Raising your eye-brows are you?
Let me set the scene before I begin this...
I have experienced first hand the evils of the apartheid system in South Africa and I have a deep love for African's no matter where they live.
This morning I heard a discussion on the radio about a group in Atlanta which is trying to pass a law, banning kids from wearing their pants around their mid-thighs with their underwear sticking out.
I'll approach that issue another day, and how the government should keep their noses the hell out of that whole debate, but the part I would like to focus on is that people keep bringing up that it that this is a racial thing...
Here's how I view people of African decent living in the United States...
First a look back at their roots... Snatched from their homeland and transported across the sea in conditions somewhat like being in a tuna can, the ancestors of African Americans have shown themselves to be remarkably tough.
As they were then put to work as slaves on the cotton farms and other places, they went quietly about their work, in my mind showing exceptional dignity, despite difficult circumstances.
Their songs and culture have spawned some of the greatest music in the world.
But now we face a problem... Despite this rich heritage of excellence, the percentage of black men who end up in jail is unacceptable, as are images of gangs, violence and the other problems which this group of people now face.
I believe the problem with this group of people in America, lies not with them, but with those who claim to be trying to help.
First and formost I blame the welfare system - Nothing kills a soul quicker or more effectively that giving a person money, because "they can't help themselves".
Second, slave references and reparations. Despite being able to overcome this great atrocity with dignity, black leaders and apologists continually remind young black people of this, stirring anger within them, and instilling a feeling of entitlement that dovetails with the problem caused by the welfare system.
Third, abortion... I don't know any figures, but I would suspect that abortions have done more damage to this section of the American population than any other cultural group. While we might differ on the opinion of the freedom of women to choose for themselves, the option to abort a pregnancy leaves young black men with minimal need for responsibility, again dovetailing back into the whole welfare mentality.
Racism is wrong in any form. Slavery in any form is unforgivable.
I think though that leaders both black and white who continue to push welfare on African Americans and keep them in a state of reliance on government and expectation of hand outs are about as despicable as the original slave owners.
African American People... You have a tremendous legacy, your culture has survived trememdous hardship. It's time to regain that dignity and work ethic that has made your culture shine, inspite of those hardships. Only you can make the difference...
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Who I'm voting for in 2008
This guy takes a lot of heat on some of his positions, but the biggest reason is because he sticks to his guns and doesn't make decisions based on what he thinks will make him popular, instead he makes the right decision. I feel Ron Paul is the only candidate from any party with any integrity. But that's just my opinion... You can vote however you would like, but before you decide for sure, check out his record:
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Musings about Words....
Most Religeons place a great emphasis on the sacredness of the human body. I have heard it referred to as 'The Temple of God'.
So if your body is 'The Temple of God', what does that say about your soul?
So if your body is 'The Temple of God', what does that say about your soul?
Monday, August 27, 2007
The Problem with Religeon
Let me start out with a story... I heard this in relation to the question, "Why does God let bad things happen?".
In addition to the insight it provides to that question, I have found countless other applications to which it applies.
You, like me are likely a parent, or if not, simply imagine that you are. Now imagine yourself at one of your kids soccer games. As a parent, you watch from the sidelines as the game goes on. Sometimes your kids team wins, sometimes they lose. During the game, your kid might get fouled by another kid, and sometimes your kids may commit the foul. Ultimately though, you have to stand by and let the kids play the game the way they want to. Rushing out onto the field everytime something happens, does no good for anyone.
God is much the same, he stands on the side lines and watches the games. I am sure at time he is tempted to step onto the field and correct some wrongs, but ultimately, he can't because it will do no good for anyone.
Now lets take the analogy a little further... Let's put God in the role of the coach. As a player on field of life, you have access to the coach. He can't play the game for you, but he can offer advice and assistance. He might disseminate this to the team through the captain of the team, or he might give it to you directly. Ultimately though, each one of us players has direct access to the coach.
So how does this tie into religeon? The problem with religeon, is that it would appear in most cases to control the individuals access to God. A leader in the Church then takes the place of God, and disseminates a message to his followers. The problem is knowing when that message comes from the coach, and when the captain is pursuing his own agenda.
With that in mind, I've been thinking lately about the role religeon should play in a person's life. I associate with a denomination that places a very strong emphasis on families. Ironically though, once you become a devoted member of this particular organization, you end up spending most of Sunday as well as various nights during the week in meetings away from your family. From my perspective the focus has shifted from God to the organization. The organization has used the relationship with God to entice more followers and pursue an agenda. At times this agenda might follow a course which draws a person closer to God, and at times it doesn't.
Here's my opinion on the matter... A religeon should be a resource and a support towards your own relationship to God. When the religeon takes the place of that relationship, that's when you get have a problem.
Gaining this understanding of how religeon fits into the picture is vital to the revolution I spoke of in my last posting.
In addition to the insight it provides to that question, I have found countless other applications to which it applies.
You, like me are likely a parent, or if not, simply imagine that you are. Now imagine yourself at one of your kids soccer games. As a parent, you watch from the sidelines as the game goes on. Sometimes your kids team wins, sometimes they lose. During the game, your kid might get fouled by another kid, and sometimes your kids may commit the foul. Ultimately though, you have to stand by and let the kids play the game the way they want to. Rushing out onto the field everytime something happens, does no good for anyone.
God is much the same, he stands on the side lines and watches the games. I am sure at time he is tempted to step onto the field and correct some wrongs, but ultimately, he can't because it will do no good for anyone.
Now lets take the analogy a little further... Let's put God in the role of the coach. As a player on field of life, you have access to the coach. He can't play the game for you, but he can offer advice and assistance. He might disseminate this to the team through the captain of the team, or he might give it to you directly. Ultimately though, each one of us players has direct access to the coach.
So how does this tie into religeon? The problem with religeon, is that it would appear in most cases to control the individuals access to God. A leader in the Church then takes the place of God, and disseminates a message to his followers. The problem is knowing when that message comes from the coach, and when the captain is pursuing his own agenda.
With that in mind, I've been thinking lately about the role religeon should play in a person's life. I associate with a denomination that places a very strong emphasis on families. Ironically though, once you become a devoted member of this particular organization, you end up spending most of Sunday as well as various nights during the week in meetings away from your family. From my perspective the focus has shifted from God to the organization. The organization has used the relationship with God to entice more followers and pursue an agenda. At times this agenda might follow a course which draws a person closer to God, and at times it doesn't.
Here's my opinion on the matter... A religeon should be a resource and a support towards your own relationship to God. When the religeon takes the place of that relationship, that's when you get have a problem.
Gaining this understanding of how religeon fits into the picture is vital to the revolution I spoke of in my last posting.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
The Forgotten Man
I know I promised this yesterday, but wanted the suspense to build...
The Forgotten Man was an essay written in the last 1800's. I heard about this on the radio the other day, but from what I can tell, it was written by William Graham Sumner(1840-1910), a Professor of Political Economy and of Sociology at Yale.
I can't do as well a job at introducing his theory as he did, so let me quote from the first paragraph...
The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.
I think you and I are C... The Forgotten Man as it were. While we can be counted on to take care of our fellow men and live a good life, government doesn't trust us to do this. As far as government are concerned D is the forgotten man, and they need to help him out, which is why our society continues on a downward spiral.
I say... "STAND UP MAN C... IT'S TIME TO REVOLT!
Over the next little while I would like to explore ways in which C can revolt. I think for it to be effective that it needs to be a non-violent revolt, and living in a country with a constitution like we do, I think this is possible. The idea is not to start a new form of government of anything like that, it's to get C to stand up, A and B to sit down and shut their mouths, and I think in the long run, the greatest benefactor may be D, who learns to help himself.
The Forgotten Man was an essay written in the last 1800's. I heard about this on the radio the other day, but from what I can tell, it was written by William Graham Sumner(1840-1910), a Professor of Political Economy and of Sociology at Yale.
I can't do as well a job at introducing his theory as he did, so let me quote from the first paragraph...
The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.
I think you and I are C... The Forgotten Man as it were. While we can be counted on to take care of our fellow men and live a good life, government doesn't trust us to do this. As far as government are concerned D is the forgotten man, and they need to help him out, which is why our society continues on a downward spiral.
I say... "STAND UP MAN C... IT'S TIME TO REVOLT!
Over the next little while I would like to explore ways in which C can revolt. I think for it to be effective that it needs to be a non-violent revolt, and living in a country with a constitution like we do, I think this is possible. The idea is not to start a new form of government of anything like that, it's to get C to stand up, A and B to sit down and shut their mouths, and I think in the long run, the greatest benefactor may be D, who learns to help himself.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Is Hillary Clinton a Liberal?
Below is a portion of the transcript from the Democratic Presidential Debate:
*********************************************************************
QUESTION: Hi. My name is Rob Porter, and I'm from Irvine, California.
I have a question for Hillary Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal?"
And would you use this word to describe yourself?
Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.
Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.
I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.
I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.
So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.
******************************************************************************
I like that definition of Liberal, at least what Senator Clinton describes as the original definition. The new definition she gives would seem to be more in line with her approach to politics. Universal Health Care is about big government and lowered individual freedoms, Senator Clinton is for Universal Health Care.
There was an essay written back in the 1800's entitled "The Forgotten Man". It is based on an algebraic equation as to how governments cause problems.
Stay tuned for my post on "The Forgotten Man" tomorrow.
*********************************************************************
QUESTION: Hi. My name is Rob Porter, and I'm from Irvine, California.
I have a question for Hillary Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal?"
And would you use this word to describe yourself?
Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.
Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.
I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.
I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.
So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.
******************************************************************************
I like that definition of Liberal, at least what Senator Clinton describes as the original definition. The new definition she gives would seem to be more in line with her approach to politics. Universal Health Care is about big government and lowered individual freedoms, Senator Clinton is for Universal Health Care.
There was an essay written back in the 1800's entitled "The Forgotten Man". It is based on an algebraic equation as to how governments cause problems.
Stay tuned for my post on "The Forgotten Man" tomorrow.
Guest Blogger
I read a comment on the community pages behind KSL TV in Salt Lake City today, and wanted to invite the author on as a guest blogger. Unfortunately with no way to contact him, I think I'll post his comments here, and offer him full credit.
The author of the comments below is Pootananga. It was written in response to an article on a 70% increase to property taxes in a local city.
If anyone knows Poot, please thank him/her!
Here is the more important consideration...
When our nation was founded there are two perfectly clear "principles of freedom" that existed troughout all the founder's writings. They are:
1. Government shall not control private property.
2. Government shall not control the means of production.
All this discussion about "how much" property tax is appropriate is simply stunning to me. Amazing that Americans would tolerate government owning their private homes at all, their "untouchable" sanctuaries.
Every time property tax comes up I simply cringe to hear you "Americans" willingly lay down your homes at the feet of government as if the American revolution never even took place.
Untouchable private property was the SOLE reason most immigrants came to America for the first hundred+ years of our growth as a nation. The Italians, Irish, Germans ALL came to America where a person could own land unfettered by government. Uncontrolled by powers similar to the land Barrons of Ireland and kings Europe.
Property tax means that none of you will EVER own your home. EVER!
Pay off the mortgage. You will still loose your home if you don't pay the (rent) taxes. This means that you have sold the American birthright to government.
The stunning ignorance of modern Americans who know so little of why their nation was established and what originally made it the greatest nation on earth.
What we SHOULD hear on these boards is an outcry against ANY property taxes. A demand that government NOT own our homes and private property. A proud rebellion against government control of the most sacred part of being American, one that our forefathers would be proud of.
America is now little different from the former Soviet Union in that government controls both private property and the means of production and can and DOES take it away at any time on a whim. How have we lost our spirit of being free from government's control of this most sacred element?
I think that the early settlers who came here would be ashamed at what Americans have given up in the freedoms they struggled and sacrificed for.
I say end all property taxes. When a person owns their home, that should be the end of it. It should be untouchable.
Enjoy paying RENT to government for the rest of your lives everyone! Suckers!
Thanks Poot!
The author of the comments below is Pootananga. It was written in response to an article on a 70% increase to property taxes in a local city.
If anyone knows Poot, please thank him/her!
Here is the more important consideration...
When our nation was founded there are two perfectly clear "principles of freedom" that existed troughout all the founder's writings. They are:
1. Government shall not control private property.
2. Government shall not control the means of production.
All this discussion about "how much" property tax is appropriate is simply stunning to me. Amazing that Americans would tolerate government owning their private homes at all, their "untouchable" sanctuaries.
Every time property tax comes up I simply cringe to hear you "Americans" willingly lay down your homes at the feet of government as if the American revolution never even took place.
Untouchable private property was the SOLE reason most immigrants came to America for the first hundred+ years of our growth as a nation. The Italians, Irish, Germans ALL came to America where a person could own land unfettered by government. Uncontrolled by powers similar to the land Barrons of Ireland and kings Europe.
Property tax means that none of you will EVER own your home. EVER!
Pay off the mortgage. You will still loose your home if you don't pay the (rent) taxes. This means that you have sold the American birthright to government.
The stunning ignorance of modern Americans who know so little of why their nation was established and what originally made it the greatest nation on earth.
What we SHOULD hear on these boards is an outcry against ANY property taxes. A demand that government NOT own our homes and private property. A proud rebellion against government control of the most sacred part of being American, one that our forefathers would be proud of.
America is now little different from the former Soviet Union in that government controls both private property and the means of production and can and DOES take it away at any time on a whim. How have we lost our spirit of being free from government's control of this most sacred element?
I think that the early settlers who came here would be ashamed at what Americans have given up in the freedoms they struggled and sacrificed for.
I say end all property taxes. When a person owns their home, that should be the end of it. It should be untouchable.
Enjoy paying RENT to government for the rest of your lives everyone! Suckers!
Thanks Poot!
The Smell Test...
You've probably heard about the terrible situation in Utah where 6 miners have been lost underground and another 3 have died in attempts to rescue them.
Something doesn't smell right with what is going on up there...
I think the media has done an excellent job with relaying the facts and trying to stay out of the sensationalization business.
I feel that the families of those involved are having a hard time, and despite what the mine owners and government officials are saying, they are handling themselves with dignity.
The problem is the mine owners and the government officials...
I can't say for sure what it is, but someone is trying to hide something and I think the families deserve better. If the owners screwed up, it's time to cowboy up and face the music.
Something doesn't smell right with what is going on up there...
I think the media has done an excellent job with relaying the facts and trying to stay out of the sensationalization business.
I feel that the families of those involved are having a hard time, and despite what the mine owners and government officials are saying, they are handling themselves with dignity.
The problem is the mine owners and the government officials...
I can't say for sure what it is, but someone is trying to hide something and I think the families deserve better. If the owners screwed up, it's time to cowboy up and face the music.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Pizza Hut Review
We decided to try out America's Favorite Pizza last weekend... Typically we just get it from Little Ceasar's, but I was in the mood for something other than cheese and tomato paste on some cardboard.
Here's how it went:
We tried to online order process - pretty slick, except if you try and add a coupon at the end... The coupon will only work with items added onto the coupon itself, and not items already added.
We got the order placed just before 2:30pm
I went up to the store at 2:45pm, when the website said it would be ready.
It wasn't ready, and I'm not sure if the cashier was ready to be at work either. Perhaps her cat had been hit by a car, and that was why she seemed indifferent to my being there...
2:56pm the pizza's were finally done. Another cashier came to take care of me. She was OK, nothing too grand in the service department though...
She took my credit card into the back of the store to run it... If my identity gets stolen any time soon, Pizza Hut will be getting a call from me...
We finally get the Pizza home, after stopping at Great Harvest Bread - Expensive cookies, but service that was perfect, and the cookies were great!!
We open our 2 pizza's.... Now when I was young, a large pizza was pretty large. These guys measured a little over 12 inches in diameter... I checked the site, and a large is 14 inches... Guess they must have shrunk in the oven...
You would think with Pizza's that size that you would have a good concentration of toppings... My hawaiin had probably 7 pieces of ham and about 12 pieces of pineapple.
Then as I am eating I see Pizza Hut's ad on TV spouting off their 20 minutes or it's free guarantee.
I thought about complaining, but to be honest, unless they offer me a Papa Johns Pizza as a way to make up for it, I don't think anything they could offer would be worth going through that again.
America's Favority Pizza - NOT SO MUCH....
Here's how it went:
We tried to online order process - pretty slick, except if you try and add a coupon at the end... The coupon will only work with items added onto the coupon itself, and not items already added.
We got the order placed just before 2:30pm
I went up to the store at 2:45pm, when the website said it would be ready.
It wasn't ready, and I'm not sure if the cashier was ready to be at work either. Perhaps her cat had been hit by a car, and that was why she seemed indifferent to my being there...
2:56pm the pizza's were finally done. Another cashier came to take care of me. She was OK, nothing too grand in the service department though...
She took my credit card into the back of the store to run it... If my identity gets stolen any time soon, Pizza Hut will be getting a call from me...
We finally get the Pizza home, after stopping at Great Harvest Bread - Expensive cookies, but service that was perfect, and the cookies were great!!
We open our 2 pizza's.... Now when I was young, a large pizza was pretty large. These guys measured a little over 12 inches in diameter... I checked the site, and a large is 14 inches... Guess they must have shrunk in the oven...
You would think with Pizza's that size that you would have a good concentration of toppings... My hawaiin had probably 7 pieces of ham and about 12 pieces of pineapple.
Then as I am eating I see Pizza Hut's ad on TV spouting off their 20 minutes or it's free guarantee.
I thought about complaining, but to be honest, unless they offer me a Papa Johns Pizza as a way to make up for it, I don't think anything they could offer would be worth going through that again.
America's Favority Pizza - NOT SO MUCH....
Thursday, August 16, 2007
My Political Leanings
I used to consider myself a Republican because I liked the platform on which the party was based.
Recently the republican press secretary release a statement which closed with this: "despite the difficult political environment, people continue to be attracted to the fundamental ideals of the Republican Party."
I don't know if the Republicans have any fundamental ideals, with the exception of trying to screw the American people as much as they can.
I wanted to get some T-Shirts printed last year that said, "Republicans for Hillary, At least we'll know up front we're going to get screwed."
This is why I like the Libertarians, they stand for lower taxes, smaller government and more freedom.
Before you knock the rest of their platform however, go read through it on their site. They make a very clear logical argument for their side.
I like them, and will likely vote that way.
You can vote for whomever you want...
That's the America I want to live it.
Recently the republican press secretary release a statement which closed with this: "despite the difficult political environment, people continue to be attracted to the fundamental ideals of the Republican Party."
I don't know if the Republicans have any fundamental ideals, with the exception of trying to screw the American people as much as they can.
I wanted to get some T-Shirts printed last year that said, "Republicans for Hillary, At least we'll know up front we're going to get screwed."
This is why I like the Libertarians, they stand for lower taxes, smaller government and more freedom.
Before you knock the rest of their platform however, go read through it on their site. They make a very clear logical argument for their side.
I like them, and will likely vote that way.
You can vote for whomever you want...
That's the America I want to live it.
Celebrity Voice Impersonated
I think I heard at least 4 ads on my commute this morning that ended with the disclaimer of "Celebrity Voice Impersonated".
Generally I could figure out who they wanted to impersonate, but after the Golds Gym impersonator who I think was trying to copy Swartzenegger, but instead sounded like a toothless hobo women with a speech impediment, I start to ask...
Do you really need the disclaimer if the person doing the impersonation simply sucks?
Generally I could figure out who they wanted to impersonate, but after the Golds Gym impersonator who I think was trying to copy Swartzenegger, but instead sounded like a toothless hobo women with a speech impediment, I start to ask...
Do you really need the disclaimer if the person doing the impersonation simply sucks?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Out to get me...
I was headed home last week from work, and got to a red light. I edged forward a little bit, so I could see if I could turn right, all the while rolling forward a little.
As I'm looking up at the light, the pedestrian light for those crossing in front of me, and so some people start to cross. Noticing this, and realizing that I don't want to hit them, I hit the brakes and jolt to a stop. One of the people crosses, then stops and glares at me with a "How dare you try and kill me look"
I thought about it as I drove home that day and pretty much every day since. I'm not sure how we get it, but I think most people have this feeling that everyone else on the roads is out to get us. Hence the 1 finger salute when someone cuts you off, road rage in general and just a general lack of courtesy.
I've been trying something. I've been driving as though I am amongst a group of friends... If someone needs to change lanes I let them in, if someone cuts me off, there's a good chance they didn't see me.
Interestingly enough, my driving experience has improved dramatically, and those around me have become far more friendly to drive with.
Of course there was one guy who pulled out right in front on me last week, causing me to have to brake so hard my wheels locked up. He didn't even stop at the stop sign, just came right on through. I didn't honk, didn't do anything, I actually felt pretty good.
Of course that feeling got a whole lot better when the cop, who happend to be driving behind me at the time, passed by with light going and nailed him!!!
As I'm looking up at the light, the pedestrian light for those crossing in front of me, and so some people start to cross. Noticing this, and realizing that I don't want to hit them, I hit the brakes and jolt to a stop. One of the people crosses, then stops and glares at me with a "How dare you try and kill me look"
I thought about it as I drove home that day and pretty much every day since. I'm not sure how we get it, but I think most people have this feeling that everyone else on the roads is out to get us. Hence the 1 finger salute when someone cuts you off, road rage in general and just a general lack of courtesy.
I've been trying something. I've been driving as though I am amongst a group of friends... If someone needs to change lanes I let them in, if someone cuts me off, there's a good chance they didn't see me.
Interestingly enough, my driving experience has improved dramatically, and those around me have become far more friendly to drive with.
Of course there was one guy who pulled out right in front on me last week, causing me to have to brake so hard my wheels locked up. He didn't even stop at the stop sign, just came right on through. I didn't honk, didn't do anything, I actually felt pretty good.
Of course that feeling got a whole lot better when the cop, who happend to be driving behind me at the time, passed by with light going and nailed him!!!
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Shout out to the big people
I've been whining a little too much lately...
So today I want to give a shout out to some larger people I have seen lately...
This morning I saw a lady of well of 300 lbs doing some power walking down the street and a few weeks back, there was a lady who was perhaps a little smaller, jogging around the track at the high school.
It can't be easy for them, but I have the utmost respect for someone who takes their own problem and works on fixing it, rather than sitting on their butts and letting it get worse.
You guys really rock!!
So today I want to give a shout out to some larger people I have seen lately...
This morning I saw a lady of well of 300 lbs doing some power walking down the street and a few weeks back, there was a lady who was perhaps a little smaller, jogging around the track at the high school.
It can't be easy for them, but I have the utmost respect for someone who takes their own problem and works on fixing it, rather than sitting on their butts and letting it get worse.
You guys really rock!!
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Naked Priest
Today's entry will be both funny and serious, the latter part probably not really meant for a younger audience.
I heard a story on the news this morning about a priest who was caught taking a naked jog by police, somewhere in Colorado. Now bear in mind that this is coming to you 3rd or 4th hand, but from what I understand, the situation is this:
The priest was observed by Police walking home at 4:30am, wearing nothing. He told police that he had been jogging at the local high school track. Apparently he is a rather heavy man, and to help with a problem of profuse sweating when he runs, he opts to do it 'au-natural'.
Now, I could do with losing a few pounds, and to achieve that I have recently taken up various types of exercise, including running down at the local track. I'd be lying if I said I didn't find clothes a hinderance, but I personally think that I do the world a favor by not exposing my lily white skin to them, despite that fact that I too, generally run in the dark.
This is where the story takes a more serious turn. Apparently the police have charged him with a crime, and if convicted, he will be required to register as a sex-offender. Personally as long as this man has a clean past, I'm not sure why he should be lumped in with a bottom feeding scum bags who are listed on the sex-offender registry. Actually, I think this is the kind of guy that I wouldn't mind living next to me, if not just for the great conversation starter it would be at work and parties.
I have a few problems with the sex-offender registry...
1 - Statutory Rape... I used to be 16 or 17, albeit a while ago. From what I recall, my mind revolved around 1 thing most of the time. Add to that the attitudes of girls these days, and I'm not sure if a 16 year old who ends up sleeping with a 15 year old should be added to the sex-offender registry. Back in the old days, the fact that her dad owned a shot-gun (or in my case, an AK-47) was enough to make me re-think trying anything with his daughter.
2 - Kind of in line with #1, there is a guy who lives a block away from me who is listed as a registered sex-offender. His neighbors spoke to him about it, and he told them it was for statutory rape when he was a stupid teenager. So the neighbors relaxed and have no problem letting their kids play over at his house. Now I, being a little more cynical decided to investigate him a little more. This scum bag was convicted of first degree felony attempted rape of a child. So rather than being a dumb teenager this guy tried to rape a kid under the age of 10, and based on the conviction date, I would guess he was in his mid 20's. So not only should the statutory rape cases not be on the list, but scum bags like this then use that as a reason to explain while they are on the list.
3 - Last year, another scum bag from the neighborhood shared a bunch of sick activities he had done with me. I was disturbed (more so than normal) for a few weeks over it, but I am glad he told me. Based on his actions, he is following nicely in the beginning footsteps of most pedophiles out there. We used to be friends, although I use that term loosely since he is little more than a self-centered prick - but that is neither here nor there. Anyway since he shared that with me, and his kid drew a picture in Sunday School, that makes me think his might have witnessed some of his fathers escapades. Anyway, since that my wife and I have decided that neither he, nor his kids will have any contact with our kids - just to be safe.
This final case raises the final problem I see with sex offender registries... This guy confessed to an ecclesiastical leader, and so feels absolved of his crimes (at least this time around - apparently this is time number 3 or 4 through the "repentance" process) and no report was ever made to the police or anything. There are no doubt countless more scum bags like this who never get caught and so are never on the registry. Add to that the fact that offenders themselves are required to keep their information current, and I'm thinking that there is very limited value to the sex offender registry at all.
As a conclusion to the story I found out yesterday that scumbag #3 was assigned by religeous leaders to visit my family on a monthly basis to check on our welfare. Let's just say that assignment was removed very quickly after I found out about it. I'm all for forgiveness and stuff, but that doesn't mean that God expects me not to use my brain is keeping my kids safe.
I heard a story on the news this morning about a priest who was caught taking a naked jog by police, somewhere in Colorado. Now bear in mind that this is coming to you 3rd or 4th hand, but from what I understand, the situation is this:
The priest was observed by Police walking home at 4:30am, wearing nothing. He told police that he had been jogging at the local high school track. Apparently he is a rather heavy man, and to help with a problem of profuse sweating when he runs, he opts to do it 'au-natural'.
Now, I could do with losing a few pounds, and to achieve that I have recently taken up various types of exercise, including running down at the local track. I'd be lying if I said I didn't find clothes a hinderance, but I personally think that I do the world a favor by not exposing my lily white skin to them, despite that fact that I too, generally run in the dark.
This is where the story takes a more serious turn. Apparently the police have charged him with a crime, and if convicted, he will be required to register as a sex-offender. Personally as long as this man has a clean past, I'm not sure why he should be lumped in with a bottom feeding scum bags who are listed on the sex-offender registry. Actually, I think this is the kind of guy that I wouldn't mind living next to me, if not just for the great conversation starter it would be at work and parties.
I have a few problems with the sex-offender registry...
1 - Statutory Rape... I used to be 16 or 17, albeit a while ago. From what I recall, my mind revolved around 1 thing most of the time. Add to that the attitudes of girls these days, and I'm not sure if a 16 year old who ends up sleeping with a 15 year old should be added to the sex-offender registry. Back in the old days, the fact that her dad owned a shot-gun (or in my case, an AK-47) was enough to make me re-think trying anything with his daughter.
2 - Kind of in line with #1, there is a guy who lives a block away from me who is listed as a registered sex-offender. His neighbors spoke to him about it, and he told them it was for statutory rape when he was a stupid teenager. So the neighbors relaxed and have no problem letting their kids play over at his house. Now I, being a little more cynical decided to investigate him a little more. This scum bag was convicted of first degree felony attempted rape of a child. So rather than being a dumb teenager this guy tried to rape a kid under the age of 10, and based on the conviction date, I would guess he was in his mid 20's. So not only should the statutory rape cases not be on the list, but scum bags like this then use that as a reason to explain while they are on the list.
3 - Last year, another scum bag from the neighborhood shared a bunch of sick activities he had done with me. I was disturbed (more so than normal) for a few weeks over it, but I am glad he told me. Based on his actions, he is following nicely in the beginning footsteps of most pedophiles out there. We used to be friends, although I use that term loosely since he is little more than a self-centered prick - but that is neither here nor there. Anyway since he shared that with me, and his kid drew a picture in Sunday School, that makes me think his might have witnessed some of his fathers escapades. Anyway, since that my wife and I have decided that neither he, nor his kids will have any contact with our kids - just to be safe.
This final case raises the final problem I see with sex offender registries... This guy confessed to an ecclesiastical leader, and so feels absolved of his crimes (at least this time around - apparently this is time number 3 or 4 through the "repentance" process) and no report was ever made to the police or anything. There are no doubt countless more scum bags like this who never get caught and so are never on the registry. Add to that the fact that offenders themselves are required to keep their information current, and I'm thinking that there is very limited value to the sex offender registry at all.
As a conclusion to the story I found out yesterday that scumbag #3 was assigned by religeous leaders to visit my family on a monthly basis to check on our welfare. Let's just say that assignment was removed very quickly after I found out about it. I'm all for forgiveness and stuff, but that doesn't mean that God expects me not to use my brain is keeping my kids safe.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Sir Winston Churchhill
Whether or not Mr. Churchhill made the following statement, is pretty much irrelevant. What makes it cool, it the content itself.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Very interesting!
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Very interesting!
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
The Emporer Has No Clothes
I think I have mentioned the Dilbert Blog before. Scott Adams, who is the creator of Dilbert keeps a daily blog on a variety of topics. A day or two back he wrote a highly entertaining piece on Atheism and Agnosticism. It was one of those pieces that makes you think too - I think he referred to it as Philsotainment.
In response to his piece, the caretaker of the About.com site for Atheism and Agnosticism wrote a response. Scott's reponse to that was a piece about how people with certain view points get very defensive when anyone raises questions about their beliefs. He pointed out a few flaws in the response, and then 'challenged' the author to defend them. He finished with a quote, in reference to what kind of response he was expecting "Dance, Monkey, Dance"
Well the Monkey danced!! And it got me thinking about 2 characteristics that we seem to have as humans, which are kind of related.
The first is the "Emporer has no clothes" mentality. We seem to get ourselves into groups where the assumption is made that we need to follow the direction of the group. The problem is that when the group starts to go down the wrong path, everyone is afraid of causing the destruction of the group, and so no one mentions the thing that will likely destroy the group anyway.
The second is the idea that everyone needs to think the way we do. "I believe this, so if you don't you're an idiot" What's up with that? We all have our own opinions, it's what makes us unique, and variety is the spice of life. The problem is when you take your opinion and feel that you need to impose it on others, or that it needs to be defended to the death. It's your opinion... No one can take it from you.. Quit taking yourself so seriously and get on with enjoying your life.
Of course that's just my opinion! But you might not think that way... That's OK, in fact, I encourage it, especially if you want to post some comments :-)
In response to his piece, the caretaker of the About.com site for Atheism and Agnosticism wrote a response. Scott's reponse to that was a piece about how people with certain view points get very defensive when anyone raises questions about their beliefs. He pointed out a few flaws in the response, and then 'challenged' the author to defend them. He finished with a quote, in reference to what kind of response he was expecting "Dance, Monkey, Dance"
Well the Monkey danced!! And it got me thinking about 2 characteristics that we seem to have as humans, which are kind of related.
The first is the "Emporer has no clothes" mentality. We seem to get ourselves into groups where the assumption is made that we need to follow the direction of the group. The problem is that when the group starts to go down the wrong path, everyone is afraid of causing the destruction of the group, and so no one mentions the thing that will likely destroy the group anyway.
The second is the idea that everyone needs to think the way we do. "I believe this, so if you don't you're an idiot" What's up with that? We all have our own opinions, it's what makes us unique, and variety is the spice of life. The problem is when you take your opinion and feel that you need to impose it on others, or that it needs to be defended to the death. It's your opinion... No one can take it from you.. Quit taking yourself so seriously and get on with enjoying your life.
Of course that's just my opinion! But you might not think that way... That's OK, in fact, I encourage it, especially if you want to post some comments :-)
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
What is it good for?
Chester the Bear had a good post today about war. It got me thinking a little.
Now your religeous background might be different from mine, but bear with me as I try and make a point about it. I think their might be some common threads that tie into other theological beliefs...
Most Judeo/Christian beliefs are based on the Old Testament, and I think from what I understand, so are most Islamic beliefs as well. When the New Testament enters the picture is where the three seem to separate.
From what I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong...) the Old Testament is based on very strict laws and codes of conduct. The reprecussions of breaking these laws are typically well described and rigidly enforced.
Examining Christian beliefs, the coming of Christ fulfilled this law, and ushered in a higher law, characterized by the 2 great commandments. To love God, and to love your neighbor. By following the example of Christ, which personifies these two ideals, the reward is well described, but perhaps not as rigidly as with the Old Testament law, or the law of Moses.
This reward is perhaps best described by the statement that "The yoke is easy and the burden is light".
The problem I see with many of the modern Christian sects, is that for most people the yoke they now carry is fraught with guilt, constant temptation from Satan and other perils of trying to be good enough.
I could probably go on and on about the reason for this, and likely will in the weeks to come, but let me finish up todays posts with this thought.
Conservative Christians generally support war as a means to fight evil. They are taught about the fight with Satan and sing songs like "Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war". When you try to consilidate these beliefs with the 2 great commandments, you realize that something is definitely wrong. The attitude of "Kill 'em all, and let God sort it out" is in complete opposition to "Love your Neighbor"
I think war is taught as a means to rally people together. It's the same tactic used by politicians, yet it seems more acceptable in religeon.
War, what is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
Now your religeous background might be different from mine, but bear with me as I try and make a point about it. I think their might be some common threads that tie into other theological beliefs...
Most Judeo/Christian beliefs are based on the Old Testament, and I think from what I understand, so are most Islamic beliefs as well. When the New Testament enters the picture is where the three seem to separate.
From what I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong...) the Old Testament is based on very strict laws and codes of conduct. The reprecussions of breaking these laws are typically well described and rigidly enforced.
Examining Christian beliefs, the coming of Christ fulfilled this law, and ushered in a higher law, characterized by the 2 great commandments. To love God, and to love your neighbor. By following the example of Christ, which personifies these two ideals, the reward is well described, but perhaps not as rigidly as with the Old Testament law, or the law of Moses.
This reward is perhaps best described by the statement that "The yoke is easy and the burden is light".
The problem I see with many of the modern Christian sects, is that for most people the yoke they now carry is fraught with guilt, constant temptation from Satan and other perils of trying to be good enough.
I could probably go on and on about the reason for this, and likely will in the weeks to come, but let me finish up todays posts with this thought.
Conservative Christians generally support war as a means to fight evil. They are taught about the fight with Satan and sing songs like "Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war". When you try to consilidate these beliefs with the 2 great commandments, you realize that something is definitely wrong. The attitude of "Kill 'em all, and let God sort it out" is in complete opposition to "Love your Neighbor"
I think war is taught as a means to rally people together. It's the same tactic used by politicians, yet it seems more acceptable in religeon.
War, what is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)