While I am not a person that really enjoys the Fine Arts, I had the privilege of seeing Phantom of the Opera on Broadway several years ago with my wife (she was my fiance at the time). I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed the show. The music, the acting, the atmosphere were all great.
I must say that I never thought about a sequel. However, Andrew Lloyd Weber has been working on a sequel to the original. He expects it to be ready for production toward the end of 2009, with debut productions possibly on 3 continents. I look forward to seeing this at some point. Hopefully, he can make it just as good as the original. Only time will tell.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Defending Israel
Why is it that the world will rush to condemn Israel for fighting back against Hamas, but they will not condemn Hamas for attacking Israel in the first place? I agree with Israel that they will stop fighting when, and only when, Hamas stops or once Hamas is destroyed. Anything less than this should be unacceptable.
Also, it is about time that our illustrious President-elect comes out and takes a position on this. Instead, he plays golf and vacations in Hawaii. I guess the media will be going after him just as they did when President Bush would go on vacation. I don't think I will hold my breath on that one.
Also, it is about time that our illustrious President-elect comes out and takes a position on this. Instead, he plays golf and vacations in Hawaii. I guess the media will be going after him just as they did when President Bush would go on vacation. I don't think I will hold my breath on that one.
Monday, December 29, 2008
The Cowboys lose...and miss the playoffs
As a fan of the Dallas Cowboys, I was greatly disappointed to see them lose yesterday. It hurts that they lost to the arch-nemesis Philadelphia Eagles. What hurt more was the score: 44-6. What hurt even more than the score was the way that they lost. It was like they did not even want to be there.
The Cowboys had no passion. They were not able to to play consistently enough to systematically move the ball and score. At times, they were not able to tackle.
So what went wrong? This team has more talent than just about any other team in the NFL. Why would a team that started the season so strong and the season so weak? How could a team with so much talent play the last few games as though they were the Detroit Lions?
The Dallas Cowboys are broken. They need to be fixed. They cannot win anything until they get back on the right track, and I have a few suggestions.
The Cowboys had no passion. They were not able to to play consistently enough to systematically move the ball and score. At times, they were not able to tackle.
So what went wrong? This team has more talent than just about any other team in the NFL. Why would a team that started the season so strong and the season so weak? How could a team with so much talent play the last few games as though they were the Detroit Lions?
The Dallas Cowboys are broken. They need to be fixed. They cannot win anything until they get back on the right track, and I have a few suggestions.
- Fire Wade Phillips. I am sure he is a nice guy, but the man appears to be a statue. He shows no emotion. He shows no passion. The coach needs to be more than a cheerleader, but he needs to show passion so that his team can feed off of that. He needs to have control of his players. He cannot let people like T.O. to grab the spotlight and create problems in the public arena. These issues can be, and should be, dealt with privately.
- Get rid of Terrell Owens. He is a cancer. You would not open up your own body and allow a cancer to come in and infest your body. Likewise, why would you do that with your football team?
- Get rid of Adam 'Pacman' Jones. Too much trouble. Not a good player.
- Rebuild the offensive line. They do not provide enough protection for Romo. They are getting old and terribly overweight.
- Get a run-stopper on the defensive line. Running backs found too many holes in that line over the last couple of games.
- Get a legitimate General Manager. I realize Jerry Jones owns the team, so he is able to do whatever he wants. But he needs a football guy to focus on player/personnel decisions. I liken it to the Yankees under George Steinbrenner. It was not until the mid-nineties when he made Gene Michael the G.M. that the Yankees started to win World Series. He realized he needed someone other than himself making player decisions. That is the same thing that Jerry Jones needs to do.
They need to do something. The status quo is not working for them. As the Obama-ites would say: It's time for change. I have hope in the future.
Friday, December 26, 2008
The UAW: Why is there no anger at them in this whole crisis?
According to a report by Fox News (and other media outlets), the UAW owns and operates a $33 million lakeside retreat in the backwoods of Onaway, Michigan, including a $6.4 million golf course. First, let me say that I do enjoy the game of golf. I may not be very good at it, but I do find it to be a way to relax and take out some frustrations, all at the same time. So I do not begrudge the union for having a golf course.
Here is the problem: In the past 5 years, this resort has lost $23 million. As the union is having problems with a pension fund that is losing money, they continue to throw away money with this resort. The UAW covers costs for this 'Walter and May Reuther Education Center' (sounds impressive, doesn't it?) from interest earned on the strike fund. Due to losses over the past 5 years, the UAW was forced to take out loans to keep things going.
First of all, the market did well over the last 5 years (notwithstanding the last 6-9 months). Why couldn't the UAW make money on any investments over that time? Are their investment people that bad? Maybe they should have been fired, too. They should have been able to make enough money for this place to be solvent.
Also, what do they need a resort for? According to the UAW, they send workers there to "learn, experience unionism (and) commit to labor's cause." This sounds a lot like socialism to me. Basically, it is a place that they send people to in order to get them to forget free market economics and indoctrinate them with the socialist tendencies of the union.
I am in the front of the line when it comes to griping about the government bailouts. They should not happen (and there will only be more once President-elect Obama is in office and pays off his union friends). In my opinion, these businesses that did not practice good policies should be left alone to go under, including the auto industry. My problem is that the UAW did not have to give up a thing in this whole auto bailout deal. They are the main reason that the auto industry is hurting. We do not need the unions. The auto assembly folks are compensated well. Their benefits are incomparable (except with Congress).
If the auto executives are castigated for flying to D.C. on the company planes for Congressional hearings, then why are we not castigating the UAW for throwing away money (and a lot more than what the execs spent on flying to D.C.) on this golf course and resort? Can we say double-standard? Can we say vote-buying?
Here is the problem: In the past 5 years, this resort has lost $23 million. As the union is having problems with a pension fund that is losing money, they continue to throw away money with this resort. The UAW covers costs for this 'Walter and May Reuther Education Center' (sounds impressive, doesn't it?) from interest earned on the strike fund. Due to losses over the past 5 years, the UAW was forced to take out loans to keep things going.
First of all, the market did well over the last 5 years (notwithstanding the last 6-9 months). Why couldn't the UAW make money on any investments over that time? Are their investment people that bad? Maybe they should have been fired, too. They should have been able to make enough money for this place to be solvent.
Also, what do they need a resort for? According to the UAW, they send workers there to "learn, experience unionism (and) commit to labor's cause." This sounds a lot like socialism to me. Basically, it is a place that they send people to in order to get them to forget free market economics and indoctrinate them with the socialist tendencies of the union.
I am in the front of the line when it comes to griping about the government bailouts. They should not happen (and there will only be more once President-elect Obama is in office and pays off his union friends). In my opinion, these businesses that did not practice good policies should be left alone to go under, including the auto industry. My problem is that the UAW did not have to give up a thing in this whole auto bailout deal. They are the main reason that the auto industry is hurting. We do not need the unions. The auto assembly folks are compensated well. Their benefits are incomparable (except with Congress).
If the auto executives are castigated for flying to D.C. on the company planes for Congressional hearings, then why are we not castigating the UAW for throwing away money (and a lot more than what the execs spent on flying to D.C.) on this golf course and resort? Can we say double-standard? Can we say vote-buying?
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
President Bush's Legacy
We all know that the effectiveness of a President cannot be judged at the time he leaves office. It takes time to see how the man's policies, the appointments he made to the courts, and the bills that he signed have affected the world in which we live.
The liberals and the media have been whacking the President for 8 years now. He is stupid. He lets the VP do the governing. He does not have a clue. He is just a bad President, possibly the worst of all time. His approval ratings are the lowest ever. He has made us the laughingstock of the world. No one likes us anymore (even though they know who to go to to bail them out of trouble).
And with them repeating this refrain every day for 8 years, many people find themselves believing this line of thinking. I was eating lunch with my department today, and several people chimed in with this same line of thinking. Apparently, we have forgotten how to think critically. We hear someone else's opinion, and we just adopt it as our own without stopping to think about it and validate its premise.
Well, I came across this article today, stating that the President's legacy could turn out better than we think (or we have been told that it would). This will do mainly to his proactive stance on protecting the United States after the 9/11 attacks. The author talks about economic issues that will help him out (although I fail to see his point on that).
Anyway, let the man leave office and let some time go by before we judge him in comparison to past Presidents. I think we will see how his tax cuts for one and all were beneficial for helping us in the shadow of 9/11 come back stronger than before. We will see how his leadership of the country against despots, tyrants, and terrorists helped make the U.S. a stronger country. We will see how his appointments of 2 fine men to the Supreme Court will help shape the court for years to come.
The liberals and the media have been whacking the President for 8 years now. He is stupid. He lets the VP do the governing. He does not have a clue. He is just a bad President, possibly the worst of all time. His approval ratings are the lowest ever. He has made us the laughingstock of the world. No one likes us anymore (even though they know who to go to to bail them out of trouble).
And with them repeating this refrain every day for 8 years, many people find themselves believing this line of thinking. I was eating lunch with my department today, and several people chimed in with this same line of thinking. Apparently, we have forgotten how to think critically. We hear someone else's opinion, and we just adopt it as our own without stopping to think about it and validate its premise.
Well, I came across this article today, stating that the President's legacy could turn out better than we think (or we have been told that it would). This will do mainly to his proactive stance on protecting the United States after the 9/11 attacks. The author talks about economic issues that will help him out (although I fail to see his point on that).
Anyway, let the man leave office and let some time go by before we judge him in comparison to past Presidents. I think we will see how his tax cuts for one and all were beneficial for helping us in the shadow of 9/11 come back stronger than before. We will see how his leadership of the country against despots, tyrants, and terrorists helped make the U.S. a stronger country. We will see how his appointments of 2 fine men to the Supreme Court will help shape the court for years to come.
New Cabinet Appointees
Much is being said in the media now about President-elect Obama's selections for Cabinet-level positions. The media is telling us that he is picking people who are seemingly quasi-moderates, middle-of-the-road people who we, as Americans, can relate to. They are not the partisans that we have had to put up with for years.
Well, let us not forget that these Cabinet positions report to the President. They carry out the President's will and agenda in their respective offices. They are not there to work independently of the President. And while he is appointing people who appear moderate, they will carry out his leftist policies because that will be there job to do so.
As cliche as it sounds, looks can be, and are, deceiving. Do not judge this book by its cover. President-elect Obama can make it look like he wants to rule from the political center. The media can try to paint his soon-to-be presidency as being non-partisan and centrist.
However, they cannot change the reality of the fact that he wants to make government bigger than it is now. They cannot change the fact that he wants to give more federal funds to one and all, in order to make people more reliant on the government. They cannot change the fact that he wants the government to control every facet of our lives.
Well, let us not forget that these Cabinet positions report to the President. They carry out the President's will and agenda in their respective offices. They are not there to work independently of the President. And while he is appointing people who appear moderate, they will carry out his leftist policies because that will be there job to do so.
As cliche as it sounds, looks can be, and are, deceiving. Do not judge this book by its cover. President-elect Obama can make it look like he wants to rule from the political center. The media can try to paint his soon-to-be presidency as being non-partisan and centrist.
However, they cannot change the reality of the fact that he wants to make government bigger than it is now. They cannot change the fact that he wants to give more federal funds to one and all, in order to make people more reliant on the government. They cannot change the fact that he wants the government to control every facet of our lives.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Book Review: Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner
Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner is an exhaustive tome concerning the history of the CIA. He wrote the book after an extensive reading of some 50,000 documents and many, many interviews with past CIA people. The footnotes in this book are incomparable to any other book I have read.
There is much to learn about the CIA in this book. Given the number of footnotes in this book, there is no doubt that the history that he writes about is real. The events are real. The people are real. Many of the accounts are recorded directly from the sources.
He outlines the leaders over the years and how they often kept the government (including the President, at times) in the dark on many of their operations. He talks about their ineptitude when it comes to leadership and gaining intelligence on America’s enemies. While some of this is probably true, I am sure that the job was much more difficult than writing.
He discusses the roles that the Presidents have played with the CIA. Surprisingly, he was rough on both Kennedy and Clinton when it comes to their relationship with the Agency. Predictably, he was tough on Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush. The only President he praised for a good relationship with the CIA was George H.W. Bush.
The problem I have with the book is that the author really has nothing positive to say about the Agency. Everything is negative. He says that this is due to the fact that they have had very few successes over the years. I believe that he has purposefully left out some of the positive things the CIA has done so as to create a negative image of the Agency (and given the fact that the author works for the New York Times, I feel I am right about this).
After spending the whole book railing against the CIA, he suddenly feels sorry for them after the events of 9/11. At that point, all of a sudden the national leaders started to ignore the CIA and its intelligence. I found it highly ironic that the CIA could do nothing right, and that they missed the events leading up to 9/11. However, all of a sudden, they became credible. President Bush started to ignore the intelligence reports and the intelligence was being ‘cherry picked’.
The author, in my opinion, is very self-serving and will do what he can to make the CIA (as well as the U.S.) look bad. I do not believe it was his goal to provide a balanced look at the Agency. If you have a lot of free time on hand, go ahead and read the book. If you do not have the available time, you are not missing anything by skipping over this tome. I read this book so you did not have to.
There is much to learn about the CIA in this book. Given the number of footnotes in this book, there is no doubt that the history that he writes about is real. The events are real. The people are real. Many of the accounts are recorded directly from the sources.
He outlines the leaders over the years and how they often kept the government (including the President, at times) in the dark on many of their operations. He talks about their ineptitude when it comes to leadership and gaining intelligence on America’s enemies. While some of this is probably true, I am sure that the job was much more difficult than writing.
He discusses the roles that the Presidents have played with the CIA. Surprisingly, he was rough on both Kennedy and Clinton when it comes to their relationship with the Agency. Predictably, he was tough on Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush. The only President he praised for a good relationship with the CIA was George H.W. Bush.
The problem I have with the book is that the author really has nothing positive to say about the Agency. Everything is negative. He says that this is due to the fact that they have had very few successes over the years. I believe that he has purposefully left out some of the positive things the CIA has done so as to create a negative image of the Agency (and given the fact that the author works for the New York Times, I feel I am right about this).
After spending the whole book railing against the CIA, he suddenly feels sorry for them after the events of 9/11. At that point, all of a sudden the national leaders started to ignore the CIA and its intelligence. I found it highly ironic that the CIA could do nothing right, and that they missed the events leading up to 9/11. However, all of a sudden, they became credible. President Bush started to ignore the intelligence reports and the intelligence was being ‘cherry picked’.
The author, in my opinion, is very self-serving and will do what he can to make the CIA (as well as the U.S.) look bad. I do not believe it was his goal to provide a balanced look at the Agency. If you have a lot of free time on hand, go ahead and read the book. If you do not have the available time, you are not missing anything by skipping over this tome. I read this book so you did not have to.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Remembering Ken Culver
Ken Culver was your average guy from Kansas. Other than his boisterous nature, he really did not stand out. He was not famous. He was not an extraordinary athlete. He may not have even been the most attractive guy. However, he was a great human being and a tremendous friend.
Ken Culver was supposed to be married on December 16, 2000 to Melissa Delaney. However, an unfortunate accident on December 9, one week before his wedding was to take place, took the life of one of the greatest friends I have ever had.
I first met Ken while I was in college. It was the Spring, 1993 semester at Bob Jones University. I sat out the Fall semester to earn some money. When I returned, there was a freshman there who thought he knew everything. He was loud. He was somewhat obnoxious (or so I thought). It was Ken, at his finest.
As I worked with him at the Dining Common, we started to become friends. Over the course of the next couple of years, we became best friends. After he graduated, he stayed at Bob Jones University as Dining Common staff in the bakery. It was through his work at the Dining Common that he earned his CDL.
Pam and I were going to get married in July, 1996. I asked Ken if he would be my best man. We were best friends, and he was on staff with my soon-to-be wife. He accepted the invitation. It was almost like old times again when he arrived in North Carolina for the wedding. In fact, there is still a picture out there, somewhere, of Ken and I lighting the unity candle. Don't ask me why. It just seemed like something hilarious to do at the time (it was during picture time, not during the ceremony).
Anyway, after a couple of years of work at the Dining Common, he started to work as a cross country tractor trailer driver. He travelled all over the place. He would stop by our house at times on his way through town. I enjoyed his e-mails from all over the place. He started to publish his 'Trucker's Newsletter.' It was a humorous look at his life on the road.
One time, he called us to let us know he was coming through town and would like to stop by. I informed him that, unfortunately, we had committed to helping some friends move that weekend. Instead of blowing through town, he offered to help. He had a few days yet to reach his destination, and would rather help out than get to his destination early and sit, waiting to unload his trailer. He did not know these friends of ours from the man in the moon, but he was more than willing to help. He drove the moving truck. He moved a lot of furniture. That was Ken, just wanting to help other people.
However, this life on the road did take its toll on him. He took a job in South Carolina, working for a friend who was in the tree removal business. He liked this work. One day, he called me, and I could tell he was more excited than normal. He told me that he got engaged. He was so happy. He asked me to be in his wedding. Of course, I accepted.
We stayed in contact over the next several months. After all, I needed the details of where we were getting the tuxedos, when the wedding would be, when we would be there.
As we were making final preparations, I received a call from a mutual friend. It was Sunday, December 10, which was 6 days before the wedding. This friend called to let me know that Ken was killed in a work-related accident. At the time, I did not know how to take it. I thought this might be a joke. But who would joke about this?
I got on the internet to look this up. I needed to be sure about this. When I checked my e-mail, my old college roommate left me a message about this. He was familiar with the situation, and he wanted to let me know. I found the article in the Greenville, SC newspaper.
I then realized that Ken was gone. I had lost my grandparents before this, but this was different. My grandparents had lived a full life. There deaths were somewhat expected. Ken was young. He had a new life to look forward to as he was going to be married. All of that was gone in an instant. It was a lethal blow from a falling tree. He did not suffer. It was instantaneous.
I struggled with my feelings. Did this really happen? Why? He was young. He was a great guy. He was always willing to help others. How could this happen to him?
I was informed that there would be a memorial service in South Carolina for Ken on December 17. At first, I was not going to go. However, since we had already made plans to be in South Carolina, we decided to go. And I am glad we did.
We had a chance to connect with friends from college. We were a huge group of people coming together to remember the life of a young man who we were all friends with. Several people spoke of how great a friend he was, always willing to help out in times of need.
As I look back at the life of Ken, I realize that he is not here on earth. I cannot call him and talk to him. We will never get to spend time together again on the golf course (and was that ever an experience!). I do know, however, that I will be seeing him again. He may not be here on earth, but he is in heaven, where I will have a chance to see him once again.
You see, his time on earth was done. God had another reason for taking him, one that I will not understand until I see Him. That does not mean that I cannot miss Ken. He was like another brother to me (but I go along much better with Ken). He was my friend, something I will cherish for all time.
Ken - We miss you.
Ken Culver was supposed to be married on December 16, 2000 to Melissa Delaney. However, an unfortunate accident on December 9, one week before his wedding was to take place, took the life of one of the greatest friends I have ever had.
I first met Ken while I was in college. It was the Spring, 1993 semester at Bob Jones University. I sat out the Fall semester to earn some money. When I returned, there was a freshman there who thought he knew everything. He was loud. He was somewhat obnoxious (or so I thought). It was Ken, at his finest.
As I worked with him at the Dining Common, we started to become friends. Over the course of the next couple of years, we became best friends. After he graduated, he stayed at Bob Jones University as Dining Common staff in the bakery. It was through his work at the Dining Common that he earned his CDL.
Pam and I were going to get married in July, 1996. I asked Ken if he would be my best man. We were best friends, and he was on staff with my soon-to-be wife. He accepted the invitation. It was almost like old times again when he arrived in North Carolina for the wedding. In fact, there is still a picture out there, somewhere, of Ken and I lighting the unity candle. Don't ask me why. It just seemed like something hilarious to do at the time (it was during picture time, not during the ceremony).
Anyway, after a couple of years of work at the Dining Common, he started to work as a cross country tractor trailer driver. He travelled all over the place. He would stop by our house at times on his way through town. I enjoyed his e-mails from all over the place. He started to publish his 'Trucker's Newsletter.' It was a humorous look at his life on the road.
One time, he called us to let us know he was coming through town and would like to stop by. I informed him that, unfortunately, we had committed to helping some friends move that weekend. Instead of blowing through town, he offered to help. He had a few days yet to reach his destination, and would rather help out than get to his destination early and sit, waiting to unload his trailer. He did not know these friends of ours from the man in the moon, but he was more than willing to help. He drove the moving truck. He moved a lot of furniture. That was Ken, just wanting to help other people.
However, this life on the road did take its toll on him. He took a job in South Carolina, working for a friend who was in the tree removal business. He liked this work. One day, he called me, and I could tell he was more excited than normal. He told me that he got engaged. He was so happy. He asked me to be in his wedding. Of course, I accepted.
We stayed in contact over the next several months. After all, I needed the details of where we were getting the tuxedos, when the wedding would be, when we would be there.
As we were making final preparations, I received a call from a mutual friend. It was Sunday, December 10, which was 6 days before the wedding. This friend called to let me know that Ken was killed in a work-related accident. At the time, I did not know how to take it. I thought this might be a joke. But who would joke about this?
I got on the internet to look this up. I needed to be sure about this. When I checked my e-mail, my old college roommate left me a message about this. He was familiar with the situation, and he wanted to let me know. I found the article in the Greenville, SC newspaper.
I then realized that Ken was gone. I had lost my grandparents before this, but this was different. My grandparents had lived a full life. There deaths were somewhat expected. Ken was young. He had a new life to look forward to as he was going to be married. All of that was gone in an instant. It was a lethal blow from a falling tree. He did not suffer. It was instantaneous.
I struggled with my feelings. Did this really happen? Why? He was young. He was a great guy. He was always willing to help others. How could this happen to him?
I was informed that there would be a memorial service in South Carolina for Ken on December 17. At first, I was not going to go. However, since we had already made plans to be in South Carolina, we decided to go. And I am glad we did.
We had a chance to connect with friends from college. We were a huge group of people coming together to remember the life of a young man who we were all friends with. Several people spoke of how great a friend he was, always willing to help out in times of need.
As I look back at the life of Ken, I realize that he is not here on earth. I cannot call him and talk to him. We will never get to spend time together again on the golf course (and was that ever an experience!). I do know, however, that I will be seeing him again. He may not be here on earth, but he is in heaven, where I will have a chance to see him once again.
You see, his time on earth was done. God had another reason for taking him, one that I will not understand until I see Him. That does not mean that I cannot miss Ken. He was like another brother to me (but I go along much better with Ken). He was my friend, something I will cherish for all time.
Ken - We miss you.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Gun-toting momma
For the last month or so, a Lebanon, PA woman has been in the news. She was asked to not carry her pistol on her belt (think of the sheriff in the Old West) during her daughter's youth soccer games. Her gun was confiscated for a short time, but was given back to her. She is now suing the Lebanon County sheriff for $1,000,000.
Apparently, business is down at her day care center after this brouhaha hit the news. People are extremely hesitant to have their children stay with this woman who suffers from a tremendous lack of judgment. This negative publicity has brought economic hardship on her.
Well, let me express my opinions. I have no problem with the fact that she has a gun and a concealed weapons permit. Good for her. My problem is with how she carries the thing around with her.
In the times that we live, it does make sense that she would carry it with her when she is out and about. However, she carries the thing in a holster on her belt. It is hard to look at this without looking at the context of today's society. We live in a society where people are being shot in public, on the street, at the mall, in the stores. I can understand the reason behind the complaints of parents who saw her carrying this gun.
For those who see her carrying this gun and do not know her, this could cause tremendous trepidation. Is she one of those crazed, maniacal people that is looking to shoot someone? Is she looking to get revenge on someone that might be at the game? Why does she need to carry this to a youth soccer game?
She was carrying the gun at her daughter's soccer game. Why? Keep it in your purse. Keep it in the car. But to where it on your belt? Tremendous lack of judgment. And she does not understand why people have a problem with this. No wonder people do not want to leave their kids at her day care center.
Is this legal for her to carry her gun like this? Yes, it is. Is it always wise to carry your gun like this? No. Just because you can does not mean that you should.
Apparently, business is down at her day care center after this brouhaha hit the news. People are extremely hesitant to have their children stay with this woman who suffers from a tremendous lack of judgment. This negative publicity has brought economic hardship on her.
Well, let me express my opinions. I have no problem with the fact that she has a gun and a concealed weapons permit. Good for her. My problem is with how she carries the thing around with her.
In the times that we live, it does make sense that she would carry it with her when she is out and about. However, she carries the thing in a holster on her belt. It is hard to look at this without looking at the context of today's society. We live in a society where people are being shot in public, on the street, at the mall, in the stores. I can understand the reason behind the complaints of parents who saw her carrying this gun.
For those who see her carrying this gun and do not know her, this could cause tremendous trepidation. Is she one of those crazed, maniacal people that is looking to shoot someone? Is she looking to get revenge on someone that might be at the game? Why does she need to carry this to a youth soccer game?
She was carrying the gun at her daughter's soccer game. Why? Keep it in your purse. Keep it in the car. But to where it on your belt? Tremendous lack of judgment. And she does not understand why people have a problem with this. No wonder people do not want to leave their kids at her day care center.
Is this legal for her to carry her gun like this? Yes, it is. Is it always wise to carry your gun like this? No. Just because you can does not mean that you should.
Born to Die
As I was reading the Harrisburg Patriot News today (Friday, 12/5/08), I started to read an article by Lou Carlozo of the Chicago Tribune about the 10 worst holiday albums. I will give his countdown later on, but my attention was drawn to #10 on his list. It is a song titled Born to Die by Christian artists Shane & Shane.
I have never heard Shane & Shane's music. Actually, until today, I had never heard of them. In my curiosity, I looked up the lyrics to this song, and here they are:
When the babe was born.
In a manger on the hay.
God saw a veil torn.
He saw Good Friday.
He was born to die.
Gold laid before the Christ.
Incense, His presence is sweet.
Myrrh to signify victory over death's sting.
He was born to die.
It came in a dream.
To Joseph late one night.
That Herod sought the King.
But could not take His life.
He was born to die.
He said, "You won't take my life.
You won't take my life.
You won't take my life...
I lay it down."
We came here today to celebrate His birth.
But let us not forget why Jesus came to earth.
He was born to die.
It is very accurate in what it says. We get so focused on the hustle and bustle of the season. We get caught up in the materialistic acpect of Christmas. We get caught up in the giving to others. We get caught up in the decorating. Yet, we fail, many times, to understand the true reason we celebrate Christmas.
It is not here for us to give presents or get presents. Without the birth of Christ, we would not have Christmas (which is probably how we came up with the name Christmas). Without the birth of Christ, we would not have the death, burail, and resurrection of Christ, which is necessary for our salvation.
Anyway, the author's criticism is summed up in this statement: "True, some theologians believe baby Jesus came into this world knowing that he'd suffer a horrible death. That said, 'Born to Die' sounds awfully inappropriate for the season and would likely halt your Christmas bash." Apparently, he just does not get it.
Anyway, here is his Top 10 bad Christmas albums:
# 10 - 'Born to Die' - Shane & Shane
# 9 - 'A Winter Symphony' - Sarah Brightman
# 8 - 'Natty and Nice: A Reggae Christmas' - various
# 7 - 'Merry Christmas' - Mariah Carey
# 6 - 'A Twistmas Story with Twitty Bird and Their Little Friends' - Conway Twitty
# 5 - 'This is the Time: The Christmas Album' - Michael Bolton
# 4 - 'Christmas on Death Row' - various
# 3 - 'Christmas Song' - Mannheim Steamroller
# 2 - 'A Twisted Christmas' - Twisted Sister
# 1 - 'Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer' - Elmo and Patsy
I have never heard Shane & Shane's music. Actually, until today, I had never heard of them. In my curiosity, I looked up the lyrics to this song, and here they are:
When the babe was born.
In a manger on the hay.
God saw a veil torn.
He saw Good Friday.
He was born to die.
Gold laid before the Christ.
Incense, His presence is sweet.
Myrrh to signify victory over death's sting.
He was born to die.
It came in a dream.
To Joseph late one night.
That Herod sought the King.
But could not take His life.
He was born to die.
He said, "You won't take my life.
You won't take my life.
You won't take my life...
I lay it down."
We came here today to celebrate His birth.
But let us not forget why Jesus came to earth.
He was born to die.
It is very accurate in what it says. We get so focused on the hustle and bustle of the season. We get caught up in the materialistic acpect of Christmas. We get caught up in the giving to others. We get caught up in the decorating. Yet, we fail, many times, to understand the true reason we celebrate Christmas.
It is not here for us to give presents or get presents. Without the birth of Christ, we would not have Christmas (which is probably how we came up with the name Christmas). Without the birth of Christ, we would not have the death, burail, and resurrection of Christ, which is necessary for our salvation.
Anyway, the author's criticism is summed up in this statement: "True, some theologians believe baby Jesus came into this world knowing that he'd suffer a horrible death. That said, 'Born to Die' sounds awfully inappropriate for the season and would likely halt your Christmas bash." Apparently, he just does not get it.
Anyway, here is his Top 10 bad Christmas albums:
# 10 - 'Born to Die' - Shane & Shane
# 9 - 'A Winter Symphony' - Sarah Brightman
# 8 - 'Natty and Nice: A Reggae Christmas' - various
# 7 - 'Merry Christmas' - Mariah Carey
# 6 - 'A Twistmas Story with Twitty Bird and Their Little Friends' - Conway Twitty
# 5 - 'This is the Time: The Christmas Album' - Michael Bolton
# 4 - 'Christmas on Death Row' - various
# 3 - 'Christmas Song' - Mannheim Steamroller
# 2 - 'A Twisted Christmas' - Twisted Sister
# 1 - 'Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer' - Elmo and Patsy
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Government bailout hypocrisy
Is it just me, or is there a lot of hypocrisy concerning this bailout thing? The folks in Washington want the automakers to come to them with business plans in hand that says how they plan to use the money that they want from the government. Yet, the banking industry is getting their money without having to do anything, other than ask for the money. Henry Paulson cannot seem to hand out enough money right now.
Isn't it funny how the automobile CEOs are being excoriated for flying to DC on the company jets, spending so much company money (it is not from the taxes that we pay). Yet these same congressional leaders look the other way when the banking guys are doing the same thing and using the bailout money for bonuses and trips.
I saw a representative from California grilling the CEOs of the auto companies about using their corporate jets to fly to DC and acting as if he was horrified. In my humble opinion, these CEOs should have come back at him and ask him why he flies home every weekend at taxpayer expense (and then flying back to Washington at the beginning of the week), all the way across the country, increasing his carbon footprint.
There is so much hypocrisy in this, it is ludicrous. Yet, no one in the media seems to notice.
Isn't it funny how the automobile CEOs are being excoriated for flying to DC on the company jets, spending so much company money (it is not from the taxes that we pay). Yet these same congressional leaders look the other way when the banking guys are doing the same thing and using the bailout money for bonuses and trips.
I saw a representative from California grilling the CEOs of the auto companies about using their corporate jets to fly to DC and acting as if he was horrified. In my humble opinion, these CEOs should have come back at him and ask him why he flies home every weekend at taxpayer expense (and then flying back to Washington at the beginning of the week), all the way across the country, increasing his carbon footprint.
There is so much hypocrisy in this, it is ludicrous. Yet, no one in the media seems to notice.
Overlooking our religious heritage
The new Capitol Visitors Center opened today. After many years of construction and budget overruns, it is now open for the general public to go see. I am sure that this place is very nice, and I hope to have the opportunity to visit at some point in the future.
However, one Senator who is none to happy with this is SC Republican Senator Jim DeMint. He points out that this visitors center does not make mention of the religious heritage of this country. In my opinion, this is sad.
Our country was built on religion and religious freedom. After a casual reading of the documents written by many of our founding fathers, it does not take long to realize this. What I find interesting are the comments posted below the column. Many are praising Sen. DeMint for his comments.
However, several very uninformed people are stating that we have a Constitutional separation of church and state. This could not be further from the truth. That never appears in our Constitution. Our founding fathers never intended this to be. However, we have allowed the liberal progressives to promote this idea, and now many people are buying into this.
To exclude the religious heritage of our country is a tremendous oversight. The reason people came here from Europe in the first place is so that they could worship freely. As the Constitutional Convention was occurring, the men took time to pray so that they could get this country started properly. Schools were started in this country so that people could learn to read, mainly from the Bible. Read the writings of the founding fathers. Read the state constitutions. The worship of God was meant to be an integral part of our lives. Yet, the designers of this facility saw fit to leave God (and religion) out of this.
I am not saying this new center should be a shrine to God, a place of worship. However, to ignore the fact that our founding fathers relied on God and prayed to him for wisdom is a terrible mistake and omission, and it should be corrected as soon as possible.
However, one Senator who is none to happy with this is SC Republican Senator Jim DeMint. He points out that this visitors center does not make mention of the religious heritage of this country. In my opinion, this is sad.
Our country was built on religion and religious freedom. After a casual reading of the documents written by many of our founding fathers, it does not take long to realize this. What I find interesting are the comments posted below the column. Many are praising Sen. DeMint for his comments.
However, several very uninformed people are stating that we have a Constitutional separation of church and state. This could not be further from the truth. That never appears in our Constitution. Our founding fathers never intended this to be. However, we have allowed the liberal progressives to promote this idea, and now many people are buying into this.
To exclude the religious heritage of our country is a tremendous oversight. The reason people came here from Europe in the first place is so that they could worship freely. As the Constitutional Convention was occurring, the men took time to pray so that they could get this country started properly. Schools were started in this country so that people could learn to read, mainly from the Bible. Read the writings of the founding fathers. Read the state constitutions. The worship of God was meant to be an integral part of our lives. Yet, the designers of this facility saw fit to leave God (and religion) out of this.
I am not saying this new center should be a shrine to God, a place of worship. However, to ignore the fact that our founding fathers relied on God and prayed to him for wisdom is a terrible mistake and omission, and it should be corrected as soon as possible.
Contempt for the electorate
Well, the new Capitol Visitors Center opened today in DC. It is long overdue and way over its original budget. I am sure it is a nice place to go. It will definitely beat waiting outdoors in line to get into the Capital, which is a magnificent structure to visit and take a tour of.
Anyway, at the opening of this visitors center, Harry Reid, Senate Democrat Majority Leader, said "My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway.In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true."
Having been to the Capitol in the summertime, I had to wait in a line in the heat in order to be allowed to enter. However, it is not that bad.
However, to say that the tourists stink, in my opinion, is very elitist of him. He thinks he is too good for the people to come visit the place where their elected representatives work. In his opinion, they should not be there. He should not have to be bothered with them.
Well, in my opinion, everyone who goes to visit should not eat baked beans and tacos before they visit. Then he can really smell the tourists. What an idiot.
Anyway, at the opening of this visitors center, Harry Reid, Senate Democrat Majority Leader, said "My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway.In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true."
Having been to the Capitol in the summertime, I had to wait in a line in the heat in order to be allowed to enter. However, it is not that bad.
However, to say that the tourists stink, in my opinion, is very elitist of him. He thinks he is too good for the people to come visit the place where their elected representatives work. In his opinion, they should not be there. He should not have to be bothered with them.
Well, in my opinion, everyone who goes to visit should not eat baked beans and tacos before they visit. Then he can really smell the tourists. What an idiot.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Public School vs. Prayer
This week, the school board in Carlisle, PA voted to allow teachers to meet with students in the "Meet You at the Pole" campaign, where students meet at the flagpole to pray (it passed 8-1). To me, this seems like a no-brainer. What is the problem with this?
Well, the one person that voted against this did so because he thought it would lend itself to a government establishment of religion. He wondered how this would affect the students if they saw their teacher going out to the flagpole to pray. Maybe, their religion is different from a teacher's religion. Maybe the student believes in no religion. Either way, why should it bother the student how someone practices their faith. (As a sidenote, isn't it interesting how these atheists do not want someone else to 'force' their religion on them, yet they want to push their beliefs on others.)
Anyway, after doing a little bit of reading, I found out that these prayers at the flagpole are not audible prayers. The students meet and pray silently, which would allow people of any religion to come together and offer up their prayers without offending anyone else (I am not speaking to the idea of ecumenical prayers, I am just addressing the issue of a teacher and prayer). How could this possibly be an establishment of religion when the teacher never has to say what religion he/she adheres to?
But, where do we draw the line? Do we tell teachers that they cannot go to church, because an atheist student (or parent) may see that teacher walking into a church that they do not agree with? Do we get offended if they go to a church of a different religion? Can we tell them to stop praying in restaurants, just in case they may be seen by a student? This is utter foolishness.
The Constitution gives us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. These complainers need to read many of the documents written by the founding fathers. They need to read many of the state constitutions. The founders had a tremendous faith in God and wanted him to be an integral part of the lives of those who served the people. However, they were smart enough not to condone a state-sponsored religion. They never said our leaders should not be religious.
Well, the one person that voted against this did so because he thought it would lend itself to a government establishment of religion. He wondered how this would affect the students if they saw their teacher going out to the flagpole to pray. Maybe, their religion is different from a teacher's religion. Maybe the student believes in no religion. Either way, why should it bother the student how someone practices their faith. (As a sidenote, isn't it interesting how these atheists do not want someone else to 'force' their religion on them, yet they want to push their beliefs on others.)
Anyway, after doing a little bit of reading, I found out that these prayers at the flagpole are not audible prayers. The students meet and pray silently, which would allow people of any religion to come together and offer up their prayers without offending anyone else (I am not speaking to the idea of ecumenical prayers, I am just addressing the issue of a teacher and prayer). How could this possibly be an establishment of religion when the teacher never has to say what religion he/she adheres to?
But, where do we draw the line? Do we tell teachers that they cannot go to church, because an atheist student (or parent) may see that teacher walking into a church that they do not agree with? Do we get offended if they go to a church of a different religion? Can we tell them to stop praying in restaurants, just in case they may be seen by a student? This is utter foolishness.
The Constitution gives us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. These complainers need to read many of the documents written by the founding fathers. They need to read many of the state constitutions. The founders had a tremendous faith in God and wanted him to be an integral part of the lives of those who served the people. However, they were smart enough not to condone a state-sponsored religion. They never said our leaders should not be religious.
What was that score?
I heard this score on the radio this morning and could not believe it. Look at what Abilene Christian did in a Div. II playoff game this past weekend. They won 93-68. Unbelievable. To put it in perspective, look at some of the scores on the right hand side of the site. Who would have thought that 70-68 would be low scoring in comparison.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Who are the haters??
I have been frustrated over the course of the last eight years over the treatment that President George W. Bush has received from Democrats, the media, Europeans, and liberal people, in general. These groups seem to stir up the 'Bush is playing on your fears' card at every turn. They talk about he has involved himself in the 'politics of personal destruction.'
During the run-up to the Presidential election, President-elect Obama talked about how we needed a new tone in Washington. We need change. McCain would be just like a 3rd Bush term (and they new how frivolous that suggestion was).
Now let me be the first to say that President Bush has made mistakes. In my opinion, we should have annihilated Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet we did not do that. The bailout deal was not good at all. His stance on immigration, in my opinion, is wrong. I do believe, however, that he is a principled man. He truly believes in the things he does and the decisions that he makes as President. These things are not politically motivated, but, in his eyes, they are the right thing to do. And he has been castigated by conservatives when he does something we do not believe is good and right for the country.
However, our displeasure remains at the policy level. The attacks do not get personal. The left has attacked the man personally. They say he is a fool, a buffoon, a stupid man. They have compared him to some of the past evils that truly evil men have committed (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). In their eyes, he is everything that is wrong with the world. They believe that he is the enemy, not the terrorists. They believe that the U.S. is the problem, not the solution to the problem.
These are the same groups of people that stopped the bipartisanship after the 9/11 attacks. They wanted to attack President Bush more than the terrorists. They saw the U.S. as the reason we were attacked, not the fact that the terrorists hated us for who we were. They have more sympathy for terrorists that we are holding in prison that they have for innocent, unborn children that are being aborted daily.
So I ask, who are the haters?
** A man, although we may not agree with him all of the time, stands on principle and does what he believes is right for this country, even when those ideals are unpopular?
**Or a group of people who want to see failure at all costs and want to see the U.S. brought down to the level of European countries that see socialism as the answer to all of our problems?
During the run-up to the Presidential election, President-elect Obama talked about how we needed a new tone in Washington. We need change. McCain would be just like a 3rd Bush term (and they new how frivolous that suggestion was).
Now let me be the first to say that President Bush has made mistakes. In my opinion, we should have annihilated Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet we did not do that. The bailout deal was not good at all. His stance on immigration, in my opinion, is wrong. I do believe, however, that he is a principled man. He truly believes in the things he does and the decisions that he makes as President. These things are not politically motivated, but, in his eyes, they are the right thing to do. And he has been castigated by conservatives when he does something we do not believe is good and right for the country.
However, our displeasure remains at the policy level. The attacks do not get personal. The left has attacked the man personally. They say he is a fool, a buffoon, a stupid man. They have compared him to some of the past evils that truly evil men have committed (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). In their eyes, he is everything that is wrong with the world. They believe that he is the enemy, not the terrorists. They believe that the U.S. is the problem, not the solution to the problem.
These are the same groups of people that stopped the bipartisanship after the 9/11 attacks. They wanted to attack President Bush more than the terrorists. They saw the U.S. as the reason we were attacked, not the fact that the terrorists hated us for who we were. They have more sympathy for terrorists that we are holding in prison that they have for innocent, unborn children that are being aborted daily.
So I ask, who are the haters?
** A man, although we may not agree with him all of the time, stands on principle and does what he believes is right for this country, even when those ideals are unpopular?
**Or a group of people who want to see failure at all costs and want to see the U.S. brought down to the level of European countries that see socialism as the answer to all of our problems?
First-time voter
This past Presidential election saw many vote for the first time in their life. Many of these first-time voters were young people, getting involved in the political process. Even though I feel many were misguided by the campaign of the President-elect, they still involved themselves in the political process, which I believe is a good thing.
However, in reading the Harrisburg Patriot News yesterday (Monday, 11/17), I came across this article about a woman, 81 years of age, who voted for the first time. This is not newsworthy. To me, this is completely unacceptable. Simply put, this is a story of complacency. This woman should not be celebrated. She should be put in front of others as an example of what not to do.
Also, as I read the article, it was not about the stance that the man took on issues that inspired her to vote. It was not due to his views, his platform, or his character. Rather, she voted for him because of his color. She was not enthusiastic over his agenda and what he wants to do as President. Rather, he is someone 'like her.' This is not a reason to vote for someone. It is the content of the person's character that matters, not the color of his skin. Yet so many think this is the realization of the dream that MLK Jr. spoke so adamantly about (and I do agree with, by the way).
Is it any wonder why people today do not care about the political process? With examples like this, I can now see why younger people have the attitude towards politics that we see expressed in their thoughts and actions.
I turned 18 in 1991, just a couple of weeks before the PA election primaries. I was registered to vote in that election, and I have not missed one since then. I am not patting myself on the back because of this. Rather, I saw this as an opportunity to have my voice heard. I hope to instill this same dedication to voting in my own kids. We talk to them about elections and why we believe the things we do and why we are voting for certain people.
I maintain that voting is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right, we would not have to go out of our way to register. Instead, we have the freedom to choose to vote or not to vote. It is a privilege that many, to their own detriment, do not take advantage of. Voting is an opportunity that we have to take a stand for something/someone. Yet many choose not to do this. If you do not vote, I do not want to hear you complain about the results of an election or the people in office. If you were too complacent to get out and lend a voice to your cause, then you should be just as complacent in your attitude to the outcome of the election.
However, in reading the Harrisburg Patriot News yesterday (Monday, 11/17), I came across this article about a woman, 81 years of age, who voted for the first time. This is not newsworthy. To me, this is completely unacceptable. Simply put, this is a story of complacency. This woman should not be celebrated. She should be put in front of others as an example of what not to do.
Also, as I read the article, it was not about the stance that the man took on issues that inspired her to vote. It was not due to his views, his platform, or his character. Rather, she voted for him because of his color. She was not enthusiastic over his agenda and what he wants to do as President. Rather, he is someone 'like her.' This is not a reason to vote for someone. It is the content of the person's character that matters, not the color of his skin. Yet so many think this is the realization of the dream that MLK Jr. spoke so adamantly about (and I do agree with, by the way).
Is it any wonder why people today do not care about the political process? With examples like this, I can now see why younger people have the attitude towards politics that we see expressed in their thoughts and actions.
I turned 18 in 1991, just a couple of weeks before the PA election primaries. I was registered to vote in that election, and I have not missed one since then. I am not patting myself on the back because of this. Rather, I saw this as an opportunity to have my voice heard. I hope to instill this same dedication to voting in my own kids. We talk to them about elections and why we believe the things we do and why we are voting for certain people.
I maintain that voting is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right, we would not have to go out of our way to register. Instead, we have the freedom to choose to vote or not to vote. It is a privilege that many, to their own detriment, do not take advantage of. Voting is an opportunity that we have to take a stand for something/someone. Yet many choose not to do this. If you do not vote, I do not want to hear you complain about the results of an election or the people in office. If you were too complacent to get out and lend a voice to your cause, then you should be just as complacent in your attitude to the outcome of the election.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The change we need????
I have been surprised by the number of people that I run into that are disappointed (almost to the point of depression) with the results of the Presidential election. I thought that people were overwhelmingly for President-elect Obama. However, in my slice of the world, that is not necessarily the case. Case-in-point is this letter to the editor from one of my co-workers, Mr. James Barry. It appeared in the Friday edition of the Harrisburg Patriot News.
Obviously, there is more he could have added to the list, but they only allow a limited amount of space. Anyway, his point gets across rather easily.
Obviously, there is more he could have added to the list, but they only allow a limited amount of space. Anyway, his point gets across rather easily.
Friday, November 14, 2008
What responsibility????
As you have probably seen by now, Nebraska had adopted a safe-haven law that allowed parents to abandon their children in specified places. The kicker is that you could abandon your children up to 18 years of age. One noted example was a man that dropped off his seven children right after the law was put into affect because he could not handle the pressure of being a single parent.
Now, the Nebraska legislature, in a tremendous stroke of genius, wants to specify the age of the children that you can legally abandon. The law was intended to stop the proliferation of the 'dumpster baby', and I guess the Nebraska legislature did not foresee the extent to which people woudl go to in order to dump off kids of all ages.
There is so much wrong with this line of thinking that I do not know where to start. First and foremost, it is the duty of parents to care for their children. Is it always easy and pleasant? Absolutely not. But that does not mean that I should just disregard my responsibility as a parent when life gets tough. That is a part of life. No one promised it would be easy.
Second, I realize women have children for one reason or another and then give them up for adoption. This is completely different. There is no abandonment when it comes to adoption. They realize that they are not able to give the child the care that is needed as a parent, and they want the child to be raised by those who can give them what is needed. This is generally not an easy decision for someone to make. These folks are not 'test-driving' the child to see if they like being a parent and then 'trading in' the child for a different lifestyle. Rather, they are thinking of the needs of the child (for the most part).
Third, the stories we here of 'dumpster babies' are heart-breaking. But they are, by no means, commonplace. If we would teach people about the dignity of human life instead of forcing the idea of abortion on people, maybe these things would not happen. After all, this 'dumpster baby' syndrome is not really that much different than abortion. The only difference is the timing of the infanticide. The act itself is still basically the same.
Yes, these situations should not happen. However, many of these young women having these children and dumping them somewhere do not know any better. They were not brought up to know better. It is the society that we live in. Personally, it is just downright sad (almost maddening) that we as a society do not teach our children to know better. We tell them that it is better to be safe than it is to abstain. The last time I checked, those who abstain have a much lower pregnancy rate than those who practice safety.
Ultimately, this is about personal responsibility. No one wants to be responsible for the consequences of their own actions. There are many prevalent examples of this in today's society (mortgage foreclosures, credit crisis, etc.). We want someone else to bail us out because we do not want to take responsibility for our own decisions.
Now, the Nebraska legislature, in a tremendous stroke of genius, wants to specify the age of the children that you can legally abandon. The law was intended to stop the proliferation of the 'dumpster baby', and I guess the Nebraska legislature did not foresee the extent to which people woudl go to in order to dump off kids of all ages.
There is so much wrong with this line of thinking that I do not know where to start. First and foremost, it is the duty of parents to care for their children. Is it always easy and pleasant? Absolutely not. But that does not mean that I should just disregard my responsibility as a parent when life gets tough. That is a part of life. No one promised it would be easy.
Second, I realize women have children for one reason or another and then give them up for adoption. This is completely different. There is no abandonment when it comes to adoption. They realize that they are not able to give the child the care that is needed as a parent, and they want the child to be raised by those who can give them what is needed. This is generally not an easy decision for someone to make. These folks are not 'test-driving' the child to see if they like being a parent and then 'trading in' the child for a different lifestyle. Rather, they are thinking of the needs of the child (for the most part).
Third, the stories we here of 'dumpster babies' are heart-breaking. But they are, by no means, commonplace. If we would teach people about the dignity of human life instead of forcing the idea of abortion on people, maybe these things would not happen. After all, this 'dumpster baby' syndrome is not really that much different than abortion. The only difference is the timing of the infanticide. The act itself is still basically the same.
Yes, these situations should not happen. However, many of these young women having these children and dumping them somewhere do not know any better. They were not brought up to know better. It is the society that we live in. Personally, it is just downright sad (almost maddening) that we as a society do not teach our children to know better. We tell them that it is better to be safe than it is to abstain. The last time I checked, those who abstain have a much lower pregnancy rate than those who practice safety.
Ultimately, this is about personal responsibility. No one wants to be responsible for the consequences of their own actions. There are many prevalent examples of this in today's society (mortgage foreclosures, credit crisis, etc.). We want someone else to bail us out because we do not want to take responsibility for our own decisions.
What responsibility????
As you have probably seen by now, Nebraska had adopted a safe-haven law that allowed parents
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
2008 Election Results: Where do we go from here?
Well, it has now been one full week since the 2008 general election. While I did not like the results of the election, they are results that I must live with. As an American, I can say that I was proud of how many people voted, as well as the peaceful way in which elections occur here in the U.S.A. However, I do think that many were completely misinformed about the candidates, so I think voter education could use an improvement.
In the weeks leading up to the election, Pastor Wayne Burggraff (the pastor of my church, Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA), preached a series of messages on elections and how Christians should vote. Unlike many churches, he did not tell us who to vote for, but rather what Biblical principles we should rely on when we vote. There were no endorsements. You can find those messages here (as well as many other messages). I found these messages to be very helpful, and they were free of the political messages you get in many churches today.
To that end, even though we may not have cared for the outcome of the election, there are still Biblical principles that we need to follow now that Sen. Obama is the President-elect. These are not original with me. Rather, they were an insert to our church bulletin on Sunday morning.
As we have seen over the past couple of weeks, we have a duty as Christian citizens to follow God's Word in our relationship to our government and its leaders. We need to remember what God says....
In the weeks leading up to the election, Pastor Wayne Burggraff (the pastor of my church, Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA), preached a series of messages on elections and how Christians should vote. Unlike many churches, he did not tell us who to vote for, but rather what Biblical principles we should rely on when we vote. There were no endorsements. You can find those messages here (as well as many other messages). I found these messages to be very helpful, and they were free of the political messages you get in many churches today.
To that end, even though we may not have cared for the outcome of the election, there are still Biblical principles that we need to follow now that Sen. Obama is the President-elect. These are not original with me. Rather, they were an insert to our church bulletin on Sunday morning.
As we have seen over the past couple of weeks, we have a duty as Christian citizens to follow God's Word in our relationship to our government and its leaders. We need to remember what God says....
- All government authorities and leaders are ultimately allowed in their places of authority by our Sovereign god. At times, He appoints the unassuming (I Samuel 2:8), the righteous ((I Samuel 13:14), and other times He allows the wicked to rule (Romans 9:17). The point is - God is ultimately in charge (Psalms 11:4); thus, God has plans for Mr. Obama's presidency.
- We are commanded as believers to: 1) Submit to the laws our leaders enact (I Peter 2:13), 2) Pay the taxes that they require (Romans 13:6), 3) Honor them and their authority (I Peter 2:17), 4) Pray for those in authority (I Timothy 2:1-3), and 5) Fear them if we do evil (Romans 13:4).
- We should expect out leaders to be doing the following: 1) Be a terror to evil works (Romans 13:3), 2) Exercise the 'Sword' against evildoers (Romans 13:4, 3) Promote a 'quiet and peaceable life' (I Timothy 2:2), and 4) Punish evil and praise good (I Peter 2:14).
We are to place our trust in God, not in our government.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Presidential advisors
Why is it that 8 years ago, when President Bush was putting together his staff and looking for people to serve in his cabinet, he was castigated for bringing back Washington insiders from past Republican administrations who engage in partisan politics and not progress?
Now that President-in-waiting Obama is bring in a bunch of old Clinton staffers he is considered brilliant for getting advisers that know how things work and know how to get things done? Where is the castigation by the media now?
Now that President-in-waiting Obama is bring in a bunch of old Clinton staffers he is considered brilliant for getting advisers that know how things work and know how to get things done? Where is the castigation by the media now?
California's Proposition
On November 4, 2008, the people of California approved the passage of Proposition 8, stating that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The measure passed 52.3% to 47.7%. I must say that I am not a proponent of the ballot initiative, but in cases like this where the issue has this kind of an effect on society as a whole, I believe that putting it to a vote of the people is the best thing that can be done.
Apparently, putting this to a vote of the people is now an unpopular decision. The gay rights groups are protesting this, saying that their civil rights are being taken away. They want this to go the courts, where they believe that they will get a sympathetic court (and being in California, I would bet that they would get just that) to hear their case and strike down this proposition as unconstitutional.
The one aspect of this that I find truly interesting is that California is a very Democrat state. The Presidential race in that state was not even close. Yet they voted for a gay marriage ban. So, how did this happen? Maybe the gay rights people miscalculated and thought all Democrats were for gay marriage. Apparently, Obama must have had a lot of supporters that were against gay marriage. Anyway you look at it, it has to be Obama supporters that helped to pass this.
I guess my question is this: what happened to democracy? If this outcome had gone the other way, these groups would be demonizing anyone trying to protest the results, while saying that the people have spoken. Many times, we do not get a chance like this to have our voices heard in this manner. Our voices are generally heard only through our representation, who we generally cannot trust to make these kind of decisions.
If they want gays to marry, there are other places they can go, like Europe. And while they are there to get married, they can stay there, since they embrace many European socialist ideas anyway. Maybe there is still a hint of morality left in many Americans.
Apparently, putting this to a vote of the people is now an unpopular decision. The gay rights groups are protesting this, saying that their civil rights are being taken away. They want this to go the courts, where they believe that they will get a sympathetic court (and being in California, I would bet that they would get just that) to hear their case and strike down this proposition as unconstitutional.
The one aspect of this that I find truly interesting is that California is a very Democrat state. The Presidential race in that state was not even close. Yet they voted for a gay marriage ban. So, how did this happen? Maybe the gay rights people miscalculated and thought all Democrats were for gay marriage. Apparently, Obama must have had a lot of supporters that were against gay marriage. Anyway you look at it, it has to be Obama supporters that helped to pass this.
I guess my question is this: what happened to democracy? If this outcome had gone the other way, these groups would be demonizing anyone trying to protest the results, while saying that the people have spoken. Many times, we do not get a chance like this to have our voices heard in this manner. Our voices are generally heard only through our representation, who we generally cannot trust to make these kind of decisions.
If they want gays to marry, there are other places they can go, like Europe. And while they are there to get married, they can stay there, since they embrace many European socialist ideas anyway. Maybe there is still a hint of morality left in many Americans.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Education in America
I stopped at Sam's Club on the way home from church today. As I was parking my car, I saw a bumper sticker that said "Why do we always have money for war, but not for education?" My first thought (and I believe it to be very valid) is that this is a car that belongs to a public school teacher.
I find this line of thought incredibly irritating and uninformed. First and foremost, it is the job of the government to protect those of us who live here. Without this protection, there is no freedom to learn. I would rather live my life knowing we are free and safe, than living under oppression but having a public education. The role of the government as our protector is found in the constitution, something this teacher must not know too much about.
I also find this irritating on another level: the more money that we as a country spend on education, the more that we complain that the education system is not doing its job (it seems to me to be an inverse relationship). Schools pass people so that they have good pass rates, they look good to the government, and they get more money for their school. Teachers protest when we want to test (or even monitor) them to make sure they are capable of teaching our children.
Education is important, but we put the responsibility on the government to teach our children. It is ultimately the responsibility of the parents to see that their children are educated (and we use schools to help us in this effort). However, today's public education is more indoctrination than it is about facts and figures and teaching people how to think for themselves.
I find this line of thought incredibly irritating and uninformed. First and foremost, it is the job of the government to protect those of us who live here. Without this protection, there is no freedom to learn. I would rather live my life knowing we are free and safe, than living under oppression but having a public education. The role of the government as our protector is found in the constitution, something this teacher must not know too much about.
I also find this irritating on another level: the more money that we as a country spend on education, the more that we complain that the education system is not doing its job (it seems to me to be an inverse relationship). Schools pass people so that they have good pass rates, they look good to the government, and they get more money for their school. Teachers protest when we want to test (or even monitor) them to make sure they are capable of teaching our children.
Education is important, but we put the responsibility on the government to teach our children. It is ultimately the responsibility of the parents to see that their children are educated (and we use schools to help us in this effort). However, today's public education is more indoctrination than it is about facts and figures and teaching people how to think for themselves.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
How do Republicans make a resurgence?
While liberals, the media and Hollywood elite, and Europeans are giddy with nothing but adulation and an arrogant exuberance over the fact that Obama is now the President-elect, we as conservative members of the Republican Party are left to reflect on how this happened. Many of the political pundits (especially those who will identify themselves as Republicans) have wondered aloud about how the Republican Party can make a resurgence and make themselves relevant again. This is definitely a point worth pondering. However, I find it highly ironic (and somewhat maddening) that it is these same people who are partly to blame for the recent demise of the party.
We remember back to 1994 when Newt Gingrich led a group of solid conservatives into Congress with the Contract With America, a plan to get this country back to its conservative roots. They won in a landslide, and because of them, much of the success of the 1990's was able to realized (even though Clinton still takes credit for it). Anyway, some of these folks left office, because they promised they would abide by self-imposed term limits (which is noble on their part). Others remained, but they lost their way over time.
They became arrogant in their power, losing sight of why they were there. They forgot that they were there to serve at the will of the people that voted them into office. They forgot about fiscal restraint, bringing on massive budget deficits. They cast aside the Contract With America (and the underlying conservative principles), and thus did not have a unifying theme that conservatives could get behind and promote. Then there were the scandals, whether it had to do with taking money from lobbyists or getting involved with interns. It is no wonder that they lost the majority in Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections.
Even with the existing incompetent, over-partisan, hateful, un-American, Democrat leadership in Congress, the Republican Party could not manage to get enough people to vote for them to get back into the majority. Why is this? After all, the approval rating of Congress is lower than that of the President. Apparently, they never learned from the mantra that "Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it."
Now, everyone is scratching their heads, wondering where we go from here. It is almost like the game where you bend over, put your head on a baseball bat, and spin around 5 times. When you stand up, you have no idea where you are or where you are going. All of the pundits have suggestions for us, but they are not truly interested in a conservative resurgence. Their idea is for us to give in to the liberals and join them. Well, that is just not an option.
After giving it some thought, here is my outline on how the Republicans can re-find their way.
We remember back to 1994 when Newt Gingrich led a group of solid conservatives into Congress with the Contract With America, a plan to get this country back to its conservative roots. They won in a landslide, and because of them, much of the success of the 1990's was able to realized (even though Clinton still takes credit for it). Anyway, some of these folks left office, because they promised they would abide by self-imposed term limits (which is noble on their part). Others remained, but they lost their way over time.
They became arrogant in their power, losing sight of why they were there. They forgot that they were there to serve at the will of the people that voted them into office. They forgot about fiscal restraint, bringing on massive budget deficits. They cast aside the Contract With America (and the underlying conservative principles), and thus did not have a unifying theme that conservatives could get behind and promote. Then there were the scandals, whether it had to do with taking money from lobbyists or getting involved with interns. It is no wonder that they lost the majority in Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections.
Even with the existing incompetent, over-partisan, hateful, un-American, Democrat leadership in Congress, the Republican Party could not manage to get enough people to vote for them to get back into the majority. Why is this? After all, the approval rating of Congress is lower than that of the President. Apparently, they never learned from the mantra that "Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it."
Now, everyone is scratching their heads, wondering where we go from here. It is almost like the game where you bend over, put your head on a baseball bat, and spin around 5 times. When you stand up, you have no idea where you are or where you are going. All of the pundits have suggestions for us, but they are not truly interested in a conservative resurgence. Their idea is for us to give in to the liberals and join them. Well, that is just not an option.
After giving it some thought, here is my outline on how the Republicans can re-find their way.
- Don't listen to the media pundits and liberal elites. They have no real interest in seeing conservatives and Republicans come back to prominence on the national scene. They would rather destroy us, not help to build us up again. Look what they did to their dearly, beloved John McCain in this election. They loved him in 2000 and in 2004. They loved him when he was opposing President Bush. But when he ran against Obama, they were all over him. Now they love him again. It is not in the media's interest to have conservatives and Republicans come back into the limelight, so stop listening to them.
- Get rid of the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). We all know who these are. They have very little in common with the conservative base of the Republican Party. They find themselves voting many times with the liberal members of the other party. Send them a change-of-party form, and then they can be in a place where they can enjoy the company of those who agree with them. The more that the party tries to become moderate (at the request of media elite and democrats), the more seats that party loses in Congress. It does not take a rocket scientist to see this and understand it.
- Understand that there are many more conservatives in this country than we realize. I have to admit that I was surprised to find out how many conservatives that I work with, people I never would have realized hold many of the same opinions that I do. Why else would Obama need to promise tax breaks and try to be more conservative in the weeks leading up to the general election? Because his people knew that he had to in order to win over some of the wishy-washy people that do not know how to make up their mind. Apparently, the Republican candidates and so-called conservative pundits don't realize this,a s their idea is always to reach out to the middle, becoming more liberal in the process.
- Get back to your conservative roots. The government is in place to protect us and allow us to work and operate freely in this country. It is not there is put impediments (i.e. taxes, regulation, excessive laws). It was not the goal of the Founding Fathers to have an overly-regulated bureaucracy that gets in our way and restricts our freedom. They intentionally sought to restrict the role of government in the lives of the people so that they would be free to thrive and be successful. 'Bringing home the bacon' is not what I am looking for in a candidate. They allowed the deficit to balloon. (By the way, the deficit is mainly the fault of the Congress, as they are the ones that spend the money. Yet they blame the President.)
- Don't compromise for the sake of 'reaching out to the other side.' There are some things on which we can find common ground with people from the other side of the political spectrum. However, on our core values, there is no room for compromise. The things we hold dear (lower taxes, less government, no abortions, no gay marriage, etc) should be non-negotiable. This is one thing that really annoys me. I vote for a candidate because of what he/she believes and stand for. Once they get into office, I do not expect them to throw that aside. I expect them to do their best to put those principles into practice and enact legislation that will help to reach those goals.
- VOTE!!!!!! For those who sat at home for the election, I do not want to hear you complain. Why should we hear your voice now when it does not matter. Let's hear your voice when it does matter. Also, let's vote in our own primary so we can elect the good, solid, conservative leader that we want (and need). I know Rush Limbaugh had 'Operation Chaos' in gear for the primaries, but maybe if we would ahve voted for our own candidates, we may have had a more conservative voice that could best stand up for us and the beliefs that we hold dear.
There are many more things that we need to do, but this will be a good start. It is only when we get back to our conservative, Judeo-Christian values that we can find the success that we have had in the past.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Random Thoughts on the 2008 General Election
As I watched the election coverage on Tuesday evening, I began to grow frustrated at what I was seeing and hearing. I started to catalog my thoughts and feelings, as I am becoming more convinced that we, as Americans, are sliding down a slippery slope and are not the same country that our Founding Fathers risked their lives to start.
We are a country that is legalizing a drug (marijuana) for supposed medicinal purposes, trying to legalize prostitution (in San Francisco), legalizing assisted suicide, opposing a ban abortions, and the list goes on. We are a country that now seeks to have government involved in all aspects of our lives and to provide for us, not limit it in our lives and allow freedom for prosperity to abound. We now have government officials who are seeking to crack down on businesses making money because they make too much. We have a government that seeks to tax those who have been successful in order to give to those who are not trying.
The list below is not a comprehensive list of my thoughts for the evening, but it is a sample of what I was thinking, and you were probably thinking some of these things also.
We are a country that is legalizing a drug (marijuana) for supposed medicinal purposes, trying to legalize prostitution (in San Francisco), legalizing assisted suicide, opposing a ban abortions, and the list goes on. We are a country that now seeks to have government involved in all aspects of our lives and to provide for us, not limit it in our lives and allow freedom for prosperity to abound. We now have government officials who are seeking to crack down on businesses making money because they make too much. We have a government that seeks to tax those who have been successful in order to give to those who are not trying.
The list below is not a comprehensive list of my thoughts for the evening, but it is a sample of what I was thinking, and you were probably thinking some of these things also.
- This Presidential race was all about race. As I watched the early returns last night, the talking heads were talking about the historical nature of this election, because it would lead to the first African-American (a term I do not like) President. I have news for these media people: All elections are historic, not just this one. It was not about what Obama stood for or what his platform was. It was about his race. Many of the people they interviewed (including Oprah) were talking about his race, not his platform. Blacks voted almost unanimously for Obama, yet this is not considered racist. And because of this..................
- Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream has yet to be realized. His statement was that someday his children would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. You see, this has not yet happened. It was all about the race of the candidate. It had nothing to do with the character of the candidate (or the lack thereof).
- Only liberal blacks are allowed to realize the dream. In 2006, I was an ardent supporter of Lynn Swann for Governor of Pennsylvania. Yet, when white people in PA did not vote for him, they were not considered racist. They were considered principled democrats who thought this guy was too conservative. The same goes for Michael Steele when he was running for governor of Maryland in 2006. Democrats were digging in to his personal information in order for him to be defeated. How dare a black man be a part of the Republican Party! Apparently, no one told them that they are supposed to be Democrats.
- Sarah Palin is NOT the reason that McCain lost. This is one that the media is trying to sell right now. If McCain would have selected Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, it would have turned out differently. While these may be 2 fine men, they are not men who appeal to the conservative base of the party. They are 2 men that actually tend to turn off the base of the party. Sarah Palin is a conservative that energized the base. If this turned off some of the moderates in the party, then they were not true conservatives to begin with. McCain lost because he acquiesced too much. He was not firm enough or aggressive enough in challenging Obama.
- Moderates and Independents are not worth reaching out to. This group of people are those who cannot make up their mind and then jump on a bandwagon so that they can say they supported the winner. They have no values that they are willing to stand up for. It is far easier to go with the flow than it is to fight against it for a purpose.
- Nobody really wants compromise (except for the group listed above). If my candidate wins, I want that person to enact the platform that they ran on. I do not want them to compromise those principles in order to get along. There is most definitely a right and a wrong. Likewise, the other side is not going to want their candidate to give in once they get into office. They voted for a person with a certain platform and set of principles, and the last thing that they want is a compromise of those issue.
- The media is biased. Not that this comes as a revelation to anyone, but it was very much in the forefront during election coverage. Not even the so-called conservative propaganda machine (FoxNews) was able to fight this one off. There is such a salivating at the mouth for Obama (unless you are Chris Matthews, then you have a tingling up your leg). The pundits really do not have a clue as to what people outside the beltway are thinking. There is too much of a reliance on polls and not enough focus on people.
- Hope and Change are not an agenda. They are cheesy slogans. I really have yet to hear this defined from Obama, and all of his supporters bought into it. What is he going to change (his underwear, his favorite team, who he is going to throw under the bus next)? What are we hoping for (tax relief, a renewal of America on the world stage)? People bought into slogans without any idea of what they really meant.
- I do not care what Europe (or the rest of the world) thinks about our election. Obviously, they see this as an opportunity for a weaker America. They want a more compassionate America (as if our generosity hasn't bailed out many of these countries multiple times in the last 200 years). They hail the fact that America elected a black man. When have all of these racist countries ever elected a black man?
- America is not the Christian country that we once were. Our Founding Fathers wanted this to be a country where we could worship freely, where the name of God could be praised. If you read many of our state constitutions, you will see the reverence and respect for God that these men had. Now, people have done all they could to get God out of the public square.
- Geraldo Rivera is an idiot. Most of you already know this, but the thought was renewed in my mind this morning. Being interviewed on Fox & Friends, he was trying to perpetuate the myth that McCain would have been better off with Ridge or Lieberman as his running mate. According to Rivera, the Republican base would vote for McCain, he needed the moderates. Rivera would not have voted for him anyway. Why this guy still has a job is beyond me.
- They are getting what they wanted, but they will lose what they had. This is the title of a sermon I heard many years ago from Dr. Bud Bierman. The basic tenet of the message is that people will sell out their principles and their values in order to realize a short-term benefit, but int he long-run, they will lose everything that they hold dear. This will take some time, but it will happen.
- Obama is the President-elect. Not that I am happy about that, but this is what the result of the vote was, and I must deal with it. I do not need to be happy about it. He is the President, and I will respect that. However, I will speak out when I believe he is wrong.
- God is still in control. Prov. 21:1 says 'The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will. Enough said.
Again, these are a few of my random thoughts from last night. I am sure that I could go on and on, but you get the gist of my thoughts. I do not need to spell them all out for you.
Why create a blog?
I am creating this blog, partly as an outlet of my frustratioin at the 2008 Presidential election. There are so many things about the whole election (and those things that surround it), things like the media telling me what I should think, people saying we are racist for not voting for Obama, the constant advertisements, what the ideology of the Republican Party should be, and the list goes on and on.
Creating a blog has been something on the forefront of my mind for some time now. It is not that I believe that the whole world needs to know what is on my mind. I am not selfish enough to believe that. However, I enjoy reading blogs of other people who are like-minded, and this will serve as an outlet for me to voice my opinion to other like-minded people.
Let me define like-minded people: These are people that have the same interests and share the same values that I have. People who enjoy sports and understand that professional sports has no real impact on their lives. We can be fans without being real jerks about it. These are people that have traditional lifestyles (i.e. married, kids, values, morals). These are people who see that their duty is not only to vote, but to do so with care and a complete understanding of the issues at hand and a knowledge of the candidates.
Just in case you could not have guessed by now, I am a Republican, and usually proud to proclaim that. But, I do not put my political party first, as many do today. Rather, I am an American, a Christian, a husband, a father, a church member, a NY Yankee fan, a Dallas Cowboys fan. You see, it is these things that shape my beliefs and how I vote, and the reason that I joined the Republican Party. They are the party that I most closely associate with. But when they are wrong, I will call them out on it.
Creating a blog has been something on the forefront of my mind for some time now. It is not that I believe that the whole world needs to know what is on my mind. I am not selfish enough to believe that. However, I enjoy reading blogs of other people who are like-minded, and this will serve as an outlet for me to voice my opinion to other like-minded people.
Let me define like-minded people: These are people that have the same interests and share the same values that I have. People who enjoy sports and understand that professional sports has no real impact on their lives. We can be fans without being real jerks about it. These are people that have traditional lifestyles (i.e. married, kids, values, morals). These are people who see that their duty is not only to vote, but to do so with care and a complete understanding of the issues at hand and a knowledge of the candidates.
Just in case you could not have guessed by now, I am a Republican, and usually proud to proclaim that. But, I do not put my political party first, as many do today. Rather, I am an American, a Christian, a husband, a father, a church member, a NY Yankee fan, a Dallas Cowboys fan. You see, it is these things that shape my beliefs and how I vote, and the reason that I joined the Republican Party. They are the party that I most closely associate with. But when they are wrong, I will call them out on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)