter Now?

2006-11-11T21:56:00.000-05:00

From the Air Force vs. Army game this past weekend.

Reflections on Elections

2006-11-11T00:36:00.000-05:00

So here's why the Republicans lost this week. It's not because Americans rejected conservatism. It's because the Republicans didn't offer it... In fact, most of the Democrats that won ran as "Blue Dog" (read "Conservative") Democrats. America is still a conservative nation and wants conservative leadership. But honestly, do the Republicans offer that right now? On a lot of issues, no. Look at the money they're spending. Look at the prescription drugs program. Why haven't they fixed the border? I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. As a result of this, the Conservative base had no real reason to turn out. And those "Independents" who did want to vote for Conservatives were just as likely to vote for the Blue Dogs as a Republican, mainly due to the Republicans lack of ability to accomplish some important things (immigration reform, social security reform, tort reform) as well as their lack of ability to communicate effectively on the important issues, mainly the so-called "War on Terror" and the war in Iraq.

Which brings me to my next point. As I said before, I was as close to a one issue voter this election as I've ever been. To me, the primary point of concern in this election was the war in Iraq and the war against Islamic Fascism. The Republicans (I'll lay this primarily at the feet of President Bush) have almost completely failed to communicate the critical nature of our mission in Iraq. Iraq is all about reshaping the Middle East and destabilizing Iran. President Ahmadinejad has said repeatedly that Iraq is the head of the Islamic Caliphate. Osama bin Laden has said that we are involved in World War III in Iraq. How can people say we need to get out of Iraq? If we did, as soon as we did, Iran and Syria would be all over that country and it would be worse off than it was before. And it's not as if we haven't accomplished a lot and are continuing to accomplish good things in Iraq. Go here to download a video about Iraq and what the media's not reporting: http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml. We must "stay the course" in Iraq, both for our future and theirs. We are involved in a holy war, even if it's not of our choosing.

Comments on Another Blog

2006-11-10T23:34:00.000-05:00

Well, the whole inspiration for this blog (perhaps not the whole, but the primary impetus) was another blog my sister pointed me to and I wanted to leave comments on, but couldn't because I wouldn't pay $5 a month to "upgrade". So, while it may be starting in the middle, I'm going to post my response to another post here. If you're interested, here's the link: http://www.pleonast.com/user/miklm.

Anyway, the comments I wanted to post are as follows:

I’m new to the whole “blogging scene” so I may be breaking a few rules here, but bear with me please. By the way, I’m Caribbeangirl’s brother, for what that’s worth. I have a few comments on your post and some of the responses. Quite a few actually… I’d be happy to discuss things further or leave it altogether. I would have posted on your blog, but I’m not “Gold” and didn’t feel like paying the $5 a month to do that…

1. “Anybody but a Republican”, huh? So you voted FOR the party that advocates abortion and advancing the gay agenda? You voted FOR the party that advocates for a pull-out from Iraq leading to the further destabilization of an already destabilized and dangerous region? That’s interesting. Why? I can’t believe no one has asked that question in the comments yet, so I’ll be the first. To a point, I understand your frustration with the Republican Party. I too am frustrated. On many issues, they have sold out. Immigration and Prescription Drugs come to mind. However, the Democratic Party is as bad and worse on most issues. I can’t think of an issue where my stance is closer to that of the Democrats than the Republicans. And I’ll be honest with you; this election, I was pretty close to a one-issue voter. We must “stay the course” in Iraq. Osama bin Laden and President Ahmadinejad (of Iran) have made it very clear that Iraq is central to their plan for the worldwide Islamic Caliphate. May I remind you this is the guy who prayed for Armageddon on the floor of the UN? These people are actively working to bring about the “end of the world” as they understand it. They are preparing facilities right now for the return of the Mahdi (their version of the Messiah). It doesn’t matter whether you believe in this stuff or not; they do. We ARE involved in a Holy War, even if it’s not one of our choosing. For that reason, I can’t support the Democrats.

2. Item by item on your gay marriage points.
“Government should not legislate morality.”
So you support giving children access to pornography at any age?
So you support allowing abortions at any time for any reason?
So you support allowing polygamy, marriage to the household pet, etc?
And of course you support the legalization of prostitution and “recreational” drugs, right?

Of course the government legislates morality. I don’t see how the passage from Romans that was posted previously couldn’t apply here. If God appoints government as his minister, you don’t think he’d want them to minister with morality?

“Knee-jerk constitutional amendments are a very bad idea, and are very seldom beneficial.”
Isn’t this a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk amendment? Just because something is “bad” some or even most of the time, doesn’t not mean it is always bad. I don’t know about you, but if there were a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, I don’t care if it was “knee-jerk” or not, I’d vote for it in a heart beat. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

“’Same sex marriage’ is not legal in TN now. We don't need language added to the constitution that is already handled by other legislation.”
The judiciary has demonstrated numerous times that it WILL legislate from the bench. The only way to keep existing laws from being struck down as unconstitutional is to add them to the constitution. It will be interesting to see how these [State Constitutional Amendments] stand up when they are appealed to the Supreme Court for conformance to the US Constitution, but it is at least an additional layer of protection. Especially with controversial and “hip” issues like gay marriage, the only protection we have is constitutional amendments. Existing laws have been demonstrated repeatedly to be inadequate.

“The amendment does nothing to "protect" existing marriage. Even if gay people were allowed to marry, it won't affect a straight marriage one bit. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce now already; its a misnomer to cast this initiative as ‘protecting families and marriage.’”
While it might be a BIT of a misnomer, I don’t really see it as inaccurate. Currently, marriage is basically defined by most common sense people as 1 man, 1 woman. There are those who would like to change that to 2 men; 2 women; 1 man, multiple women; 1 man, 1 dog; ad infinitum. So formally and legally defining the institution of marriage as 1 man, 1 woman, will protect marriage. How could it not? Do we need to strengthen marriage between 1 man and 1 woman? Yes. Does that mean we should allow further dilution in the process? Absurd. As for families, it does strengthen them. God has defined a family as 1 father, 1 mother and children. Legal marriage entitles a couple to a whole host of rights. Among those is the right to adopt children much easier. I realize this happens now, but it will become much more widespread if gay marriage is legalized. Not to mention, if you think the gay agenda in education is bad now, just wait till gay marriage is legalized and that becomes even more of an accepted lifestyle. Oh, and if you want to laugh at me for saying gay marriage opens the door for polygamy and other forms of marriage, don’t. What stops those people? Why don’t they have the same right to define marriage as they see fit? What legal standing do you have to deny them? None. The battle for cultural acceptance of polygamy has already started and will intensify in the near future. HBO started a series (http://www.hbo.com/biglove/) featuring a polygamous family and I would say within 5 years there will be at least one network show featuring such a relationship. The gay agenda was advanced in the same way. Remember all the controversy about Candice Bergen being an unwed mother on Murphy Brown? That was 1992, folks, 1992! Less than 15 years ago. Look how far we’ve come now. Gays were introduced into television shows and shown to be an “acceptable lifestyle choice”. If we cave on gay marriage now, we will have NO STANDING WHATSOEVER when polygamy and marrying nonhuman or inanimate objects comes up, and trust me, it will.

“Its restrictive legislation, and does not promote ‘life, liberty, and happiness’ for all citizens.”
I really think this is just a subset of #1. We have all kinds of “restrictive legislation” and I’m not in favor of getting rid of much of it.

Just a couple of other comments I wanted to respond to.

“ I think it is equally sinful of government to deprive someone of medical benefits because they are a homosexual... or worse, because their parents are homosexuals.”
What exactly does this mean? I’m totally lost on this one. How is the government depriving someone of medical benefits? Help me understand this, please. If you’re saying it’s a right to have medical insurance and somehow that’s a function of the government, I couldn’t disagree more…

“It is not the job of government to save souls.”
I don’t see how this law has anything to do with saving souls. I see it as protecting families and our society.

“And we will not save souls by alienating them and depriving them of their needs.”
How are we alienating them? Don’t you think we should tell them that their lifestyle is wrong?

“I don't think Christ would have denied someone of health insurance”
Is that really what this is all about? Wow… I always thought Christ had bigger fish to fry than health insurance…