Fun with Homophones

According to my son, meet...

The Incredible Honk

Worldview: God vs. Toyota

Two views of the world and our place in it...

God:

Genesis 1:28: God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Toyota:

...the best way to have an impact on the environment is to have as little impact as possible.

In the Future, Everyone will be Stupid for 15 Minutes

The appeal of pop culture amazes me. Sure, I have favorite actors. I have even been known to spend real time on imdb.com following a "Six Degrees" thread of links. But it is crazy the degree to which people get caught up in it.

Some time ago I was watching an episode of 1 vs. 100 (which may or may not still be on the air -- I proudly don't know). It is a quiz-type of show, which, as the name implies, pits one person against 100 others. It is multiple choice, and although not all of the questions are easy, it is no Jeopardy.

In this episode, there were two questions that I thought really illustrated to problem of people simply not paying attention to what is important.

Question #1: Ashton Kutcher is the stepfather of ______
The question involved knowledge of the soap opera that is Hollywood. You had to know that his is with (married?) Demi Moore, who used to be married to Bruce Willis, so they name of the kid in the multiple choice has the last name Willis. Out of the 100 people (or however many were left at the time of the question) only 5 people got it wrong! Almost everyone knew the answer.

At first that sounds great. People are smart. They are paying attention. Maybe. But paying attention to what? The next question didn't go quite as well.

Question 2 was regarding the government. What is a position in the House or Senate:
A. Majority Whip
B. Majority Chain
C. Majority Paddle

25 people did not know the answer to the question. Twenty five! That question came after the Ashton Kutcher question, so every one of those 25 had gotten that one right. But they didn't know the legislature does not employ chains or paddles. Mind you, they didn't have to name who the Majority Whip was, they just had to recall that such a thing existed.

It is as this point that I humbly suggest some sort of simple test before allowing someone to vote.

Anticipating the counter-proposal, I would gladly submit to a test of Hollywood trivia before I am allowed to watch the latest Ashton Kutcher movie.

Oh, and the picture inset...that's Dick Durbin, Senate Majority Whip as of the writing of this entry...not Ashton Kutcher. Mr. Durbin may or may not have something to do with the title of this entry.

Governement: Hardly at Work or Too Hard at Work

We have all heard the phrase, work smarter, not harder. Apparently the State of North Carolina take the opposite view.

Last month I filed a tax report that had a problem. It was my mistake. I accidentally counted some money for the wrong month. I thought I owed $434 and had already filled out the form when I realized my mistake. The tax belonged to a different month. I really owed nothing for the month. The form is pre-filled from a booklet, so there was no spare. I didn't really think anything of it; I just crossed out the amount and wrote zero. It made the form ugly, but hey, all it said was "0" anyway.

The response from the state was ridiculous. Apparently the forms are read by a machine, which could not make out my scratched up correction. I can understand that, and as previously admitted, that was my fault entirely.


However, their reaction is just plain stupid. If the machine can't read the form, it should just go into a pile for human processing. Any reasonable human being -- or even a state employee -- could read the form. They would also have been able to verify the non-existence of the check to pay the $0 amount.

But why do the quick and easy thing? Instead, it apparently goes into a pile for human non-processing. Rather than simply reading the form and entering the information, they read the form and generated a whole new form -- by hand -- saying that the machine couldn't read my form. After filling out the form they sent the whole thing back to me (at taxpayer expense) with a blank form for me to fill out...with another 0.

My guess is, there is a full-time position in the "I can't read this form" department just to take care of this sort of thing. The persons job is to ignore the simple solution to the problem, create a bunch of new paperwork, and cost the taxpayers money.

The next thing I'm looking forward to is a fine for late filing a form with a zero on it. That will be a joy!

Automotive Patriotism

Some people argue about whether it is more patriotic to buy an American car than a foreign car. I happen to have an Acura, which is made in Japan.

This picture is proof of the patriotism of foreign automobiles. On July 4, 2008, my car added it's support. When I went to start up the car, the trip odometer read "1776". Okay, just a hair past, but still pretty good.

Dumbing Down Pride

I am sure I am not alone in being annoyed by the "Proud Parent" bumper stickers. I'm proud of my kids too, but I don't need to advertise it on my car. Get a blog for Pete's sake! :)

But worse is how the threshold of pride keeps dropping. It used to be "Proud Parent of an Honor Student at Lincoln High". Now it's things like "My Kid is a Good Citizen at Lincoln High".

This is the same sort of self-esteem garbage we see constantly from the misguided school system. You can't say someone is "better" because it will hurt the feelings of others. So, there are no "winners" only "participants".

But where does this end? Let's fast forward through a few years of political correctness...

My Kid is a Good Citizen at Lincoln High -- implies a value in citizenry, which implies loyalty to some contrived system

My Kid is a Human Being at Lincoln High -- what about non-humans? Animals? Aliens? Non-humans are people too!

My Kid is an Person at Lincoln High -- better, but still might offend some aliens

My Kid is an Entity at Lincoln High -- yeah...except for the "kid" part, that is still too human

My Offspring is an Entity at Lincoln High -- but that could be offensive to the infertile

The Organic Organism in My Care is an Entity at Lincoln High -- Could be offensive to robots and cyborgs

An Object in My Care is an Entity at Lincoln High -- not bad

Really fills you with pride, doesn't it.

Is There a Doctor in the House?

This is what happens when a child uses headphones before he uses a stethoscope.

Pickles and Hemlock

We buried my grandmother last weekend. She was a resilient woman of 92 years who had a long, rich life, fought through much adversity, and bounced back from several incidents in her later years that would have meant the end of most.

I remember her for a lot of things: special treats she baked on an old wood-burning stove, playing in the mazes we built in the huge patch of lilacs in her yard, and many other things. But the things I remember most are two incidents that just make me laugh.

One time, we were all sitting around in her kitchen discussing politics and the troubles of the world -- well, complaining really since I don't recall any real solutions being offered. My grandmother was quietly working around the kitchen until she finally chimed in with her take on what was wrong with the world..."And the price of pickles...!" If she finished the sentence, I didn't hear it over the sound I was making rolling on the floor laughing.

On another occasion, we were talking about someone choking. I don't recall why that was the topic, who else was there, or what they had to say. The only thing I remember is my grandmother's advice: If someone is choking, give them the "Hemlock maneuver". Results may vary.

Farewell grandma. Rest in the arms of your savior.

Helpful liberals

Liberals are such helpful people. I'm not sure it is possible to be a liberal without having a cause. They just always want to help.

The problem that I have is their concept of "helping". I always thought that helping meant that you do something helpful -- you contribute something. But generally when a liberal tries to "help" a cause, it involves them trying to make other people do things and pay money.

Liberals help the environment by telling you and me that we are destroying the planet and we should change the way we do everything. Thanks for the help guys, I think I can smell the cleaner air.

Liberals want to help the poor, so they take money from you and me and give it to them. Thanks liberals, you really did your part. I sure wish I could help the poor.

Liberals, please stop! I don't have the time, energy or money to keep "accepting" your help!

.45 Caliber Chiuaua?

We were sitting in church today and the pastor was preaching about the Israelites about to march around Jericho. He mentioned that they had no weapons.

My daughter turned to me and said "A weapon is a chiuaua." I said "What?" -- I thought I must have misheard her. "A weapon is a chiuaua," she repeated, matter-of-factly.

Now, kids say funny things all the time, but this one really had me stumped. What was going on inside that little brain? Maybe we need to give up home schooling if this is the result.

Just when I was ready to give up trying to understand, her cousin, sitting beside her, chimed in "No, I have a Webkinz."

Home Sweet ... Battery?

My son has a lot of toys, many of them that use batteries. In fact, an amazing number of them that use batteries. (Is there anything that can't be battery powered?) He is always leaving his flashlight on and then complains that its "out of batteries".

Last week there was a car crash a few blocks from our house. It hit a pole and knocked out power to our whole neighborhood. The way he saw it, our house was "out of batteries". :)

Alms for the Independent

Have you seen the commercials for the hoveround motorized wheelchair? You can regain your mobility and independence...and Medicare will pay for it.

That's right, regain your independence by making all the rest of us buy you a wheelchair.

Ho, Ho, Ho

Christmas insanity: 'Ho, ho, ho' becomes 'Ha, ha, ha'
Controversy erupts over attempt to gag Santa's greeting

The concern expressed by these Newspeak police is

"ho, ho, ho" phrase could frighten children and possibly be derogatory to women.

Would that be the same children who are taught how to put condoms on produce at increasingly younger ages?

Whenever anyone says it's for the children, the only thing to determine is what is really for. Rest assured, it is anything but the children.

Liberal View on Privacy

Liberals know all about privacy. They will stand up for the government staying out of personal affairs -- affairs such as a private U.S. citizen talking to a friend in the middle-east which may have some alleged tie to terrorism. Privacy is of utmost importance.

Privacy is not always the most important issue, of course. In the financial matters, it is perfectly fine to demand every U.S. citizen give an account of every cent of income annually. In fact, it would be fine if they have to sign the report under penalty of purgery and be available for appearance before the IRS for years afterward on a discrepancy of the smallest detail.

Yes, true freedom is having to count every penny for the government and freely coordinate Jihad with your innocent overseas friends. By the way, where on the 1040 do I write off Jihad-related expenses?

Kids say the darndest things

Kid's say some pretty funny things. My son is 2 years 4 months and talking up a storm.

I keep forgetting the cute things he said, so I thought I'd commit one to this blog to preserve it. We were eating out and had him strapped into a seat (a result of his shaking salt all over the booth seat a couple of minutes earlier). When he wanted to get out of his seat, he said "Buckle me out!"

Chew on This

In April, Prince William broke up with Kate Middleton. Some have speculated that the split had something to do with Kate's mother chewing gum in the presence of royalty. Apparently it is considered distasteful, a sign of rebellion, and generally not appropriate around the Royal's.

Here's what I find inappropriate: setting yourself above others and judging someone for something as trivial as chewing gum.

It makes me proud to be part of a country that threw off arrogant royalty and judges people on their own merits rather than the purity of their blood.

Let's rejoice that the King is dead. And if you want to double your pleasure, chew on this.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em

I don't smoke. But if you do, smoke away, while I complain about the freedom-hating anti-smoking crowd. I think I'll call them Smokeophobes. They want to tell everyone else what to do.

Their most prominent message venue is a never-ending series of "Truth" commercials. One of the main messages of these commercials is: "Big Tobacco" is evil and tobacco executives are evil. They aren't really telling us anything new; they are just deamonizing people. Why are they so concerned about something that really is none of their business?

One of their recent commercials starts out "As long ago as 1969, a tobacco company executive..." then talks about some product-placement in the Muppet Movie, from over 25 years ago! It's like condemning people for slavery by saying "As long ago as 1850..." How about some relavant timely issues?

It bothers me that it has become politically correct to treat smokers as second-class citizens. And I find it especially ironic that the Smokeophobes are largely liberals (a generalization on my part topped only by the generalizations they make of tobacco executives), the same people who believe that abortion is a protected moral right. It's okay to kill a child in your body, but your lungs are sacred!

It is also particularly rude that their web site, clearly shown on the commercial is "Whudafxup". Very classy. I guess that tells us the caliber of people standing in moral judgment over anyone lighting up.

I can be rude and deamonizing too. Here's an idea for a commercial: Whudafxup with those stupid glasses? They were in style as long ago as 1969.

Loose Lips

Shock jock radio jerks are in danger of killing free speech for people who actually have something to say. Immediately on the tails of Imus's firing, a scandal erupted involving Opie and Anthony. Personally, I've never had much use for insulting juvenile humor. And since I'm too cheap to pay for satellite radio anyway, I've never heard Opie and Anthony's show. I heard the news reports. Their show had some crude comments demeaning Laura Bush, Condi Rice, and the Queen of England (she was visiting at the time). Apparently they didn't even say it; they just laughed at it.

In any case, I don't really care what they said. I find it very sad that people turn to this sort of thing as entertainment. But then again, I love South Park, so there's no accounting for taste.

The problem is by pushing the limits they are making an opening for others to be silenced as well. There are many conservative commentators that believe there is an effort by liberals to use this "He said ____! Fire him!" routine to silence conservative radio -- a medium not adequately controlled by the fair-minded gatekeepers that control everything else that makes it into public discourse.

Free speech is about the freedom to express ideas, especially political ideas. That is, in fact, the reason it appears in the Bill of Rights. By abusing the idea with worthless blather, the lowbrow attempts at humor could erode the free expression of real ideas. People's failing to exercise self-restraint often results in restraint being imposed from the outside, becoming an encumbrance on us all.

Farewell or Good Riddance

Jerry Falwell died today. WorldNetDaily reported Anti-Falwell venom flows on blogs. Everyone dies, both conservative and liberal. The difference is that conservatives tend to see death as a sombre experience that deserves some reverence, even if you didn't like the guy. Liberals often seem to see death as just another political event. They gloat. They cheer. They don't express sorrow. After all, it's just a person, not a baby seal or a spotted owl.

I think the difference is one of world view. Conservatives, often Christians, see death as the end of the person's chance to yield to God. Yielded or not, the chance is gone. Because of that, they will morn for a passed friend, but celebrate his move into eternity if he was a fellow believer. An enemy, perhaps passing to an eternity of suffering, is morned as well. It is a heavy weight to imagine the judgement for the person. And even if the persons passing may be welcomed at political level, conservatives will rarely ever voice such a sentiment; they express sorrow.

Liberals (the Godless) don't care about the eternal soul of the deceased -- they don't think their is one! The only thing that matters is how does the person's death affect THEM. If it was a friend, they will be sad; if it was an enemy -- like Falwell -- they will jump for joy. In either case, it is entirely self-serving. What good would it do to worry about the dead, they view death as the end.

Children 'bad for planet'

There was a story today out of Australia entitled Children 'bad for planet'. It does a great job at illustrating how much a person's world view affects what they do, and what they try to force others to do.

The Bible says "be fruitful and multiply". It speaks of children as being a blessing from God. These and other statements no doubt have something to do with the "family values" thinking of Christians. Children are valued. Life is valued. Christians fight to protect life.

This guy wants to eliminate it. He basically blames families with more than two children for destroying the planet. His position give scientific "justification" that would lead to conclude such things as:

• Abortion is good. It's environmentally sound! You can eliminate those little carbon-producing machines before they even leave a footprint!
  
• Not having a child is morally equivalent to recycling a plastic bag.
• People in developed countries (i.e. the evil western ones) are to blame for everything, even though he admits that most of the children that will be born will be in developing countries.

I think the way for us to survive is to work hard developing technologies that enable MORE people to have the kind of great lives we have in western industrialized societies. The ingenuity that invents machines that cause pollution problems is the same ingenuity that can clean it up -- and has! The developed countries of the world are the clean ones. If you want to see real pollution, go to an undeveloped or developing country.

If this guy is right and there is global warming that is caused by the carbon footprint of evil children, the likely solution to the problem will come from some young scientist or engineer that he would rather see not born. And chances are nearly 100% that such a child would be born in an evil industrialized country, not to a carbon-neutral tribe in the amazon.

A Tree Falling in a Forest

1. Why do a write a blog if no one reads it?
2. If I knew no one would ever read it, would I still continue making entries?
3. Who am I talking to?

Answers:
1. Ego, practice writing, practice working out expressing my thoughts (it's one thing to think you have all the answers, it's quite a different when you have to write coherently enough to encourage others to adopt that same opinion!)

2. Yes. For reasons stated in #1

3. Presumably myself. If you read this, add a comment so I find out. While I would continue writing anyway, ego is one of my reasons. Your response will help boost mine. So drop me a line and tell me how my blog has changed your life.

Keep Your "Keep the Change"

I am convinced that the average person has no understanding whatsoever of finances. One contemporary point of evidence is a program offered by Bank of America called "Keep the Change".

"Keep the Change" is a program which is billed as a savings plan. The basic idea is that every time you make a purchase with their debit card, the program "saves" the change of your purchase by rounding up to the next dollar. For example, if you make a purchase for $1.25, the 75 cents "change" is "saved".

At first it sounds like you get something for nothing. In fact, I had to listen to the commercial a couple of times before it made sense. As it turns out, the reason why I didn't understand it is because I found it difficult to believe that the truth was as stupid as it first sounded.

But alas, it is that stupid. When you make that $1.25 purchase, $2 is taken from your checking account. $1.25 goes to pay for the purchase; the remaining 75 cents is transferred to your savings account. This is what passes for a savings plan in a consumer society. It's all your money, they just move pennies from one account to another.

The truly sinister part of the plan is that it creates a mindset that spending results in saving. Spending and saving are, in fact, opposites. One depletes your bank account, the other adds to it. By tying the two together, it plants the idea in people's minds that they are doing something good for their bank account by spending from it. While it may help rationalize a questionable purchase, it will do little to save any real money. The most that can be saved is 99 cents on a purchase, no matter how much money you blow. While I have no statistics (Dammit Jim, I'm an engineer, not a statistician!) I bet the net result for a lot of people is that they spend more money. No matter how many pennies move into your savings account, if you spend more money, you are NOT saving.

I have a savings plan too. What it lacks in marketing zing it makes up for in it's simplicity: Put money in your savings account. Don't spend it.

(Read here for more details on the program. It is very slightly better than I described. Very slightly)

The Right to be Heard

Most people have no idea what a "right" really is. This can be seen from time to time, usually when someone is claiming a right.

One of those misunderstood rights is the right of free speech. This is quite possibly the most bastardized of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. There is much to be said on the topic, but I will concentrate on just one small aspect in this post.

There is a phrase that I hear people use: the "right to be heard". It is often used as a rallying cry on behalf of a minority voice, a person cast as being repressed. The most amazing place I have seen this used is in the proceedings of the Supreme Court of Florida. In their decision to make Gore President, they wrote, among other impeachable nonsense, about "...the right to speak, but more importantly the right to be heard."

A right is something you already have at the outset. You cannot get a right, only lose one. Your right can be ignored or usurped by others who violate your right. For someone to violate your right to speak, they would have to silence you or at least to prevent others from hearing you.

But the concept of a right to be heard is utter nonsense. You could violate someone's right to be heard simply by not listening to them. You would violate NBC's right to be heard by flipping to ABC. You would violate the rights of a babbling madman on a street corner if you ignore him and walk on by. You would be violating my right by not reading this blog. And considering very few people ever see anything written here, a lot of people are violating my rights!

The very phrase attempts to grant a right to someone that imposes an encumbrance upon everyone else to fulfill the "right". If everyone has a right to be heard, enforcing that right would force you to listen.

There can be no such thing as a "right to be heard", Craig wrote into the eternal oblivion of a hundred million other never-read blog entries.

Global Warming or Climate Change

Beware: The cultural crusaders who would enslave us all under a repressive government are pressing hard.

The global warming phenomenon is in full force. The phenomenon is not the the earth is warming, but that the climate is being used as a pretext for asserting control over the world's population.

There is little science in the equation. Adherents of the global warming religion care not about reality. They wish only to force us all to pay penance to their god, change our evil ways, and live a carbon-chaste life.

We had an unusually cold winter, which is fresh in people's minds. There were government hearings on global warming that had to be cancelled because of the cold. An actual human using logic may take note of the cold and reconsider the premise of global warming. But in true dogmatic style, the adherents ironically believe cold weather proves their point that the earth is warming.

Noticing that they sound ridiculous that cold proves hot (nothing escapes their keen minds), they are now changing the language to accommodate their insanity. Global Warming should henceforth be referred to as Climate Change. That way, no matter what happens, it proves they are right.

Are you cold? Climate Change.
Are you hot? Climate Change.
Are there floods? Climate Change.
Are there droughts? Climate Change.
Is the weather the slightest bit different today than it was yesterday? Climate Change.
Have these things always existed? Yes.

So we now have a definition that uses the way things have always been as proof that everything is changing. This will, of course, require swift action of government to severely subjugate all people. Well, all people who aren't Al Gore.

Uberpost

This is a very short post. To all who read this, please stop using the term "uber" as it has become an uber pet peeve of mine. It is uberirritating. So unless you can actually speak German, please don't use that word as if you are ubercool because you are ubernot.

Little Things Mean a Lot

Have you ever noticed the odd pricing when you go to buy gas? They use a tactic much like stores that price an item at 99 cents. They think they are fooling us by not pricing it at $1. I don't know about you, but for me, I'm rarely fooled by it. If I see $1.99, I read that as $2, not $1.

However, the gas stations are a bit more clever. Any price you see always has a little 9 after it. What is that? It's 9/10 of one cent. Quick, reach into your pocket and grab a 9/10 cent coin. Got it? Of course not. There is no such thing. It's a game where they hide one cent of the cost of a gallon.

Who cares. It doesn't make any difference. After all, it's an amount of money so small there is not even a coin small enough to pay it.

But what is the cumulative effect? According to the Department of Energy, the daily use of gasoline nationwide in 2005, the last year for which there are statistics posted, was 3,784,734,000. If every one of those gallons sold had that extra 9/10 cent tacked on to it, that is a total of $34,062,606. That is $34 million per day hidden in plane sight. That's over $12 billion a year.

I is amazing how something so insignificant to us can have such a huge cumulative effect. Little things really do mean a lot.

Luck of the Enterprise

I wish I had the luck of the U.S.S. Enterprise.

No matter what the danger, they escape it, usually by one of the following methods:

1. They figure out some clever 11th hour (for dramatic effect) solution. There is generally some technical jargon to help dismiss any lingering implausibility.

2. There was some unfortunate ship in the same situation earlier that they are now able to learn from and avoid repeating the mistake that they were seconds away from repeating. (It is very important that if there is ever a lesson to be learned, that it is learned by the ship immediately preceding the Enterprise. The Enterprise is never to be the guinea pig ship. If they were in the situation, they would get out by other means, see item #1)

3. The Enterprise is completely destroyed. Not to worry, there is some temporal anomaly, quantum string, or other fill-in-the-technical-blank effect that alters history so the destruction never really happened.

Commander Riker once commented "Luck. It protects small children, fools, and ships named Enterprise." How true.

I love Star Trek, but it may be a touch formulaic. It seems that in the end, the only thing that can destroy the Enterprise is ratings.

To Kill a (Mocking) Bear

A mother polar bear abandoned its cub and the zoo stepped in to take care of it. Now there are calls by an animal rights activist, Frank Albrecht, to kill the bear. They think it is "unnatural" for the cub to be raised by humans. In nature, they say, it would have died.

It can be helpful to try to figure out a person's world view to understand things that seem incomprehensible (e.g. how can an animal rights activist be calling for killing an animal?). The answer as best as I can figure it out, is that he believes that "nature" is "god". Therefore, whatever nature does is good. Inversely, whatever man does to change the natural order is bad.

This is exactly the opposite conclusion that flows from a Christian world view. Christianity recognizes the fallen nature of the world and calls us to action to change it in positive ways, such as showing compassion to an abandoned polar bear cub.

The animal rights activist would seem to be more of a "nature's rights" activist. He seems to believe that helping the polar bear is actively working against the perfect will of nature. It's a perfectly logical extension of animal rights blather which seeks to set straight the perceived bad influence of man. But usually man's interference is blamed with the death of an animal. In this case, the crime is rescuing an animal from certain death.

If that's a crime, I sure am glad I don't serve his god.

What do Republicans Stand For?

It is two years away from the next Presidential election and many Republicans are rushing to tell us why Giuliani would be such a great President, despite the fact that he is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, anti-gun -- you know the sort of things Republicans are known for.

It is one thing to hold you nose at election time and vote for the lousy candidate who managed to bubble to the top. But it's an entirely different thing to be one of the bubbles pushing a lousy candidate.

At this point, the field should be wide-open. We have the opportunity to pick someone that represents our ideals, not someone who stands against some of the more important ones. But based on polls of lousy #1 vs. Hillary, lousy #2 vs. Hillary, and so on, Republicans seem to be ready to crown Giuliani before any real contest, because he's the statistical best chance at power.

It seems every election cycle always comes down to a choice of power or principle. The sad thing is, this time around, it seems the choice is far to easy for a lot of people I hoped might have known better.

Save Money on Car Insurance

It is hard to watch more than a few minutes of TV without seeing an ad telling you how much money you can save by switching to some other car insurance.

...We save the average customer over $300 per year...
...Customer's who switched to our insurance saved an average of $233...

It is interesting how all of the insurance companies are cheaper than all the other insurance companies. I'm pretty sure that's mathematically impossible, but they said it on TV, so it must be true.

Who am I to argue. I figure if I switch 3 or 4 times, saving the average amount each time, I will eventually have free insurance. Heck, if I keep switching, maybe I can make money!

Fewest Dropped Calls? I've Got Them All Beat!

Cingular has been advertising that they have the fewest dropped calls of any network.

I don't think this is a very good measure of the quality of a network. At first, it seems good, because we've always gotten annoyed at those pesky dropped calls.

But another network may have a higher number of dropped calls for a couple of valid reasons:
1. There are more people on the network, therefore more calls.
2. The other network may be better at getting a call through when the signal is sketchy, as opposed to not even attempting to place the call to keep a high rating for not dropping.

So, as of right now, I am starting a brand new cell phone network (I think I'll call it Craigular). And you will be glad to hear that I have the fewest number of dropped calls ever. Granted, I haven't placed any calls either. In fact, I don't have any cell towers or phones. But I've got what Cingular used to have, the smallest number of dropped calls. Doesn't that make you want to join my network!?

Stupid is as advertising does

Advertizing if often stupid, but sometimes it goes above and beyond the call. One of the stupidest things often repeated in advertizing is a line we have all heard, and probably never thought much about since it pops up so often:

"We'll beat our competitor's price...or it's FREE!"

Let's see how this might work:
"How much is it?"
"$100"
"Your competitor sells it for $90"
"Sorry, I'd lose money if I sold it for $90. I can't beat that price, so I'll have to give it to you for free."

Right.

Move along, no terrorism to see here

Are you just a little tired of being reassured at the total lack of terrorism every time something bad happens?

Yesterday a man blew up a building in New York. Apparently it was a divorce gone bad...really bad. Today we can call that news, since there has been time for the reporters to do a little investigation and get some actual facts.

But yesterday, as the smoke was still billowing from the explosion just minutes earlier, the news, as usual was repeating the same lack of facts over and over. No one had any idea what was going on, which is often the case in the middle of a chaotic situation. But the one thing they are always sure of is that "there is no sign that it was a terrorist act." Well, fine, but there's also no sign that it was an accident, a natural disaster, or a wild Martian teenager that crashed his ship.

In an age where terrorism is a real threat, why do we have to deny it by reflex action before any facts are available?

"We have absolutely no idea of the cause of this extraordinary event. But rest assured it's not terrorism."

Liberty Stands Still

Hollywood is such a great moral teacher. When I see one of their great movies, I like to reflect on the lessons I have learned. After watching "Liberty Stands Still" I have learned several things:

1. It is okay to murder people using gun violence if your goal is to eliminate gun violence.
2. Teaching kids to use guns responsibly causes them to shoot other kids at school.
3. If someone you love is killed by guns, it's okay to use a gun to kill any number of people in revenge, whether or not they had anything to do with it.
4. Republicans are so stupid. They name their kids things like "Liberty", they own companies that manufacture guns, and they blow their own brains out with guns.
5. Manufacturing guns and international arms dealing are pretty much the same thing.
6. Either the Constitution doesn't guarantee private gun ownership, or if it does then the Constitution is completely wrong on the issue. It doesn't matter which.
7. If a Senator is against gun control, you can kill his son and cause him to instantly change his mind and want to ban all guns.
8. NRA evil. NRA evil. NRA evil.
9. The government is corrupt. (Actually, I already knew that one.)

Hollywood hates guns. So they have made a movie where a sniper is the hero. It takes so much depth to be able to pull that off. It could come across as shallow and hypocritical.

Please, do not fail to miss this movie.

Q-tips and Freedom

What is a Q-tip for?

According to the box, there are 14 suggested uses from removing makeup to cleaning your computer keyboard. But real use of Q-tips is not just absent from the list, but in fact, found in a warning at the bottom, "Do not insert swap into ear canal"

As far as I am concerned, cleaning ears is the only logical reason for the existence of a Q-tip. I quite sure that's what it was designed for and probably used for millions of times. But apparently the "more soft cotton at the tip than any other swab" is not enough to offset the incredible danger of putting it in your ear.

We all know why there is a warning. Either there was a stupid person who hurt himself and sued, or there is a fear that there will be.

Blame the lawyers. Blame the stupid. Blame the greedy. The bottom line is, we are so enslaved to the fear that we can't even admit what a Q-tip is used for.

"Merry Christmas" from Discovery Channel

The Discovery Channel, TLC, National Geographic Channel, and others have been getting into the Christmas spirit, as they usually do this time of year.

They basically run two types of shows. The first is "historical" accounts of the "real" story of Jesus. You see, everything you have been taught, everything in the Bible is not true. Miracles have simple explanations. Jesus isn't who he said he was. Jesus isn't who his contemporaries said he was. Jesus is not who millions have believed he was for thousands of years. All that is based on silly, unscientific fiction. The show will set all of that straight with theories from modern-day sages solidly arguing how their thoughts trump the collected ignorance of millions of Christians throughout the ages.

The other type of show is the fanciful evolutio-drama. It is a sort of a day-in-the-life of a theoretical animal in a theoretical environment at a theoretical time interacting with a supporting cast of other theoretical animals. I say theoretical, but it is solidly based on information gleaned from a fossil tooth. I saw the stunning computer graphics, so I know its true.

It's great that they have a solid scientific view of the world, instead of all that imaginary Christian stuff.

It's their small way of saying Merry Christmas. Peace on Mother Earth, good will to the highest order of evolved primate.

"Average" Does Not Make Right

If one person tells you that 1+1 is 3, and another person tells you that 1+1 is 4, does that mean that 1+1 is really 3.5? That is the average answer. It is the "middle of the road" position.

That may sound like a silly illustration, but it is not unlike the straddling that moderates try to do every day. They will stake out a position of compromise between the two prevailing positions and declare themselves "uniters", "reasonable people", and the like. They use attacks coming equally from both sides to verify their position at the center.

But what good is it to be at the center? It has nothing to do with being right. It is simply the average position. There is no belief at the heart of it. It is a political play to try to please everyone and stand for nothing. It is gutless. It is also senseless, because it does not account for the fact that one (or both) of the prevailing opinions could be wrong.

The average of two wrong answers is a wrong answer. If one answer is right and one is wrong, an intelligent person will disregard the wrong answer and stick with the right one, not average in the wrong answer to make the wrong people more agreeable.

The unending cry of the self-described centrist is "extreme", a label they apply to anyone who does not adopt their averaging formula. In our silly mathematic example, those who claim 1+1 is 3 would be on one extreme. Those who claim it is 4 would be on the other.

But the fact is, the person claiming "3" is not only not extreme, but in fact does not go far enough.

We cannot build consensus by rallying around the average, but by uniting around the correct answer. Perhaps 1+1 is actually 2.

Where Have All the Hobbits Gone?

I saw a bumper sticker that gave me a laugh: "Frodo Failed. Bush Got the Ring." The sad thing is that the person sporting the bumper sticker, and perhaps the manufacturer of it, seemed to miss the real point of the Ring of Power message from The Lord of the Rings. You see, the person had another bumper sticker, one advocating John Kerry for President.

The problem is not that the wrong person got the ring. The problem is the ring. Specifically the corrupting power of the ring. Power corrupts. That problem cannot be solved by the acquisition of the ring by anyone clamoring for it.

We need a Hobbit. We need someone willing to carry the ring with the only purpose of destroying it. Such a person, just as in The Lord of the Rings, is hard to find. And with the "gimme" attitude of many Americans, that person would probably never be allowed to take the ring. Because people don't think the ring is the problem. People think ultimate power is fine, as long as their guy is the one who wields it.

Free credit report

As part of an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you are now able to receive a free copy of your credit report. Each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies – Equifax, Experian and TransUnion are required to provide you with a free copy of your credit report, at your request, once every 12 months. The three companies have set-up three ways through which you can order your free credit report:

1. Visit annualcreditreport.com
2. Call toll-free: 1-877-322-8228
3. Mail a completed Annual Credit Report Request Form (available at annualcreditreport.com) to:
   Annual Credit Report Request Service
   P.O. Box 105281
   Atlanta, GA 30348-5281

Knee-jerk Anti-Americanism

Sometimes I am amazed at how anti-American some Americans can be.

I was having a conversation with the lady that runs the local shipping store. We got talking about how it is difficult to ship to various countries for different reasons. Shipping to Africa she said, was almost pointless because of the corruption. I related a situation that I heard from a friend in Africa about the bribes that it took to get anything done.

I can imagine a rainbow of responses relating to bad governments, underdeveloped countries, greed, etc. But her response was astounding. She said "We know where they learned that."

You learn something every day. I would have thought that Africans would be responsible for corruption in Africa. Silly me. It is obviously America (and maybe England) that has corrupted the world. Had westerners never colonized Africa, they would have never conceived of the very idea of corruption. Perhaps there was a Ministry of Corruption official responsible for teaching the necessary level of corruption to utopian natives.

The Right to Kill

There is a case coming up before the Supreme Court which again brings the issue of euthanasia to the forefront of national discussion. (Why won't this issue die?!)

Step one is to clarify some terminology. The issue is often framed as the "right to die". I submit that is deceptive. Everyone has the right the die. It is a natural process that we will all be faced with at some point. There is no law that makes it illegal for anyone to die.

What people are actually advocating is not the "right to die", but rather the "right to kill".

We seldom have honest discussions about issues in this country. Honest discussion must start with calling something what it is. That will certainly not be happening in this case. Watch the media. They will try to deflect the issue and frame it as a right to die as a matter of course.

Remember, he who defines the terms wins the debate. Then ask yourself if the media is biased. Then remember, you have the right to kill the mainstream media and go somewhere honest for your news and opinion. Try WorldNetDaily.com.

New Political Goals

I have a modest proposal for choosing our leaders:

1. Avoid electing Democrats

2. Avoid electing Republicans

Litmus Test

"In my interviews with any judge, I never ask them their personal views on abortion." George W. Bush

Replace "abortion" with "slavery" to see how stupid that comment is. If he doesn't ask questions about such fundamental issues of how a person views the world, how can he ever trust them with such a position?

Bush is accepting the idea that abortion cannot be used as a litmus test. Of course, it is used as a litmus test: No judge is allowed to express opposition to abortion. That is why he said what he did. By accepting that assertion, he can never win.

Litmus paper is used to detect the presence of an acid or base capable of burning. Abortion certainly burns, at a rate of about 3000 lives per day. It would be wise to use a litmus test to keep clear of danger.

Father Government Knows Best

There was a terrible boat accident in New York and many people died.

Probe: Tour Boat Didn't Have Required Crew (link no longer available)

As with every disaster in this country, people immediately start blaming. The title of the article suggests a mentality far to prevalent: that government knows how to do everything. Implicit in the title is the implication that if only people had done things the government's way, everyone would have lived happily ever after.

That kind of attitude is insulting. But people will buy it. People will make a big deal about it. And in the end, there will probably be a host of new laws put into place the help people live in peace and harmony, if they would only listen to their all-knowing Father Government.

How You Know You are Watching A Sci-Fi Movie

It turns out that Sci-Fi is not the most creative of genre's. There are several ways to tell you are watching a Sci-Fi movie:

6. There is a woman in command, or desiring to be.

5. There is a human-alien baby on the way.

4. The technical expert is a handicapped black guy.

3. The enemy first appears to be some hideous creature that was the result of experimentation, but in the end, the true enemy is corporate greed.

2. At the end of the show, there are only two survivors, a man and a woman, who started out at each other's throats, but are now romantically involved.

1. There is some actor who used to be famous working with a bunch of bad actors you have never heard of before.

Lowest Price Guarantee

You've heard those stupid commercials, "We will beat our competition's price or it's free!"

It is usually some loud-mouthed cheesy local merchant who is so overly excited about his product that he should be restrained and medicated. So, most of us just probably tune it out.

But if you stop and think about it for a second it becomes even more stupid (or is that stupider?).

Does anyone actually think they could get something free? "Our price is $100. Our competitor is selling it for $99. We can't afford to sell it for $99, so we have to give it away free." Yeah...right.

The Trouble with Precedent

In the debate surrounding the appointment of Roberts to the Supreme Court, there is a lot said about precedent. Indeed, it seems to be one of the fundamental arguments any time the courts come up in discussion.

The basic idea is that judges should respect the rulings of previous judges to help provide continuity of law and apply the law similarly to different cases. That all sounds good, except that precedent has been raised to such a level that it is treated as law itself.

Take the Roe vs. Wade decision, for example. It is often referred to as "the law of the land" or "settled law." In fact, it is not law at all. It is merely a court decision. The court cannot legitimately make law. So they play a semantic game and call it "precedent." Then they proceed to treat the precedent as the law of the land. If we had treated precedent so highly in the past, slavery would never have been abolished, since there was a Supreme Court decision validating it as legal.

The latest tactic of those who would transform our culture is to say that any judge that would go against precedent is an "activist judge" "legislating from the bench", a definition that is 180° from reality. Their oath is to the Constitution, the law, not to precedents of other men. By doing this, they have not just raised precedent to the level of law, but have actually superseded law with precedent. In such a world, the only true law is written as opinions from the bench.

A precedent is only as good as the logic in the original decision. And since the logic of so many court decisions are upside-down from the laws they claim to interpret, there needs to be a lot more questioning of those precedents. We need to return the law to the highest point.

Precedents must be evaluated in the light of the law, not the other way around.

Interpreting the Bible "literally"

What is the proper way to interpret the Bible? People often refer to interpreting it "literally" as the only way to properly believe it. But many things can be true but not literal (e.g. simile, analogy, hyperbole). The proper way to interpret something is not literal, but rather, the way the author intended it. To know that, you must look at context. You must know the intended audience. It also helps to know what you can about the author.

Reading Between the Fossil Lines (scroll down on the page, there are many articles)
By Gleason L. Archer

But a true and proper belief in the inerrancy of Scripture involves neither a literal nor a figurative rule of interpretation. What it does require is a belief in whatever the biblical author (human and divine) actually meant by the words he used.

An absolute literalism would, for example, commit us to the proposition that in Matthew 19:24 (and parallel passages) Christ actually meant to teach that a camel could go through the eye of a needle. But it is abundantly clear that Christ was simply using the familiar rhetorical figure of hyperbole in order to emphasize how difficult it is spiritually for a rich man (because of his pride in his material wealth) to come to repentance and saving faith in God. To construe that passage literally would amount to blatant heresy, or at least a perversity that has nothing to do with orthodoxy. Or again, when Jesus said to the multitude that challenged Him to work some miracle, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19), they grievously erred when they interpreted His remarks literally. John 2:21 goes on to explain that Jesus did not mean this prediction literally but spiritually: “But He was speaking about the temple of His body. Therefore when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this, and they believed the Scripture.” In this case, then, literal interpretation was dead wrong because that was not what Jesus meant by the language He used; He was actually referring to the far greater miracle of His bodily resurrection.

An accurate interpretation of scripture means reading as the author intended, getting into the mind of the author as much as possible. Since God is the author, we must approach it with great humility and a teachable attitude, seeking to truly understand what He is saying, not bringing to it our own agenda.

Finding Noah's Ark

I just caught a few minutes of a show on the History Channel called "The Search for Noah's Ark". I didn't even see enough of it to know what the claim may have been. Dozens of people have searched for the Ark over the years. Although there have been a lot of claims, speculations, and of course a conspiracy theory or two, there is as yet no ark.

So the question remains, can/will we ever find Noah's Ark?

No way. And here is why.
1. Most people look for it on Mount Ararat and haven't found it. In fact, the Bible says that the ark came to rest on "the mountains of Ararat" (Gen 8:4), referring to the entire range, which is a huge area.
2. The mountain range is covered with snow and glaciers which move constantly. Anything that was there would have been torn to pieces by glacial movement a long time ago.
3. The most compelling reason for not finding it is from Hugh Ross's "The Genesis Question" (1). After the flood, everthing was destroyed, so they needed to rebuild. The ark would have been a ready supply of high-quality wood, already cut and ready to use. It is almost inconceivable that they would not have torn it apart to start building houses, barns, fences, and everthing else they needed to get civilization going again.

Of course, God could have preserved the ark and they could find the it tommorow, proving me completely wrong. To which I would say, He is God and I am not.

Reference 1 "The Genesis Question", Dr. Hugh Ross, Chapter 19, "The Search for Noah's Ark", pp 165-166

I've Got Some Good News and it's Bad News

With all the good economic news, what is a liberal newspaper to do?

Simple, phrase the good news in such a way that it sounds bad. Thus, this article from today's AP:

The story is about more people having and keeping jobs, but they make it sound like just the reverse.

U.S. Jobless Claims Tumble to 328,000
By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer

May I humbly suggest some alternatives, which the writer must have accidentally overlooked:

More People Working

People Have Jobs

Job Growth is Picking Up

Bush is Not Evil After All

Military Draft and Diversity in the Military

Democrat Charles Rangle has been making a lot of noise this year about instituting a military draft. One of his main points is that the military is made up mostly of low income and minorities. Rangle advocates a draft because he wants to send "rich kids" and specifically, the sons and daughters of his fellow Senators and Congressmen, to the front line.

It turns out that the military is a fairly good representative cross-section of the country both economically and racially.

There is, however, one major way in which the military does not represent a cross-section of America: political party. The vast majority of those who voluntarily serve in the military are Republicans.

So, it turns out Charles Rangle may be right, with one small modification: Draft Democrats!

Cell Phone Silliness

I'd never be a member of a club that would have me as a member.
- Groucho Marx

There are millions of phones in the Verizon "In" network. All of them can call my phone number for free any time of day. Mine is not one of them. I cannot call my own number to check my voicemail without being charged for airtime.

I can check my voicemail free from millions of Verizon phones. I can check my voicemail free from millions of landline phones. My wife and I can use each others phones to check our own voicemail. Checking from my own phone costs me airtime. That is silly.

It's doubly silly when you realize that to chat with another Verizon customer, there are two of us using cell phone channels. For me to check my voicemail would take half the resources.

I am a member of a club with millions of others, but not myself.

More on 3/5 of a Person

There is a great article on the founders and slavery which you can find on David Barton's Wallbuilders site here. There are a lot of other great articles on his site too, check it out.

Here is an excerpt:
The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in the congressional calculations, Southern States were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress. Based on the clear records of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors explain the meaning of the three-fifths clause:

[T]he Constitution allowed Southern States to count three-fifths of their slaves toward the population that would determine numbers of representatives in the federal legislature. This clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks–and there were many, North as well as South–counted the same as whites. More important, the fact that slaves were counted at all was a concession to slave owners. Southerners would have been glad to count their slaves as whole persons. It was the Northerners who did not want them counted, for why should the South be rewarded with more representatives, the more slaves they held? ³⁵ THOMAS WEST

It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. ³⁶ WALTER WILLIAMS (emphasis added)

Why do revisionists so often abuse and misportray the three-fifths clause? Professor Walter Williams (himself an African-American) suggested:
Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists.

"Intelligent Falling"

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
The Onion is always good for a laugh.

The Onion is a parody site, so is always to be taken lightly. But as with any good humor, it works best when there is some element of truth in it.

In this case, the "truth" is the anti-scientific perception of Christians. It is unfortunate and inaccurate for Christians to be labeled as anti-science. It is interesting to note that the science The Onion chose to parody, gravitation, was developed by Sir Isaac Newton... a devout Christian.

Many of the best scientists in history were Christians. The scientific method itself grew out of a Christian understanding that the universe is rational and behaves in predictable ways, in opposition to the pagan view of seeing gods everywhere controlling the world at their whim.

Of course, there are always Luddites and flat-earther's, but they can be found in all corners, and they certainly don't define the sum of Christian thinking.

For a good dose of science from an informed Christian thinker, check out Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe.

3/5 of a Person

People often misunderstand the thinking behind the way slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a person (from Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution).

It is used to show that the founders saw blacks as inferior. In reality, it was a PRO-freedom position.

There were many in this country that wanted to abolish slavery at the time the Constitution was written. In fact, over 80% of the founding fathers were active abolishonists. Representation in the House of Representatives is determined by population. The greater the population, the greater the influence in the Congress. By counting slaves as just 3/5 of a person for census purposes, the slave states would have less influence and slavery might be abolished.

It was not meant to say that slaves were worth less than a full person in human terms. It was not about treating blacks as 3/5 of a person, just counting them that way to help work toward their freedom.

Israel's withdrawal

Apparently the trouble with the middle east is that Muslims have only 99.9% of the land in the region. Israel capitulates again, offering land for peace that will never come. Hammas today declared that they had driven Israel out of Gaza. Playing into the hands of terrorists will not bring peace. It is a sad day. Israeli's are being "ethnically cleansed" from their own land, the only kind of ethnic cleansing that will be tolerated in this backward world.

The irony is that non-Israeli's have always been welcome in Israel, and have profitted greatly along with Israeli's under the most free government in the area. On the other hand, according to Palistinian leaders, not a single Israeli will be welcome in Gaza. Does that sound like people who wish to live in peace?

Anti-Christian "Science"

Is anyone else annoyed by these shows? I love Discovery, TLC, and National Geographic channel, but it seems they feel a constant responsibility to disconnect people from any remaining faith they may have by offering a constant stream of shows about "the science of" this or that Bible story. You know the ones, "Who is the Real Jesus?", "The True Story of Noah's Flood", "Why the Bible Sucks and Evolution Rules".

Here is the general formula: lay out the story (more or less) the way the Bible says it. Then begin picking apart the story. Don't be actually hostile toward the Bible, make it more along the lines of "we can't really be sure since it was so long ago and many people differ on the interpretation of the text". With the Bible sufficiently discredited, the next step is to start to spin a yarn about what really happened. There will be elements similar to the Bible story, but the message is clear: the scientific story is the real one and the Bible was embelishing. When done, it is clear that the Bible text which has endured thousands of years is a vague interpretation of the true story, which you have just seen, with fancy computer graphics and a deep-voiced, intellectual commentator who's meer mention of a fact ensures its authenticity.

One example was a show about "What did Jesus Really Look Like". It showed, of course, the blond-haired blue eyed Jesus famous from so many pictures. Everyone knows that Jews don't look like that, and the Bible certainly doesn't describe Him in that way, so it was a bit of a straw man. Nevertheless, it was at the very least a dig at white Christians, the opportunity for which is never to be missed. While the story is unfolding, they show a skull that was dug up and apparently dated to around the time of Jesus. Periodically, we get a glimpse at the face being reconstructed in clay by a forensic artist. At the end of the show, they reveal his face with the deep-voiced narrator (I think it sounded like Avery Brooks, Captain Sisko from ST:DS9) leaves us with the leading question "Is this what Jesus Looked Like?"

So basically, if you dig up an old skull of some unknown guy and slap some clay on it, you can show people "What Jesus Really Looked Like" in distinction to the laughable Bible, which apparently says he was Norwegian.

Is anyone else tired of this sort of thing being passed of as "science"?

Great book deal

www.BookCloseOuts.com has some great deals on books. They have a very large political section, from which I just made a purchase. It will provide me with more reading than I can get to for some time. Here are some of the deals I picked up:
Treason by Ann Coulter, hardcover for $6.99
The Death of the West by Pat Buchanan for $1.49
Fighting Terrorism by Benjamin Netanyahu for $4.99
Ten Things You Can't Say in America by Larry Elder, hardcover for $3.99 (softcover available for $2).
Showdown by Larry Elder, hardcover for $3.00
Slouching Towards Gamorrah by Robert Bork for $4.99
The Politics of Bad Faith by David Horowitz for $3.49

For about $30 (nearly the cover price of Treason alone) I have enough material to make me mad at liberals for years to come!

Kickoff

Ok. I'm publishing. Now we will see if I have anything useful to say.