Rush is Right

Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head, John Conyers, says he doesn't understand it. It'll be passed by Congress that has not read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?
- Rush Limbaugh, August 20, 2009

Why we homeschool

This expresses my sentiment well, so I pass it along without modification from the blog of Neal Boortz...

TURN YOUR CHILDREN OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT DAY

No ... no rant here. It's just disappointing. The evidence is there in the form of letters, articles and memos. The people who engineered the evolution of our government school system in the early 1900s were clear ... the goal of "public education" was only to educate our children to the point that they would be good employees and government subjects. Nothing more. The evidence of the failure of our government schools is everywhere .. yet today, without a second thought, millions of people who call themselves "parents" will turn their children over to the government for nothing more than a mediocre education. They will be spit out at the end of the school year barely able to make change or read a simple lease agreement.

Here's a wonderful quote of H.L. Mencken that fits in real nicely:

That erroneous assumption is to the effort that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence ... Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.

To those of you who make the sacrifice to get your children away from the government and the teacher's unions .. my admiration and thanks. Your children will be the key to our country's future. The kids going to government schools will be working for your kids .. or for the government.

Is Government Out to Get Me? (and You?)

The last few months, the government has been going nuts. Take, take, take from the productive. Give, give, give to the lazy.

I bought my house. I saved up money for a down payment. I bought a modest house that I could afford. I worked and payed the mortgage for years.

Others did not save up money; they got 100% financed mortgages. They bought a big house that they couldn't afford. Many have faltered in paying. So the government takes money from me so irresponsible people can stay in a house they can't afford.

I have never bought a new car in my life. I believe the numbers just don't make sense.

Now, the government takes more of my money to help buy a new car for someone else. Cash for Clunkers has been running for 4 days and is out of money. They gave away a billion of our dollars so some people could get a new car. And the old ones must be destroyed; they can't even be used for parts. So much for recycling.

I have rental property. I lost a renter earlier this year. He had lived in the apartment for about 10 years. He was a great renter. But he left...because the government gave him $8,000 from me and you. If you are not a landlord, you may not appreciate the value of a good renter, or the cost of finding a new one.

I have a small consulting business. The government requires me to pay unemployment tax. All business pay it. It is the fund that is used to pay unemployment when people get layed off. The only problem is, since I am the owner, I cannot be layed off. I can NEVER collect unemployment. But I have to pay for it anyway. And since so many people have been losing their jobs, the government has increased unemployment benefits. Who do you think is paying for that?

The government has created and upside down world. They reward bad behavior and punish good behavior.

The downturn in the economy has hurt. But the real pain in my life is caused by government's "solutions" to the downturn.

Is there any possibility of salvaging this nonsense?

Big Government

When times are good, a growing economy can support expanding the government to give out all kinds of new goodies.

When times are bad, we need to help people, so we can't allow government to suffer in a bad economy. In fact, it must be expanded to help all the suffering people.

Does anyone detect a slight bias toward bigger government?

It is almost like someone is stacking the deck.

Questions?

Do I find it annoying when people ask themselves questions?

Yes.

Will I engage in this annoying behavior myself?

No.

Ann Coulter Nails the Issues on the Tiller Murder

Here's the link to the full commentary.

Some of my favorite excerpts:

In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs. ... Ha ha! Just kidding.

Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.

I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.

Keep your Hordes of Leeches

Last week I came home from work to be met by someone going from door to door asking for money. Right now most of us probably don't want anybody to ask for money, but this was particularly irritating because I have been forced to give money to this group for years for nothing in return.

I bought my first house in 1992. I lived there for 10 years. Property taxes were about $2500, and the bulk of that money is for schools. When I left that house I had one child that was a year and a half old, so I never got any of the use of the $20,000 or so they took from me.

We have been in our current house for over 5 years paying similar amounts of money. I do have one child of school age, but I don't intend to ever turn them over to the state to be educated, so I still see no benefit.

We get no credit for schooling our own children. We get no break from paying to educate other people's children. We have to pay for their education and pay again for everything our kids need.

So you can imagine how pleased I was that the local school, so short of my money, sent around students to go door to door to beg for more money for "supplies". How could I even think of withholding anything from a child? I haven't. I have paid tens of thousands of dollars to prop up their failing system. They won't even let me write off the cost of buying my kids a pencil, much less pay for it.

Just because something is "for the children" does not mean it is good.

The Second American Revolution

We The People Stimulus Package

The End of Our Money System?

Video from Glenn Beck 3/09/09

Bonuses for Failure

Everyone is upset about AIG. They are paying bonuses of $165M, some of which are going to the same executives responsible for the problems they are in. The argument is: why should they get paid extra for doing a bad job? A good question.

But the bonuses were pre-negotiated, so they are obligated to pay them (or owe double under Connecticut law). The government was no only aware of those bonuses when they handed out the bailout money, but they actually wrote a clause into the bailout that the bonuses could be paid. But now that people are mad, the government is outraged and "surprised" about those very bonuses.

Nobody likes to reward failure. Many people feel cheated because these bonuses are being paid because we kept the AIG afloat with $170B of bailout money. But wait, I thought I just said nobody likes to reward failure. So if it is wrong for AIG to reward failed employees with cash, why is it right for the government to reward AIG with cash -- over 1000 times more cash than the bonuses everyone is mad about.

As a rewarder of failure, no one can hold a candle to the government. Over the last six months, they have dumped trillions of dollars of our money into companies that screwed up. And now they want us to be angry over $165M. Methinks they dost protest too much.

So if you are angry over the AIG bonuses, at least be intellectually honest and be 1000 times angrier over the AIG bailout.

Economics for Kids 101

I took the kids to McDonalds a few days ago after one of my daughter's evening classes. There was a TV on in the corner with no sound. It was on CNN and was showing lots of pictures of the stock market, dollar signs, and to all too familiar downward pointing charts we have all come to love in recent months.

She asked me what they were talking about. Specifically they were discussing Obama's proposed mortgage bailout. To say I am not in favor of bailing out deadbeats that don't pay their bills would be an understatement. I said "They are talking about how to help people that can't pay for their house." I nearly lost my grip trying to hold back my tounge, but what else do you say to a six year old.

That answer, however, was not enough for her. "What do you mean?" Okay, I tried to let it go, but she insisted. So I'll tell her what is really going on. But how do I do that for a young person. "See that hamburger you are eating. What if you had saved your money and bought that hamburger, so now you get to eat it. Now what if somebody else came in who didn't save their money. Should you have to buy them a hamburger?" (I admit the analogy is not perfect, especially since I bought the burger she was eating, but the principle was sound) Unlike our leaders that seem to be forever pondering these "complex" decisions, she immediately and simply replied "No."

"Well, that's what they are trying do with houses. We paid for our house. Now other people can't pay for their house, so the government is trying to make us pay for their house." Her jaw dropped. She obviously got it. Like many in this country, she seemed to like Obama during the election cycle. I've got to admit, they guy has charm. I tried to not say anything to her against the man, especially since he is now the President. I say that so you understand I had not primed her with a bunch of Obama-bashing. "Obama did that?", she asked, accusingly. "That is what he is trying to do." I said.

And with that my six year old solved the problem: "He should be kicked out."

Government officials try to make things complicated. Often it is anything but. Just apply the same simple rules we teach our kids when they play with each other. Treat each other right. Share (if and when you want to). And don't take other people's stuff!

How Much Wood?

I was taking my daughter to her karate class. She was already wearing her uniform and she brought her belt along. As I was tying it on she realized she forgot something...her "woodchucks".

Stimulate This

Notice to all retailers: Just because you have something on sale does NOT mean you have a "stimulus package". Don't try to be cute; just have a sale like a normal person.

The Tip of the Iceberg

News TV No Fun for Kids

More funny phrases from the younger generation...

My son complained the other day when he turned on the TV because it was on a news channel instead of cartoons. Well, that's how I describe it. He put it a bit differently:

He said the TV was showing "The newspaper movie".

An Easy Way to Invest in Gold

You can invest in gold very easily through GLD, an ETF. An ETF(exchange-traded-fund) is a mutual fund that is traded on the exchange like a stock.

The GLD fund holds actual gold. And since they hold it, you don't have to deal with carting around wheelbarrows full of gold -- we all know how annoying that can be! :)

Peter Schiff has predicted the price of the DOW and the price of gold will meet at some point. Currently the DOW is at about 8,500 and gold is under 1,000. If they are going to meet there is a lot of bleeding still left in stocks... and/or a lot to be made -- or at least protected -- with gold.

10/28/08 Peter Schiff predicts doomed economy under Obama

Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007

Economic Situation - What do we do?

Things are bad in the economy in many ways. I DO mean to sound like an alarmist, because I think we need to be discussing and planning. Before we can plan, we have to look realistically at our situation. The government is playing extremely dangerous games with money. As reactionary as it may sound, I think we may be at the edge of events that could significantly change all of our lives.

Citigroup released a report with dire warnings about the economic situation. (Glenn Beck discussing the Citigroup report). This is Citigroup, not some radicals moving out the the wilderness and stocking up on guns and canned food. They talk about "meltdowns" and "political instability". More evidence that maybe we are teetering on the edge. In Citigroup's words "The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done."

What do we do? We definitely need to be having dialogs about it. In my view, we need to be doing a few things:

1. Don't panic. Thankfully God is the one in charge, not the fools in Washington
2. Buy gold (there is a lot about gold in this article)
3. Do disaster planning: have food and necessities on hand, at least like you would for a hurricane or blizzard (perhaps a lot more)
4. Talk about it. We need to take care of ourselves and each other. We cannot depend on the government to do it.

I.O.U.S.A.

Here is a free half our version of the movie I.O.U.S.A. Visit their home web site here.

The Obama Bubble

There is a tendency people have to avoid the reality of market cycles. Things go up, things go down. But we want to ignore that second part.

First there was the "Dot Com" bubble. Internet companies were up, up up! dooooooown.

So people bailed and went into real estate. People bought houses that were bigger than they needed because it was an "investment" (how's that working out?). Some people put granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances into old shacks in California and sold them for half a million dollars. You couldn't lose. Then again...

So here we are. The internet bubble popped. The real estate bubble popped. So what do we bail to next? What is the next wave? The next thing to go only up? What could solve all of our financial problems?

Whatever it is, I sure hope it arrives soon to save us. This time it won't pop. It will only go up, only get better and better. Finally, the bubble to end all bubbles.

Two Fumbs Up

It is entertaining to watch kids learn. My son speaks pretty well, but there are still a few cute quirks.

One lingering one is the use of "F" versus "Th" in certain situations. He can say both; it is not a matter of pronunciation. He just mixes them up.

According to him, he has two Fumbs and lots of Thingers.

Condolences to Dick Durban

Condolences to Dick Durban and his family at the loss of his adult daughter (story).

Contentment

If you keep your food in a refrigerator, your clothes in a closet, if you have a bed to sleep in and a roof over your head, you are richer than 75% of the entire world's population.

...and be content with such things as ye have...
Hebrews 13:5

No matter how poverty is defined, if I were an unborn spirit, condemned to a life of poverty, but God allowed me to choose which nation I wanted to be poor in, I'd choose the United States. Our poor must be the envy of the world's poor.
- Walter Williams

It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor.
- Seneca, Epistles

The "poor" in the U.S. according to Robert Rechter of the Heritage Foundation
46% own their own home (3BR, 1.5BA, garage, porch/patio)
80% have A/C
89% have microwave
3/4 own a car, 31% have two or more cars
97% have a TV, 1/2 have two or more TV's
78% have a DVD or VCR
62% have cable or satellite
1/3 have dishwasher
1/3 both land line and cell phone

There are people clinging to the bottoms of trucks for the chance to be poor in this country.
- Michael Graham

Imagine how happy you would be if you lost everything that you have...then got it back.

King of the Mountain Forever

There is an interesting thing I have noticed while investing -- I mean losing money -- in the stock market: when everyone agrees things are only going up, it is time to get out fast.

I have a feeling the principle works for things other than stocks also. It certainly held true for real estate over the last few years. The one thing you always here is everyone saying how up is the only direction. They will often even acknowledge past events where everyone thought something was going up forever and crashed, but this time it is for sure. There is no peak in sight! The dot com bubble popped, but real estate has real value.

Is it possible it is true for nations as well? Greece, Rome, Great Britain with it's never-setting sun, they all must have thought themselves invincible. I think it is a dangerous thing to assume you are king of the world by right.

Speaking with Bill O'Reily in 10/27/08 about the election of Obama vs. McCain, Geraldine Ferraro had this to say:

The United States is a superpower, no matter what.

No matter what. How do I sell my stock?

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