Why the sudden burst of blogging?

As I mention in one of my posts above (below?), I was ill over the past couple of days and with the time spent resting, it allowed me to sit and ponder some things to put on this blog. I know Samantha's blog needs work (more updates!), and we will hopefully get more on this done soon.

Just an observation

This is just one of those things that I've noticed for a while, but really haven't taken the time to sit down and write it out. I don't know if this is going to make sense, but I'll give it a try anyway.

With our modern society, and all the different things that have come with it, such as the internet, there have been many things opened up to us. We are able to communicate with many different people, it is far easier for us to communicate our thoughts, opinions, and feelings than it has ever been before. Information is right at our fingertips, so anything we want to know about or learn is easily accessible.

However, with all this information, opinion, and ease of access comes some issues, and I really wonder if we see all the unintended consequences. With everyone able to give their opinion, one has to be able to discern between what is good and important information and what is truly 'off the wall' opinion that we need to set aside. Of course, how we determine this is subject to some debate. If you can confirm something through multiple groups and those groups are from many different viewpoints, you can generally rely on it, but you still have to be careful. If multiple groups with the same viewpoint are saying it, then you really have to be careful.

But the one thing that has made me pause is how our modern information has allowed the growth, I would almost call it rampant, of what I could best call 'infidelity'. Some recent emails in my 'spam' really brought this to my attention with ads asking if I want to find someone willing to have an affair. I know that the internet has brought out 'adult entertainment' to the point where you really have to be careful of what you type in search engines. I guess it just surprises me that it's gotten to the point that they can come out so brazenly and ask married people to cheat on their spouses. I use the word spouse because I came across a study recently stating 40% of married people (both husbands and wives) cheat. With the recent revelations about Tiger Woods and his infidelity, I'm sure there are some people who wonder if marriage is worth it in today's society. That, and these spam messages, make me wonder more about how far our society has fallen.

Is this the ultimate of vanity?

I guess I titled this post this way because, when it happened, it really seemed to be skewed priorities. I was recently starting to be ill, and as I was sitting and praying that I would not suffer too much (I did but that was more because of my own stupidity) I looked down and said 'oh, no. I've got a gray hair on my stomach'.

Again, really screwed up priorities.

Are we beginning to see a change in our political parties?

One of the things I've been paying a little bit of attention to recently is what seems to be an inordinately large focus on a small number of races this year. Not only is it an off-year election, but it's also one year since the Democrats basically won both Congress and the White House. There seem to be two main themes that are starting to play out: one is that after almost a year, people are starting to be dissatisfied with those currently in charge. The second thing, which is seeming to be focused in the congressional election in New York, is that the movement begun with the 'tea parties' is starting to potentially begin to change at least the Republican party.

The New York election is a unique situation, in that there were two candidates (one has since dropped out) running which could very plausibly be called Republicans. However, the views of the two candidates are very different. One, Dede Scozzafava (I apologize in advance for spelling), is a candidate who appears to be very comfortable with expanding government, and how much influence that government has in our lives. The other, Doug Hoffman, is more of a small government, non-intrusive, candidate. The Republican party in New York chose Scozzafava as their candidate, with the national party sticking behind her as well. Hoffman is running under the Conservative Party, and initially, bloggers and other 'ground level movement' types were the only ones willing to endorse Hoffman. The tide has turned dramatically, with Hoffman now almost tied (or some polls show him ahead) with the Democrat, and Scozzafava almost always being shown in third place. Also, other prominent members of the Republican party are coming out in support of Hoffman. Since I originally started working on this post, Scozzafava has dropped out.

All things being equal, this might be an interesting race, but not mean much in the overall scheme of things. However, to borrow a Star Trek quote 'things are not equal'. Many bloggers, to include Red State, have been pointing to this race as 'a hill to die on'. Meaning this is a fight in which principles need to win out over compromise and expediency. It is also being pointed to as a situation where the 'base' is attempting to send a message to the national party, and this is where I am starting to wonder if there is a change coming. Looking back in political history, the Republican Party has been in a struggle, if you will, for over 40 years, between the liberal and conservative wings of the party. Influence in the party has swung back and forth during that time, depending on who you think of as 'liberal' or 'conservative' in the Republican party. There seems to be a real possibility of the Republican party becoming known as the 'conservative party'. With the 'republican' dropping out, this is significant in that there is no 'republican' (brand name) in the race, and it is truly a liberal versus a conservative.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? The wonderful thing known as 'conventional wisdom' says that if people in one particular political party attempt to make the party 'pure', more often than not that party ends up losing, both members and elections. However, with the country becoming more and more polarized (and both sides I believe are at fault), it does not seem to be out of the realm of possibility for there to be a realignment of at least the Republican party, to where it is truly a conservative party. The Democratic party seems to be continuing its' movement as a liberal party, and so the end will be polarization. And those who don't fit into those will be 'stuck in the middle' with who? Most likely the dissatisfied and disaffected.

What are you for?

I was motivated to write about this topic based on a discussion I had this morning with my wife. We were talking about being ‘anti-’ certain things over the years. It got me to thinking about how ‘what we’re against, or anti’ seems to permeate more of the discussion than what people stand for.

One of the big things I have noticed recently is that, when you talk to someone about their individual beliefs, whether moral, political, or spiritual, what you’ll get is what they’re against. While this provides somewhat of a picture of what that person is like, it’s incomplete. It’s wonderful that people will take a stand against certain things, but you also need to be willing to support things as well.

Today’s society here in the United States more and more are considering many different things in life in polar terms, what I mean is topics of interest/discussion/disagreement turn are categorized by those involved as an either or proposition. I have found in my few years that kind of thinking just doesn’t work. There are far too many different positions on too many different issues. Putting things in an either/or statement is a great oversimplification, and the more you do that, the more people get offended, hurt, and then just decide to give up on the whole situation. In other words, if you’re not zealous for one of those two ‘poles’ you end up being apathetic.

Another result of people turning topics into either/or is: you start ‘hating’ the other side. This is too easy to see in the ‘blood sport’ of politics. Especially in the last 20 years or so, those one identifies as on the ‘other side’ of the political spectrum have been slowly made into ‘sub-human’ categories. Think I’m kidding? Just take a short ‘stroll’ through the many different political blogs out there and sometimes you’ll feel ‘dirty’ enough to want a shower. And that’s just what people are willing to say in public.

There are two different comments that I think of that can apply to this kind of situation. One is ‘if you don’t stand for anything, you won’t stand for anything’ (meaning that if you don’t believe in anything (apathetic), you have no tolerance and will not listen to anyone who does believe in something (anything really). The second has to do with history. Winston Churchill was commenting to a friend of Hitler about Hitler’s appeals to anti-Semitism, ‘anti-Semitism may be a good starter, but it is a bad sticker’. Put just about any ‘anti-x’ in for ‘anti-Semitism’ and it fits. The hatred of ‘x’ may be good to help get people on your side for a beginning, but sooner or later you’re going to be challenged by ‘Okay, so what are you for?’ If you don’t have an answer other than ‘well not what those people over there are for’, you have bigger issues than you think.

update on the tomato monsters

Since I've been sufficiently chastised for not updating everyone on the plants, here's the scoop:

The variety of tomatoes was not what I originally thought. They are called 'Juliets', and they are supposed to be a smaller variety. We've got a lot of little tomatoes (some have ripened already) and should have fresh tomatoes for the next month or so.

That said, I still can't believe I've got plants taller than me. They haven't started talking or demanding anything yet.

Let me off, I'm done

I think the world can just keep going on without me. There have been so many times when I just get either so frustrated with the world or how it works (or doesn't) and how people seem to think the best thing to do is to think the worst of others it seems like I'm on one of those fair rides and you feel like you're ready to deal with something else.

I guess the best way to put things so you can understand is this: Whenever I read something and I have a less than charitable thought about motives or the like, I immediately stop myself by saying 'I shouldn't be so cynical.' The problem is, so often nowadays it seems like my cynical thoughts are right in line with what the people are actually doing. All you have to do is look at any debate going on today. Whether it's health care, recent deaths of well known people in government and politics, indiscretions of politics, you look at what's being said, have a cynical thought, and it comes to pass.

In health care, we've seen how people are using town halls and other forums to 'make the other side look bad'. Is that really necessary? Can't anyone have a discussion or disagreement simply on the merits of their own position? Or does no one have their own position anymore? Looking at recent deaths, the death this week of Senator Ted Kennedy caused many people to immediately predict Congressional Democrats would use the occasion to drum up an emotional appeal to pass health care (I say health insurance) reform. It didn't take 24 hours for those who were originally called 'crass' and 'cynical' to be proven correct. One shouldn't be surprised. Wasn't the funeral of Julius Caesar used to further political ambitions?

Anyway, I'm done with the world right now proving to be the worst instead of the best. So, please stop the merry go round, I want to get off.

Sorry about the venting. I guess I just needed to get it aired out.

Apparently I may be growing a couple of Audrey's

Sorry for the Little Shop of Horrors reference. But this is the first time in 20 years that I have tried growing vegetables. I helped my parents do this while growing up, and despite the overall teenage 'work is a pain' type attitude, it was nice to see results for the effort put in. Anyway, back to my 'monsters'. We purchased two tomato plants from a family at our church, and we planted them in large flower pots. I put some fertilizer (plant food) in when I planted them, and apparently I turned the little buggers loose.

Here are pictures of the two plants. Now the only thing missing is: 'feed me Seymore'.

I don't recall ever growing plants this big. Anyone have any ideas as to what I've done? The only problem is while the plants are huge, the fruits are small. Too much effort into the growing apparently.

the logic.....

Just escapes me. Truly escapes me. Reading the following story at the Minority Report really makes me wonder if the inmates are running the asylum.........

Oh, wait. I understand now. They're just trying to apply that old principle of 'you've got to spend money to make money'. Yah, sure then. That's about as good as: 'I can't be out of money, I've still got checks in my checkbook.' I thought economics was taught in school, but then again, this is the government we're talking about. They think money is like Doritos 'spend all you want, we'll make more!'

My take on health care

This is one of those topics where everyone has their opinion, so I’m going to jump in with my own perspective. With this issue being one of the most discussed in our country right now, I think it’s a good idea to get down to what is the root issue and problem.

Many people feel the health care system in the United States needs reforming. Why? Because a significant section of our population is unable to afford health insurance, and therefore cannot afford to go to the doctor. I think where the discussion starts to break down is in the idea of the purpose of health care and its' associated costs.

Health care, or going to see the doctor, go to the hospital, etc., is something we in today's society seem to take for granted. Regular checkups and subjecting ourselves to testing on a regular basis is accepted as part of the cost of living. We look back to previous generations and shake our heads in amazement at the general lack of medical care people received. Yes, the mortality rates were higher, but can we truly look back to those times and say that their quality of life was so much poorer than ours today?

A question I would ask is 'what is health care?' I view health care as something people do to keep ourselves healthy and feeling as well as possible. There are people in both the patient and health provider camps, who are trying to use medicine to slow, or even prevent the aging process. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm in my late 30s, I don't expect to feel, or have my body act the same as it did when I was 22. I'm older, aches and pains are going to start, and there are things I just cannot do anymore. Anyway, that I don't consider part of health care. That is more 'chasing the fountain of youth'. I hate to tell people, but life here on earth is a terminal condition, and it's going to end sooner or later.

There are also quite a few people who attack the health insurance industry, and its' practices. I guess I tend to have a slightly different view of things, because I'm not going to begrudge those companies for wanting to make as much money as possible. They are, after all, corporations. The purpose of corporations is to make money for themselves, their stockholders, and others who have a stake in said corporation. It's not always good, and there are times when it seems that those corporations have themselves in mind instead of the people they serve, but we shouldn't be surprised. Now, do corporations belong in healthcare? I don't know. No matter what metric you use to measure, the current system is less than optimal. It is expensive to obtain care, and it feels that soulless corporations are making healthcare choices for you, but does anyone really think the government wouldn't do the same thing? One example I can give as an illustration of what could happen if the government takes over health care is the military (government) wants to 'tell' soldiers, sailors, etc., to not smoke. No matter what your view on smoking is, the bigger concept we need to recognize is: the government is more than happy to tell you not just what healthcare you will get, but how you are to live your life. Sure it's easy when it's something like smoking, or whatever other socially unacceptable activity you can think of, but what about when it comes to something like size of family, or whether to try and save a baby or elderly person with a serious health condition? We need to keep this in mind when we look at who we want in charge of health and medical care in this country.

Some seem to believe the government should be in charge of health care. I've been in the military, and if you want to get an idea of how the government is going to run healthcare, look at the military and the Veterans Administration (VA) system. There was a movie that came out in the late 1992 called 'Article 99'. It was a dramatization of how the VA system works (or at least worked in the time it was set in), and it is something very heart wrenching and sad. If you think it's gotten any better, I've got some oceanfront property in Wyoming to sell you. The government has done an extremely poor job of managing that system, why would anyone think it could handle a system involving the entire country? People will then fall to the emotional appeal of the goal of 'affordable healthcare for all'. It's a nice sentiment, and I don't want to see any of my fellow men suffer because of something as small (in the grand scheme of things) as money, but unfortunately this world runs on money. It is completely unreasonable to expect those in the medical field to provide high quality care (the kind most people have come to expect) and live below the poverty line. We make those who want to pursue medicine as a career spend a lot of money to get the degree and pass all the tests, and then spend more money on malpractice insurance, so why should we be surprised when we get the bill and it's this large amount of money? I think the best best way to lower costs would be to adjust the legal system in such a way as to take away these $500 million malpractice cases, so people aren't terrified to treat people because they may get sued (I know, that's tort reform, as our legal system seems to be the socially acceptable form of the lottery, but I digress).

There is also the issue of cost. Turning over healthcare to the government is not going to eliminate cost. We will end up paying for this (monetarily) through taxes, fees, and higher costs of products (because the 'rich' and corporations are taxed to pay for the care) to name a few. The non-monetary cost will likely come through fewer choices, possible delays in care, and other limitations that we don't know about yet. We as a country just don't get the concept of 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'. We need to ask if we're willing to pay the price for the government to run what we as a society have made such an important part of our lives.

For my own part, as far as health insurance itself goes, I really cannot complain. I am able to have health insurance through my employment at (what I consider) a fairly decent rate. What is covered and not covered seems to be fairly standard compared to other insurances, and the amount I end up paying (both in premiums and in out of pocket expenses), while more than I would really like to, is not so onerous as to truly discourage seeking medical attention. I've been in the military, and I've also been at the point of no insurance through my employment and trying to figure out personal insurance, so I think I've seen multiple perspectives. Again, it's not a prime system, but it's one of the best in the world. If we're going to figure out how to get more people to be able to access this care, we need to do it in such a way as to keep those parts that are good.

Deep wisdom from children 1

As I was bringing food home the other day, my youngest daughter made the following observation:

"If food had brains, it wouldn't mind being eaten since it would know that's what it's for, our nutrition. The only food that doesn't want to be eaten are the ones that run away."

I just had to share this wonderfully profound wisdom.

I hope to add more pearls of wisdom as they are brought to me by my children.

When the Russians call you 'Red', it's cause for concern

I would definitely call this ironic. Russians proclaiming America has turned Marxist. I can't say they're wrong, but I think they may be calling the end result a little early. I first read this article yesterday, and I thought it was a satire piece, but since it is on the english version of Pravda, and was quoted by Glenn Beck this morning, I must conclude it is a serious piece. Not to say there isn't some humor in there (tongue in cheek to be sure), but we would do well to heed this piece.

Is North Korea the defiant child of the world?

North Korea's actions this past week have been thoroughly examined and opined in other places, so I'm not going to go into great depth other than to give a quick recap. They have shot at least (by my count) five missiles of different types, conducted a nuclear test (not definitively confirmed), and threated to back out of the armistice that has been in place since 1953. What has been the general response towards North Korea in all this? 'Come back to the negotiating table'. My response to that suggestion is: or what? There's no reason for North Korea to negotiate right now. There are no consequences for their actions. At this point they can pretty much do what they want and the most they're going to get is hand-wringing. The best illustration I can use as comparison is parents see this with children. Children at one time or another will deliberately disobey the parent as a test. They are trying to see what they can get away with, and for how long. They're also testing the parent: are the rules and boundaries you told me the actual rules? I've seen it multiple times, and the way to shut it down is to look the child in the eye and say 'you sure you want to do that? Okay, but there will be severe consequences', and name them. After that, if the child continues, you follow through. You let the child know they're crossing a line they don't want to cross.

In this case, for North Korea, the consequences cannot be economic sanctions, or similar threat which really won't hurt. Using those methods is essentially telling North Korea 'we really don't mean what we say. But we'd appreciate it if you did what we told you.' There will be no respect from North Korea, and they'll eventually turn into the bully. Making noise and threats whenever they want to get their way. If I were in charge for a day (I know it'll never happen but just let me pretend, okay?), the method I would use with North Korea would probably be something on the lines of 'you want to try to fire a nuclear missile at the US or Japan? Okay, but it will be the last thing you do as a county.' Is that the most diplomatic method? No, I know it isn't. But sometimes diplomacy doesn't work, and you answer a threat with a threat. See who backs down. We've done it before with the Soviet Union and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will we ever do it again? I don't see the current government doing something like that.

Supreme Court Debate?

Well, we finally have a nominee for Supreme Court Justice to replace David Souter. With the President's choice of Sonya Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice, there have been many different reactions and comments made. One aspect of the whole circus/dog and pony show (whatever you want to call it), has caught my attention is what people have said about whether or not we can even question the nominee. These comments range from 'you really can't object to her, because she's a woman and she's hispanic and if you do your a racist sexist pig' to 'she's an activist judge who uses race so we need to question her judicial qualities'. My own personal view on the nomination is: from what I've seen, heard and read, I'm not impressed. While many people praise her personal qualities and the fact she was previously confirmed to serve on the circuit court, to me those are only secondary to the discussion. What little I've seen and read of her legal mind and opinions leaves me with the impression she's not suited to serve on our nation's highest court. She may well be confirmed, and end up on the bench. If that's the case, I don't think the court will be better for it.

People who use the argument that objecting to her is the equivalent of racism are basically shutting down discussion and dissent. It used to be people could discuss the merits of a person without accusations of racism, bigotry, and partisanship being brought up. These days, we apparently don't have the mental acumen to be able to perform this task. In this case, the charges were brought up before the discussion even began. One local talk radio host jokingly referred to her at least once as 'the appointed one of the anointed one'. I wonder how many people seriously think that way?

This is a serious issue. If she is to take a seat on the Supreme Court, her gender and ethnicity have no bearing. How she approaches things judicially, her legal opinions, and indeed her opinions on being a judge do have bearing. I think everyone needs to keep this in mind. Resorting to accusations shows shallowness of intellect and could even indicate an attempt to cover something up. To paraphrase Shakespeare: 'I think they doth protest too much'.

Some people seem to believe this will be the court fight that is the reverse of the Robert Bork nomination in 1987, when how people are chosen for the Supreme Court will change again. If that's the case, then in my opinion, it will quickly come to the point when no one will want to be nominated for any federal court because the process isn't worth the trouble.

economics and automobiles

This week (and today as well) we see the impending the bankruptcy of General Motors. It brings the country's focus back to the automakers and (in my opinion more importantly) how both GM and Chrysler are currently and for the foreseeable future subject to the dictates of the government. I mean this as even moreso than in the past (emission standards, safety standards, etc.), where the government will be telling these companies what kind of cars to make and maybe even how many. This is not a situation we as a country want to see. This shows the difference between the market economy of the past and the communist (government-run) economy we (by all indications) are moving towards. If anyone thinks this cannot happen hasn't been paying attention. Any automobile made today for driving in the United States needs to meet safety, emission, and fuel efficiency standards. We are being regulated more and more each day.

There may already be some indications of our government exerting its influence on the automakers. One is currently being looked at by a blogger on Redstate (just one of multiple blogs I read), as to whether or not certain Chrysler dealers were 'closed' based on which party they supported by monetary donations. Of course denials abound from Chrysler and the government that this never took place, however, when you look at which dealerships were closed, how well they were doing, and add in their political contributions, the 'appearance of impropriety' begins to show. Now if the implication is true, it's not just government influence on an industry, it's punishment for your political beliefs, and a 'back door' way to shut down opposition without directly attacking the first amendment. This should increase our vigilance, if we care about protecting our way of life.

The other indication comes in the form of oil and gas prices. We're in a down economy (recession or maybe the beginnings of depression depending on your point of view), and yet oil and gas prices are going up. You could argue it's a sign the economy's improving, but at this point nothing else indicates that. If you believe in conspiracies, you could argue the government is raising the oil and gas prices on purpose to drive people out of their current cars. What would they get? Why the 'new' fuel efficient and 'green' cars that will be made by the post-bankruptcy GM. That's if you believe in conspiracies.

I will continue to watch what goes on with interest. The automobile industry will, in this case, be a leading indicator of the future of our economy, government, and society. Admittedly, I will be watching with a certain degree of apprehension. If what we've seen so far is any indication, we can only look forward to more and more of a communist-style economy run by the government.

Today is Memorial Day

It's a day when (we are told) we are to remember the sacrifice others have made in order for us to continue to enjoy the freedoms we have today. Anyone who does a quick internet search can find the history of the observation, but I'll summarize: It began after the Civil War (1866-1868 are two different dates I've seen, depending on who you talk to), and was set up to honor those who fought and died in the Civil War. Southern states honored their dead on different days (due to lingering animosity), until after World War I, when the observance was expanded to include those who died in all conflicts.

In recent years, I've done some research on my family history. I was told I had an ancestor who fought in the Civil War, but hadn't found any documents. My father brought me copies of documentation from his service. He was paid to to serve for another person (a fairly common occurrence in that time), and was part of Sherman's army in Georgia. He really didn't see much action though, he ended up spending most his enlistment in the hospital due to illness (dyspepsia). It ends up not being as exciting as, say, 'The Red Badge of Courage' but still it provides insight into the history of our country.

I said at the beginning we are told to remember the sacrifice others made on this day. Looking around, though, it seems cookouts, sales, and a day off is more important than what the day is about.

One thing I would put out there is: if people weren't willing to sacrifice everything to ensure their descendants were able to enjoy the principles of freedom, what kind of country would we be living in today?

I've been busy!

Sorry for the long time between posts, as I look and see it's been almost a month since I've posted.  Life took over.  I've been busy between work and doing all those necessary things needing to be done as the weather has improved. 

It's not that there hasn't been a lot of things I could've commented on; the changes going on in our country and the world and the pace of those changes would've given me a lot of fodder, but when it's a choice between getting the house chores done and trying to corral my many wayward thoughts, believe it or not the chores are easier.

What also added to the time away from the blog is that we changed our internet provider.  The only thing I can say after that experience is:  you'd better be happy with your internet provider, because I think it's easier to get a divorce than to change internet providers.

Anyway, I'm back online, and after poor customer service all the way around, I'm grumpier than ever!!!

What's more important?

One of the things concerning me these days is the idea or concept the most important thing is being on top or 'winning'. It doesn't matter whether it's politics, sports, or life in general, the most important thing seems to be, to quote Oakland Raider owner Al Davis, “just win, baby”.

While winning is understandable in sports (although sportsmanship is far more important and should be the first focus), it is extremely disturbing in politics. Although when one looks at politics, they can see how closely politics and sports seem to be. If you're going to have a representative government (whether parlimentary as in Europe or our own representative republic), politics is going to take on the qualities of the coliseum games of ancient Rome. Both sides fighting each other using tactics that almost shock the senses. It seems almost to the point in our modern society that politics have all the drama and bloodsport of professional wrestling. Listening to the radio these days, and how people on both sides are quickly getting to the point of 'the end justifies the means', it reminds me of a wrestling quote. The individual involved was talking about winning a particular type of match, and I'm paraphrasing here: “to win, to survive, you've got to get down in that gutter and do something so horrible, so violent, that the other person looks at you and says 'I quit'.”

Is that where our society is now? We have had other instances in our country's history where people who were passionate about their particular point of view decided the ends justified the means and the end result has been violence. If we are not careful, we have multiple issues that may lead up to violence between people. We need to work on our ability to not only communicate our ideas, but our listening ability to understand the concerns and fears of others, so we can better address those things and come to a peaceful and equitable solution.

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?

I suppose this happens every time we have a 'change' in our government. Members or supporters of those who didn't 'win' start proclaiming that it's the end of our country as we have known it (does it feel fine? I don't know), and warning anyone who will listen to prepare for those things seen in 'banana republics' (why do bananas need their own government anyway?) or from the past. Nazi Germany has been used as an example so often that there is a 'law' about using Nazis or Hitler in a debate called Godwin's Law. The law states (and I'm paraphrasing, since the original law referenced Usenet) 'the longer a discussion, the higher the probability of a comparison using Hitler or Nazis'. Far too often these days, we'd rather short circuit the discussion and cut off the other side, so we (and I use that term loosely) immediately go to the Nazi argument. What happened to the days when we'd debate and discuss the issues of the day for hours on end? Using comparison and contrast, refuting arguments using logic and wisdom instead of going for the emotional? I'm not really asking for an answer on this, I know my own rhetorical skills are lacking, so I'm probably just as guilty as those who I am criticizing.

In any case, what I am getting to is: most people in our country today have at least a rudimentary idea of how politics and our government work. We completed major elections last year, and we are now seeing the results. Whether you want to call them good or bad is your own opinion, those who know me know where I stand. Those who are on the outside looking in have been wringing their hands, and I can't say it's without cause. Eight years ago, we were seeing the same thing coming from the other side and they weren't without cause either, although I could say we made it through and once again we had a peaceful transition of power from one political party to the other.

I am not saying we shouldn't be vigilant and watch those who are in power, that's what we are supposed to do as concerned citizens of this country. I am also not saying that we shouldn't disagree with each other and those in our government. That's the primary reason we have the first amendment, to allow the discussion and exchange of ideas without fear of persecution or prosecution. It would appear to me that today we are no longer interested in persuasion through rhetoric, meaning we don't seem to be interested in winning people over to our way of thinking by our arguments. We'd rather find ways to make people agree with us, and that only causes hurt, anger, and a deepening of the 'us versus them' mentality unfortunately prevalent in today's discourse.

We do need to make sure our arguments are grounded in sound reason and we must be able to defend our beliefs and positions at any time. If we can't defend our positions and beliefs, then we need to look at why we have those particular beliefs and whether or not we should continue to have them. We should not be afraid of being wrong, and we should be open to different understandings. Of course, some things are non-negotiable, but that shouldn't be the case with everything. Even Martin Luther, in his response to the Diet of Worms said unless he was refuted and convicted by the scriptures or by clear arguments he was in error, he would not recant his writings. He showed he was open to learning and persuasion, but it was within a very narrow scope of argumentation.

The other point I would make is that if we are Christians and citizens of Christ, we need to look to and remember Romans 13:1 'Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.' God has put our current government and the government of all the other countries of the world for His purposes. We need to be watching, waiting and praying so that His purposes are made known to us.

What have we taught our children?

As parents, one of the biggest things we have to deal with in our children is conflict, and how to deal with it. Our children (I mean this in a general sense) fight with each other, children from other families, and when they're old enough they'll even try to fight with their parents. As adults, we see conflict every day. Between coworkers, between groups of people with differing views on a variety of subjects, and with spouses as well. How we react to and resolve those conflicts is one of the most important lessons we teach our children.

Our society has taught that if you are not 'getting along' with your spouse, you can divorce them. What society is teaching our children is: to give up and walk away is an appropriate form of conflict resolution. Now that doesn't mean that there aren't appropriate times when people shouldn't 'step away' and try to calm down in order to resolve the conflict. But far too often people aren't willing or able to take the time and energy necessary to engage the other person to find out what the root problem is, any and all misunderstandings between the two people, and to find an agreement both people are comfortable with.

One of the other things society has taught us is that it is entirely appropriate for people to say, as in the title of the Queen song: 'I want it all, and I want it now.' There is no way that everyone can have things that way and not be in conflict. And when both people in the conflict have that mindset, the end result is easy to predict: both people will be hurt, angry, and something that could have been easily resolved is now an unconquerable mountain.

The title of an old Rolling Stones song is more appropriate for dealing with conflict, at least on a personal level: 'You can't always get what you want.' We must learn to apply that principle when dealing with other people in a conflict situation. We must be careful, however, that one person doesn't do all the 'compromising', as that only teaches the one who didn't compromise they can get their way.

The last we should keep in mind in a conflict is to keep the emotional responses to a minimum. We've often heard as children, and even adults,we should count to 10 before we answer someone if we feel ourselves getting angry. Taking the time to listen to the other person and understand them will go a long way in keeping a conflict from getting out of hand. Our emotions will lie to us sooner or later, and we need to remember that.

Do we understand there is no free lunch?

Thinking back over this last election, and what we have seen so far, one thing continuing to stick in my mind is how many people want the government to provide them services or funds for any number of reasons. Some of those reasons may seem more significant than others: failing businesses, unable to work (mental or physical), unable to make ends meet, and so forth. I'm not going to sit here and try to say whether one reason is more important than the other, as that's really not my place. No one gave me the authority or power to say 'that's a good enough reason for assistance', or 'that's not a good enough reason'.

The whole discussion reminds me of a story I read about Davy Crockett, when he served as a representative from the state of Tennessee. As it is told, in a speech he talks about making the rounds in his district in preparation for re-election. He meets up with a farmer, and after the usual discussion about crops and weather, asks the farmer if he will support his re-election. The farmer tells him no, and when asked why, the farmer explains it is because in his mind, Davy Crockett forgot the constitution and the limited powers it entailed. Where did the farmer get this idea? From Crockett's support of a bill to give money to families affected by a fire in Georgetown, Virginia. The bottom line of the speech given and the story was to serve as a reminder to Congress and the country at large that the government is not supposed to be in the business of giving money to people, charitable or not. If we cannot wrap our minds around this principle, then we have gone very far afield from the principles on which our nation was founded.

There is a second story or saying that this reminds me of. It has been attributed to many different authors, but its' message is particularly timely: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." This has been attributed to people from Benjamin Franklin to Alexander Tytler, a scottish lawyer. It really doesn't matter who spoke or wrote it. I think it casts a dark shadow on how our fallen nature can corrupt governments conceived under the best of intentions.

The title of this post refers to the concept that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'. All the money being given to banks and other industries have to come from somewhere. Someone has to put the money up for all these programs and such. I don't believe the average American has any concept of borrowing and credit and so forth. Banks and other companies dealing in credit provide the money we 'charge' to buy all those things we think we need. Sooner or later, we need to pay them back. If we don't there are consequences. Those consequences can vary from garnishing our wages to pay the debt, to the ruination of our ability to obtain credit through collection or bankruptcy.

Proverbs 22:7 states: 'The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.' The government seems to have picked up on the principle behind this verse and we are starting to see evidence of their applying the principle to industries they have given money to: banks given money to stabilize their situation during the credit crisis last fall who don't need it anymore aren't being allowed to give it back to the government. Is it because the government wants to control the operation of the banks? We can't say right now. We saw last week General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner forced from his post by the White House. Is this the beginning of government control over the American automobile industry? It's still a little early at this point. One thing we should keep in mind is many of us have received money from the government in some way, shape or form. School lunches, welfare for the poor, farming subsidies. These are some examples of 'free' money from the government. These programs are not free, but are paid by taxes. If you think about many of these programs, there are conditions attached in order to receive the money. Those conditions are the recipients' 'payment'. The bottom line for those who receive theses 'benefits' are we are now 'servants' of the government and we must do what they say. Some of us are happy servants, some are not. But until people learn to quit borrowing we will continue to be servants to the lenders. If you accept government funding be prepared to pay, and not just in money.

I guess what I am trying to put across in my own feeble method is: when we start asking our government to provide things for us, we are in grave danger of morphing our government into something other than a democracy (which people seem to think it is) or a representative republic (which is the actual design).

Thoughts on cars

With all the news the auto industry has made this week, I thought back to some of the vehicles my parents owned during my years growing up.

During that time, which seems somewhat ironic at this time, my parents owned a car made by a company that no longer exists as an independent car company. The car was an AMC Hornet Sportabout station wagon. It was one of the first cars I remember, so it made an impression. The car and how it performed overall seemed fine, at least by my small child standards. I don't remember the car ever breaking down, or having any major mechanical defects (although the rear passenger door didn't like to unlock sometimes). I think my parents owned it for 5-6 years.

I think they would have owned it longer, but at the time my parents had bought a towed camper and the car couldn't tow it, so they traded it in for one of the first GMC Suburbans (first model year anyway). I found out later the vehicle was slightly unusual (the engine they put in was too small – at least for that size), but it served the purpose my parents wanted it for. I hardly noticed at the time the gradual disappearance of the AMC brand, but I thought about it more as I got older and looked back.

I recently did some looking around about the life and demise of the AMC brand. They were actually a fairly popular brand in the 1970's, making vehicles people wanted and being 'ahead of their time' regarding safety and fuel efficiency. What did them in was some poor choices (AMC Pacer), and not having enough capital to deal with economic difficulties. They partnered with Renault in the 1980's and were eventually absorbed by Chrysler. Apparently they were the last 'independent' automobile company (in other words, outside of the 'big 3' in Detroit).

As I got older, the vehicles my parents owned seemed to change with the times (by that I mean they didn't let cars get more than 7-8 years old), and my parents pretty much stayed with American automobiles, Chrysler products to be specific, although there was one import that my brother bought and my parents got from him, a Toyota.

I look back at my own car ownership history (as short as it is) and it's much more eclectic. There's been a mix of domestic and import cars, depending on needs, wants, and availability. Today, I've got two 'used' vehicles – one domestic van and one import car. I'm happy with what I have, since my purchasing criteria has more to do with how they perform than a particular company.

Brand loyalty used to be an important part of our culture and buying process. Today, I guess brand loyalty doesn't matter much anymore, but then again why give money to companies who either can't or won't change with the times and operate without assistance?

Making life difficult

Well, apparently having snow wasn't enough.  Our small tree in the front yard decided the wet snow was too much for it, and decided to fall over onto our driveway.  It blocked our van, and so we couldn't get out.  Since we don't own the house we called the maintenance people out to deal with it.  Looking at the tree, apparently part of it's roots started to rot and that along with the soaked ground is what caused it to fall over.  Here is a picture from this morning. 

What month is it? Where do I live?

I took this picture last night.  I'm still trying to figure out where exactly I am living.  My eldest dautgher's guess was 'Antarctica'.  It's definitely somewhere with snow.  We have had more snow this year out here than all of the other years we have lived here combined.  Climate change?  Maybe, but we seem to be heading more towards an ice age than an overly warm planet.

I could have posted a picture from December, and it would have looked almost the same.  Flakes, snow covered ground, and cold.  Is spring coming anytime soon?

Just one more reason I'm behind the times

I occasionally take surveys online (it's something one can do to earn a few extra dollars, and you can pick and choose which ones you want to do).  I had one today that dealt with cell phones.  It kept asking me questions about things like text messages, internet and email over the phone, and 'data services'.  Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I just am not 'with it', but to have a cell phone to do something other than call another person just seems bizarre to me.  I had to keep answering questions with 'I don't use that service' or 'I'm not interested in that service'.  Maybe I'm better off being Ook the caveman, walking the world with my club.  I have a hard enough time having my days filled with the computer, internet, email, and a cell phone to call to start worrying about internet on my phone, downloading ring tones, and 'data services'.  I guess I'll stay behind the times, at least I know what to expect.

Maybe I'm missing something

A lot of the people I've been talking to recently have commented on buying or owning guns and ammunition.  It's really something amazing to see how many people have gone out and purchased a gun or ammunition for a gun they already own (or tried to since some who I've talked to say the shelves are almost bare).  

I must admit that, to a certain degree, the whole concept of having a personal weapon in the house is beyond me.  I understand the whole concept of owning a gun, and having protection against home invaders or something similar.  Yet at the same time, since I didn't grow up with guns in the house, the idea is foreign to me.  I'm just not sure what I would do with a gun in the house.

Part of it may be the whole thing about being in the military and being trained to use guns to kill other people.  As my brother once put it 'I was taught to hunt the two-legged animals'.  It really does make you think and take the responsibility of gun ownership much more seriously.  

I do agree with the 2nd ammendment sentiment that the right to bear arms has the concept of the power of our government residing with the people, not some small elite group of people.  There are times I wonder, however, if we've gone so far that we no longer understand what the concept was behind this important ammendment.  I'll leave that concept alone for now.  

Why cooking?

Since I've posted two recipe/cooking type of posts, I suppose I should mention why I like to cook (somewhat):

I grew up in a house where my father was the better cook (at least in the main food area - my mother made some excellent desserts).  He worked for a while as a cook in a hospital, then later as a prep cook in the home office of Embers Restaurants (it was in the midwest, primarily in the Minneapolis - St. Paul area).  He cooked all sorts of things, from pancakes to turkeys (he made the stuffing for our thanksgiving turkey).  He was never one to shy away from cooking, no matter what it was.  I guess from that I learned what fun it could be to cook.  I took the junior high and senior high cooking classes, and generally had fun (I learned what happens when you cut pie crust dough too much, although that wasn't in the lesson).  At the time, I looked at it as learning how to care for myself, as I didn't know what was in store for me.  These days, my wonderful wife does most of the cooking.  I get a few things, pizza, pancakes, and scrambled eggs.  I still enjoy the cooking, and enjoy those opportunities when I get to cook together with my wife.  However, I enjoy as much if not more when wonderful food is made by others in the house.

First pizza, now calzones

For our youngest's birthday yesterday, we made calzones.  Here's what the end result looked like.  

For the 'crust' I used my pizza crust recipe (it made 6 calzones).  All we did then was put our 'stuffing' on half of the crust, fold it over and pinch it together.

We cooked them for 15 minutes at 375.  After they came out we brushed them with coconut oil.

Everyone agreed this turned out well.  We are considering doing this again, with different fillings (barbeque chicken, a alfredo/ranch type chicken, or some other such thing).

How does one learn discernment?

I'm posing this question as this seems to be something a lot of people struggle with these days. It's like the old saying (I'm paraphrasing badly) of 'a lot of book sense but no common sense'. When people are faced with a difficult and complex choice, secondary and tertiary effects are not contemplated. They try and decide by looking for someone who is 'intelligent' and proposes a plan. Never mind anything else, we'll just go with them. There are so many metaphors and sayings for this kind of situation I'm having a hard time picking just one. However, people NEED to take the time to think through things when making these choices.

So, after getting frustrated with the world again (I'm beginning to think modern society is falling into the often-repeated definition of insanity – trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result), I started pondering this 'lack of discerning' and how it can be overcome. Some people are naturally gifted in this area. I however have had to work diligently over the years to try and apply discernment in different situations. The one thing that seems to be the common element to applying discernment is time. Time is needed, and it's the one thing that's either not asked for or deliberately left out of decisions these days. I will admit there are situations when time cannot be taken, but those are true emergencies and I haven't really seen one of those for quite a while.

Time is an important factor, but more is needed (at least for those of us who have to work at those higher level thought processes) in order for that time to be fruitful. It's not enough for there to be time, you need to be able to apply principles, recognize potential pitfalls, and be able to determine what your long term goals are. The books I mentioned in a previous post, Logic by Isaac Watts and The Art of Rhetoric by Aristotle are great tools in assembling and learning to use tools. Using logic will help you to determine the best course of action in a situation, and by understanding rhetoric you will be able to see when someone is 'putting one over' on you.

Oh well, maybe someone out there can give me some other things helping in obtaining and applying discernment.

Basic civility – it's what's missing from dialogue

This thought (my title) is something I've had knocking around my head for the past couple of days. It started when I 'turned off' talk radio on my way to and from work. I know people aren't happy (that seems to be what the talkers feed off of), but sometimes it just gets to be too much. I then tried to find other ways to keep informed about what's going on (straight news just isn't trustworthy anymore), but so many websites have far too much hate. Oh, a lot of times it's not out and out hate. It's often displayed as sarcasm, putting the opposition down, and generally being rude.

As I kept encountering these sites, something began to gnaw at me. Over the years, it seems the general conversation in our society has been getting less and less 'intelligent'. People no longer seem to have the want or desire to look into a topic in depth, they just want instant analysis. It's like people are 'microwaving' issues to get done with them faster. You know what happens when you microwave food, don't you? You end up altering the food's structure, that's why it will taste different than food cooked on a stove or in a oven. The same principle applies here. You 'nuke' the issue, and you end up altering the framework the issue is built around, and not for the better.

A byproduct of the this short-changing of analyzing issues, is the tactics for debate change. Now, instead of debating the merits of a position, those proponents of one side of an issue immediately 'attack the messenger'. Since this isn't my first trip around the sun, I've seen this in action on many occasions. Growing up in the midwest, I saw early on that during campaigns, the first person to 'sling mud' would lose the election because the general population wouldn't put up with this. In 1994, I saw this change. A race I was somewhat interested in became very ugly, with both candidates going for the dirt. What amazed me was the public seemed to actually enjoy this, as opposed to being disgusted with the campaign tactics. It was a rather sad milestone if you will.

Going further, once you change the tactics by attacking the messenger instead of debating the issues, now you've made those who you don't agree with the 'enemy'. I sometimes wonder who people worry about more, terrorists, or people of the opposing political party. This used to not be the case, and not so long ago. While thinking on this, I thought back to the attempt on President Reagan's life in 1981. One thing sticking out in my mind was while he was in the hospital recovering, the Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, a democrat, came to visit. I can't find any account, but I do remember hearing/seeing that the two spoke to each other as human beings, acknowledging they were on opposite sides of many issues, but this situation transcended politics. I wonder how a similar situation would play out today? If the things one sees on the internet are any indication, we've 'demonized' the opposition so much that such high minded ideas are almost out of the question.

You look back further in history, and people who were on opposite sides of major issues often had great respect for each other. Or at least didn't wish ill of each other. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas knew and debated each other for many years. While they may not have thought very highly of each other, during the 20 years they debated each other off and on they did not attack each other in public. At the beginning of our country, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were on opposite sides of the issue of how the country should be run. Yet, after both were out of politics, they became close friends, exchanging letters until their deaths in 1826. Is it so difficult to say to someone 'I don't like your political views or ideas, but I've nothing personal against you'?   

Bible reading and thoughts

Things here have been very hectic the past couple of days, with different members of the family being sick with colds (not particularly nasty, but the congestion and coughing have definitely wreaked havoc). So today, we spent time doing individual Bible reading. After a set period of time, we each talked about some verses that caused us to pause, or really spoke to us. My children had some wonderful insights as they were doing their reading, and some excellent discussion ensued.

There were two or three separate passages that got me thinking. One that really made me think was Lamentations 4:17 (NASB): 'Yet our eyes failed: Looking for help was useless. In our watching we have watched for a nation that could not save.' The whole book of Lamentations talks to how Judah was overthrown by the Babylonians because they turned away from the Lord, and were looking for their salvation in the things of this world. But reading this verse in particular showed me how we can look continually for some organization, whether it be a political entity, or some other organization, and we are going to be disappointed because ultimately it will not be able to save us. We need to look to the Lord, and let go of this world as much as we possibly can.

If I sat down, and did some more in depth studying, I'm sure I could come up with a much longer writing showing other wonderful truths from this verse and this book. But I think I'll leave it at this for the moment.

I'm not sure this is what they had in mind when they said 'climate change'

I can't leave my total blog post number at thirteen, so I'm going to comment on the weather, such as it is. As I've looked out my window today while relaxing (taking a break), and I keep seeing snow! Since when did it snow in Washington in March? Not that it's sticking, but this is starting to get ridiculous. I think we're going into a cold cycle, Al Gore notwithstanding.

Random thoughts for the week (a peek into my mind)

One of the things that interests me is to look back in history, see where our country has been, and look where it's going. Sometimes I wonder if it's really fair to compare where we are now to the beginning of our country. The overall situation of the people was different (education, industry, etc.) and our understanding of the world at large was different as well. There are so many things that looking at our country, it's just not the same. However, at the same time, we are the same country. The basic guidelines governing our conduct are there, and everything that branches out from those basic guidelines are the same.

We, as a people, try to claim our tie to that past. But if we don't understand the whys of our constitution and government, then looking back makes no sense. Oftentimes, when someone uses a quote, whether it's someone from today or well into our history, those who disagree will argue the quote is taken 'out of context'. It is important for us to understand the context of quotes if we are to use them, and it is more important when we are looking to history for understanding.

One example of this is the disagreement about 'the separation of church and state'. People argue this is built into the constitution, using the first amendment as their reference. Looking into the context of the time, the amendment was more a prohibition of a 'state religion', rather than a prohibition of religion in general. When this argument is brought forward, some will point to a writing of Thomas Jefferson where the phrase is used. The context of that phrase is within a personal letter, not a public address describing policy.

This idea of understanding the context of laws and rules comes to the forefront when we are discussing the supreme court and how they are to 'interpret' the constitution. How a prospective justice views the constitution and it's interpretation become the focus of pitched arguments between different groups of people.

What I find interesting is that people still look to 'wise' men to interpret laws and guidelines for us. As a Christian, we are to look to God for our guidance and leadership. Proverbs 3:5 states 'Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding'. People who deny God try to look for their guidance and leadership in man, but end up disappointed because of the inconsistency of man. God is the one true and constant truth in our life, and without it people are frustrated, disappointed, and alone.

Random thoughts on banking

I was drawn to this subject by someone asking if we needed to get rid of the Federal Reserve, and replace it with a 'Bank of the United States'. My first reaction was: The Federal Reserve IS the Bank of the United States'. But, I decided to look at the ill-fated bank, how it was set up, and some of what caused it to 'fail'.

If you look at history, there were two Banks: The first ran from 1791 – 1811, when it's charter ran out. The second was from 1816 until 1836, when the president of the Bank and the President of the United States (Andrew Jackson) decided to have a very public fight about whether or not the Bank's charter should be renewed. Jackson thought since, in his opinion, the bank served only the privileged rich, it was unconstitutional and should not be renewed. Of course the bank president, Nicholas Biddle, felt so strongly the charter should be renewed that he began to work for rechartering four years early. Jackson ended up winning the fight.

Both Banks were set up as private institutions, which happened to function as the bank for the federal government also. Tax revenue was deposited there, and government bonds were sold by the Bank as part of the federal debt. Looking at the Federal Reserve and it's functions today, it works much like the Bank of the United States did back then: a 'private' organization, functioning as the federal government's bank. Both set monetary policy for the country at the time, and the head of said organization answered to the government. In my mind, changing the name wouldn't change anything and it wouldn't help.

There are many others who can speak more eloquently and more in depth on how we got to where we are today economically. My simplistic (maybe overly so) take is this: banks and other financial institutions took unwise risk (some of it was probably forced by federal home loan regulations) and a turn in markets ruined a few, and left others in a weakened conditions. Now, we're in a period of time where growth is slowed and some people are going to get hurt. I don't like to see people get hurt, but I don't think the current strategy is going to help. In fact, it's going to hurt a whole lot more people over a longer time.

What are banks? Ultimately banks are a business. They are in the business of dealing with money, but they still need to turn a profit. Calvin Coolidge once famously said 'the business of America is business.' He meant that businesses are what have built this country up into the great power it is today, and the less the government interferes with business practices the better. However you could use that statement to mean government must be involved in business to the point of telling owners how to run their business. Government is involved in banking and they've been involving themselves in businesses, what's next?

random thoughts on what's important to us

This is something that has been bothering me for the last couple of days. As I look around at the different news sites (I told you before I don't read the newspaper due to blood pressure issues), I happened to notice what they were carrying as the 'headlines' or major stories. Some of them deal with the important issues of the day (economy, war, etc.) but there are also quite a few stories that I would best categorize as 'news of the weird': bizarre things happening to people, unusual stores opening, and other things that, as a reader make me say 'interesting' but on further reflection I can't say that it improved my life at all.

Maybe I spend too much time looking into the past. It seems to me that far too often, the debate about the issues of today and what should be of importance to us is kicked to the side to make room for items that whose sole purpose is to shock and amaze. I would be curious to see how people one to two hundred years ago would do in debating some of today's 'intellectuals', all other things being equal. To me, if nothing else, they would certainly outlast most everybody. You read and hear about speeches and debates going on for hours on end, and writings that were very lengthy. What do we have today? I'm sure a lot of us get antsy if something goes longer than an hour (I'm thinking of church services and ceremonies, not our beloved sporting events). We'd quit the field before they would even be warmed up.

Now, that's not to say there wasn't the interest back then in the things I described above,it just seems these items didn't have the prominence and importance that they enjoy today. We need things to be exciting, entertaining, strange, bizarre, and in some cases even gross in order to hold our attention. When we look to the Bible about things we are to be interested in, we find in particular throughout the Psalms and Proverbs that wisdom is highly treasured, along with fear and knowledge of the Lord. When we see stories about people with extra digits, or some other strange, gross, or other story, are we adding to our wisdom? I would dare say we're not adding to our fear or knowledge of the Lord (you have to acknowledge He exists for those to exist).

Far too often we fill our minds, eyes, ears, etc. with those things which dull the mind and senses, as opposed to searching out the deeper truths about our lives and faith. As a society, if we can't find the answer immediately, or prove our theory or point of view in 30 minutes or less (the time it takes to get a pizza delivered), we lose interest and walk away. If we want to learn the meaning of something, or find out more about a certain person, place, or thing we go immediately to the Internet to 'Google' it or find a site. We have far too often given in to the immediate desires of our bodies instead of doing the hard work to determine the truth.

Are we splitting hairs?

I ask the question, because I'm hearing different people talking about our current administration being 'Marxist, Socialist, Fascist (funny how that one keeps coming around when it's not your party in power), etc. Everyone seems to be worried that we are moving forward into one of these systems, and that it will be 'the end of the world as we know it (and I do feel fine right now, thank you for asking).

To me, all of this worrying and trying to show everyone else where the country is going is missing a larger point. I would liken it to worrying about what kind of bear is about to eat you, when you should be trying to avoid being eaten. Each of the systems mentioned, and others that have come up as well, have one big thing in common. They all are totalitarian systems. They all have consolidated power with a small group. They all represent a significant departure from the government we currently (and I believe nominally) have in place.

I've looked around to what different people are saying about different issues, plans, and people. I believe we could be at a merging of a number of factors that could leave us as a nation ripe for a takeover leading to a totalitarian style of government. The economy, social issues, and the general 'dumbing down' of society has put us in a situation where the right person can come in and remake government totally. At this point, I'm not going to point any fingers. As I told my children this evening 'a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step', so I don't know where we might be on this road: It could be the beginning, middle, or end. I had my predicting chip removed. The only thing I can say is that we need to pay attention to the wild animals attempting to eat us and deal with them. We can study them from a distance, later (I prefer watching on TV 'Mutual of Omaha' style).

(photo courtesy www.moviecitynews.com)

The window is fixed!

We finally got the window fixed on the car which was broken into last weekend. Sometimes I wonder about that car, though. I’ve had both tires and window worked on, and neither has been ‘standard’. With the tires, they’re aftermarket, with special lug nuts, and the wrench adapter broke! I’ve got a new one for that though. Now with the window, the tint was not ‘normal’ (most are blue, this was ‘bronze’ – who ever heard of such?). Anyway, life is somewhat back to normal.

Informed dissent

What do you do when you realize people are making arguments and decisions on things and have absolutely no idea what they are talking about? In our attention-deficit society, it is amazing that we know anything about the really serious issues that affect our lives. Whether it’s national, state, or local, I’m finding it more difficult to know what the issues are. I know what matters to me personally, and what is important for my family, and I can make decisions on different topics if it impacts those particular items accordingly. But: what are the major issues affecting my county or local municipality? I’m not 100% sure I know. I do know what I’m being told are the major issues nationally, but then again I have to keep in mind there are agendas in play.

Looking through the different media websites and blogs (I don’t trust TV news or newspapers –I’ll just raise my blood pressure), what qualifies as major issues differ depending on what their ‘slant’ is: terrorism, economy, creeping socialism, censorship, and social engineering are just some of the ‘axes’ people have to grind as I sift through. Personally, one big thing I care about is where this country is going in the long term. Looking at what is happening in the next year or two is important in how it affects the direction of the country 5 – 50 years down the road, at least that’s my perspective.

Too often it seems people are too concerned about fixing the here and now to really think through the impacts later on. If you look back in history, when speeches were made about the major issues facing the country, the discussion dealt with both the immediate and the long term effects. If you listen to any political speeches in the last 10 years or so, it’s all how to ‘fix’ the immediate problems with no discussion of long term concerns except in the vaguest and blurriest of terms. Listening to the pundits (both news and blog), they can give you wonderfully detailed accounts of how we got to the current situation (with the necessary partisan bent to fit the agenda). Unfortunately, they can do this because it’s all in the past and hindsight is 20/20. The information is there but no one seems to want to use it. No one seems to want to use this information to determine a better way forward, and no one seems to want to put the effort forward now to look at possible solutions to see those long term effects. It’s almost as if, as a country and people, we are unable to do higher level analysis.

One of the books I have on my shelf, and have tried to read (never quite got through it though and I really need to) is The Art of Rhetoric by Aristotle. Another book falling in this category is Logic by Isaac Watts. These books show how far we can stretch the mind if we are willing to put in the effort. Rhetoric allows you to argue your position effectively, and logic allows you to do the deeper thinking necessary to puzzle out issues put before you. They’re books, however, so I don’t know that society at large is willing or able to put in the work necessary to use these tools as they are meant.

Robbed! I've been robbed!

I went out this afternoon to do some yard work prior to the weather turning sour again (it’s sprinkling out as I write this), and as I grab a tree branch to saw up, I look at my car and see the passenger window broken. I tell my children to get their mother as I survey the car, trying to see what (if anything) was taken. The irony of it all? They took a three ring binder (denim covered) that had sermon notes and other theological study material collected from over the years (the binder was 11 years old). The best we can deduce is whoever broke in thought they got a laptop.

The authorities were called and a report was filed (over the phone – I don’t know what bothers me more: the efficiency of it or the feeling this incident didn’t warrant someone actually coming out). Now I have to figure out how to fix the window, but the whole feeling of it still remains. The whole time I have Sir Peter Ustinov’s voice from Disney’s Robin Hood (I’m a sucker for cartoons and animated movies) saying ‘robbed! I’ve been robbed.’ I’ll have to see if I can find a youtube of it to add for the proper effect.

(image from newlegendmike.blogspot.com)

Yup, I’m a caveman!

My oldest has been bugging me for a long time to get her own email address. She’s a teenager now, so I finally figured out it was too late to stop her growing up and I agreed. I still dawdled though, I guess I just wasn’t ready for one of my children to truly mature. Not that I’m not glad for everything she does every day and find joy in the maturity she shows, but still: It’s my daughter! Anyway, last night her mom finally helped her set an email up. I’ve found myself struggling with this new element in her life. I’ve finally had to admit she’s growing up and it’s tough. So, since I’ve been the ‘bad guy’ (dawdling, etc.)even to her grandparents (she told them in an email that I wouldn’t help) I joked that ‘I’ll just get a club and call myself Ook’. So, guess what everybody? I’m a backwards caveman!

Why I’m opposed to the stimulus

It’s not for the reason you might think. I mean there are many surface reasons for opposing the legislation recently signed into law. Just listing a few off the top of my head, there is the way the legislation was pushed through, how quickly it was moved through (I’m a fairly good reader and I can’t imagine getting through the 1300+ page document in that short of a time), and how partisan it ended up being in the end (don’t tell me about the three republicans voting for it in the senate, most people in the republican party don’t count them anyway). All of these things smack of what passes as normal politics these days. It’s not so much that it’s something new, it’s just that those in our capital are more brazen about it than they have in the past.

If you’ve noticed, I didn’t mention anything about the amount of money itself or how it’s being spent. I’m far beyond having any hope of the professional politicians spending the money they’ve been entrusted with wisely. I believe what we are seeing is the apex, zenith, whatever phrase you want to use of the quote (I believe it’s been attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Alexis de Toqueville) “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

I’m primarily opposed to the basic idea of this law because of the mindset it produces. We have basically turned ourselves into a ‘no consequences’ society. You can mess up in your financial choices, you can basically fulfill all your fleshly desires, and we’re not supposed to have anything bad happen to us. I may not be very old, and I may not have seen ‘everything’ (although there are some days I say to myself ‘I can die a happy man, I’ve seen everything’) but the one thing I’ve learned from walking this planet is: there are always consequences. There’s no way around it. But, apparently we are certainly going to try. At least for those who have acted foolishly (at least with their money).

What I’m really getting at is: this particular bill has shown to me that we as a country and we as a people have fallen very far from the ideals this country was based on. As far as I can tell, the government this country started with is not the one we have now, and I’m not referring to amendments either. What I am referring to is the mindset of the people. We have more wealth and more resources available to us as a society than in any other time period, yet we are poor. The reason for this is: people in general are beholden to the state for their needs and wants as opposed to taking care of these things as individuals or as family units. More people today seem to be almost more than willing to give over things Americans fought wars about around a century ago. Why do we have people so willing to give everything, including those things our forefathers held so dear, over to the government? I think this quote from Teddy Roosevelt says it best: “The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.”

Is it too late for our country? I’m not smart enough to say for sure, and I don’t have any better ideas than anyone else. But what I have seen so far, and seeing where we’ve come from in getting where we are today does not make me feel better.

Five dangerous things about homeschooling – with explanations

1. There are no such things as days off. The best explanation is: No matter what we are doing, when we try to ‘take a day off’ of school, we end up doing something that is educational. An illustration is: when we go on vacation, we often end up discussing topics that are educational. This has happened so often with us that I can’t come up with a single example.

2. Chinese restaurants become botany lessons. We were having dinner at our favorite Chinese restaurant, when one of my daughters held up a bean sprout and began to describe the different parts. There have also been times when I have been told on more than one occasion that I’m eating ovaries (snow pea pods for example). It can definitely affect your appetite if you don’t know what’s going on.

3. Household products can quickly turn into items for homeschooling projects. We were working on a ‘fossil’ experiment, complete with plaster of paris, when I started thinking about a possible ‘handprint’ project and was thinking about what else I could do with the plaster. Everything ends up fair game.

4. Every room eventually turns into a ‘school’ room. Kitchen works for science experiments; dining room can be used for ‘seat work’; living room, bedrooms, even bathrooms for the messy stuff (or if you need a big mirror for something).

5. Stuffed animals end up being used in examples of animal husbandry or to demonstrate the political process. My youngest showed me the first when I came to check on their progress in getting ready for bed and she had a stuffed sheep on their stepstool and a plastic knife in her hand. ‘what are you doing?’ ‘I’m slaughtering the sheep for my food’. Also, one other time when I walked down for a bedtime check, and all the stuffed animals were out and split into two groups. The explanation? They were having a ‘debate’ on political matters. On another occasion, after finding the animals out, two facing a group, I had to ask again what the purpose was. This time the two were having a debate after which the group would vote one into office. Don’t remember which office it was, but it was interesting.

Now honestly, these aren’t really ‘dangers’ but with these examples and more, we have discovered that homeschooling does become a way of life. Hopefully other homeschooling families can come up with examples of their own, but if you have the mindset of ‘training your children’ instead of just simply going through the three ‘r’s so they can get a good job, you will find that the joy of helping your children grow in every area of your life.

Biased media? It’s nothing new

Why do I make that statement? Well, it’s one of the significant points I took away from Edward J. Larson’s book ‘A Magnificent Catastrophe’. This is the same author who wrote about the 1925 Scopes ‘Monkey’ trial, but that’s another topic for another time. Bottom line on the author: if he has a bias, it’s well hidden as he provides background information and walks you through the time period. No matter what your political stripe is, you will definitely gain something from the book as a whole.

Now, for the topic at hand. In Larson’s book, part of the background he provides of the John Adams administration (1797-1801) is in talking about the Alien and Sedition acts. Through his descriptions, you can see how different Americans were worried about what was happening to their fledgling country, and the road it seemed to be going down. He also provides a significant amount of details on the newspapers of the time. What is interesting about these newspapers is that the owners and writers, even the readers, identified themselves with certain political parties. You had Federalist newspapers, and Democratic-Republican newspapers. Since John Adams was a Federalist, the Alien and Sedition Act powers were used on (if I remember correctly) two ‘Republican’ newspapers, which turned into one of the big issues in the 1800 election (of course the ‘election’ wasn’t an election as we know it today but it was the electoral college in its’ original form) helping Thomas Jefferson eventually win (after a long dispute in the Federalist run House of Representatives deciding between two Democrat-Republican candidates – irony at its’ finest). The point I took away was, newspapers in that time were used to promote certain political agendas. If we are seeing anything in media behavior today, I would say it is a return to those long ago days when you chose where you got your information based on which party you supported. Is it any different today, particularly on the internet with the proliferation of blog sites providing information (of course with a certain political bent), and today’s media is going along with it.

Now, do I really care about the bias in the media? Not really. As long as individuals are aware of the bias when they are looking at the different sites, then they can make an informed choice about the information they get. However, too often people presume there is no bias and the information is presented in a neutral manner. I’ve seen too many instances when bias is shown to believe that, so I know better than to think the media has no agenda. I just wish more people (many more) would realize this as well, but maybe I ask too much from the YouTube generation with its’ extremely short attention span and looking at the surface of things rather than digging into the deeper facts. The other thing that irks me about the media situation is when the biased media itself tries to pass itself as unbiased. I don’t really care if they are biased, just be upfront about it and let me make the decision about whether I will continue to come to you for information, is that really too much to ask?