After a 2 year hiatus, I decided I should do something here. Isn't it funny that we can't make time for things we enjoy? Maybe in this age there is just so much media, we have too much to choose from. It becomes a choice of what you enjoy most.
I'm not sure, but life has taken all kinds of turns since I last wrote something. My apologies to those of you who have periodically wondered if I was still alive. Many thanks for your emails and well wishes.
Anyway, I looked back at my old posts and realized something - I take cynicism to an uncomfortable height. Therefore, I thought this would be a good chance to say something positive.
As Veteran's Day here in America has come and gone, I take a moment to reflect on all soldiers - not just those fighting for my country. All soldiers deserve our utmost respect, regardless of what ideals they are fighting for. That is an aspect of war that has become fantasized, romantacized, and minimized. There is an honor one achieves for sacrificing his/her life or lifestyle to submit to the authority of a military, regardless of the higher authority's morality or objective.
This is an honor and respect that was once recognized by opposing armies. You see the shadow of that respect displayed in sports, which are essentially mock battles. Those battles used to be real, for life and land, and the same respect was displayed for the opponent. Each war eventually reveals different stories that display this respect for an enemy's dedication and courage. While war is no longer fought face to face and whatever dignity existed in battle is gone, those of us at home still have the ability to honor these people just as they have been honored for tens of thousand of years.
Justice, peace, and security are most important - once those have been achieved, the next priority should be to honor, respect, and care for these individuals who have given their whole selves to serve those causes.
May we be an example not only of courage and righteousness, but also honor and respect that soldiers for all countries throughout the world understand the importance of what they do and that their choices and actions change history.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Let's Socialize!
Do you agree that government should force large corporations to put people’s needs and interests before profit?
Do you agree that the inequality between rich and poor can be and should be changed to provide a decent life for all?
Do you agree that “right-wing” means supporting the rich against the poor?
Do you agree that unemployed workers should be hired by corporations rather than paying existing employees overtime?
Do you agree that everyone has the right to a decent home and other conveniences of modern life?
Congratulations. If you answered “yes” to any or all of those questions, you are almost a full-fledged Socialist. “I’m not a Socialist,” you say. “I am a liberal and/or Democrat.” Be that as it may, you should listen closely to what your party members say and see how many of these Socialist ideas are suggested. Minimum wage, tax the rich, and government assistance are all basic Socialist concepts. As further proof, the slogan for the Socialism 2006 conference was, “Build the Left, Fight the Right.”
Now I could start comparing you to such evil people as Marx and Stalin. However, the fact is that most liberals I know are very compassionate and very well-intentioned. Their heart is in the right place – it is their mind which is not willing to accept reality; the reality that Socialism does not work.
I will not ask you to take my word for it, though. www.socialistparty.org says it themselves: “Socialism has to be international. It's impossible to create socialism in one country.” Somehow, I do not see Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran eagerly bowing down and willingly giving his power over to socialism. Not even Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro have done that, and they lead the most Socialist countries in the world.
All you have to do is look at Hurricane Katrina to know that the government does not do things well. The government is inefficient, wasteful, and breeds corruption. Why would you want to give them more money and more power to dictate how people are going to live their lives?
If you are going to live this life, you have to understand you cannot legislate happiness. Our Declaration of Independence states we have the right of the “pursuit of happiness,” not to attain it. By giving people the right to reach their goals, we are also giving them the right to fail. You can make it a level playing field, but you cannot guarantee who is going to win. As a Socialist, you are saying that you cannot win.
However, I did say you were almost a true Socialist. Just wishing for a utopia is not enough; you must also support a Central government that would create it. If you really want to adopt Socialism, here are a few more things you must agree to. Again, this according to www.socialistparty.org:
You must agree that causing “increased misery to the rich” is not enough – to abolish poverty, the Central government must dictate every facet of your life.
You must agree that we should not pay taxes on defense, but rather give that money to other countries.
You must agree to adopt the occupation the Central government assigns you, as we cannot have two people competing for the same job.
You must agree not to purchase or own your own home, but rather be assigned a home owned by the Central government. You will also be rationed clothes, food and other necessities.
Finally, you must agree that the “Socialist Party supports Cuba…and we recognize the important advances the revolution brought to the poor and oppressed.” (Those “important advances” caused 8,000 Cubans to immigrate to the United States in 2005. Also, there are currently over 500 Cubans with legitimate American visas who are not allowed by the Central government to leave Cuba.)
Next time your favorite politician starts talking about how the government can help people, think carefully about what road you are going down.
Do you agree that the inequality between rich and poor can be and should be changed to provide a decent life for all?
Do you agree that “right-wing” means supporting the rich against the poor?
Do you agree that unemployed workers should be hired by corporations rather than paying existing employees overtime?
Do you agree that everyone has the right to a decent home and other conveniences of modern life?
Congratulations. If you answered “yes” to any or all of those questions, you are almost a full-fledged Socialist. “I’m not a Socialist,” you say. “I am a liberal and/or Democrat.” Be that as it may, you should listen closely to what your party members say and see how many of these Socialist ideas are suggested. Minimum wage, tax the rich, and government assistance are all basic Socialist concepts. As further proof, the slogan for the Socialism 2006 conference was, “Build the Left, Fight the Right.”
Now I could start comparing you to such evil people as Marx and Stalin. However, the fact is that most liberals I know are very compassionate and very well-intentioned. Their heart is in the right place – it is their mind which is not willing to accept reality; the reality that Socialism does not work.
I will not ask you to take my word for it, though. www.socialistparty.org says it themselves: “Socialism has to be international. It's impossible to create socialism in one country.” Somehow, I do not see Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran eagerly bowing down and willingly giving his power over to socialism. Not even Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro have done that, and they lead the most Socialist countries in the world.
All you have to do is look at Hurricane Katrina to know that the government does not do things well. The government is inefficient, wasteful, and breeds corruption. Why would you want to give them more money and more power to dictate how people are going to live their lives?
If you are going to live this life, you have to understand you cannot legislate happiness. Our Declaration of Independence states we have the right of the “pursuit of happiness,” not to attain it. By giving people the right to reach their goals, we are also giving them the right to fail. You can make it a level playing field, but you cannot guarantee who is going to win. As a Socialist, you are saying that you cannot win.
However, I did say you were almost a true Socialist. Just wishing for a utopia is not enough; you must also support a Central government that would create it. If you really want to adopt Socialism, here are a few more things you must agree to. Again, this according to www.socialistparty.org:
You must agree that causing “increased misery to the rich” is not enough – to abolish poverty, the Central government must dictate every facet of your life.
You must agree that we should not pay taxes on defense, but rather give that money to other countries.
You must agree to adopt the occupation the Central government assigns you, as we cannot have two people competing for the same job.
You must agree not to purchase or own your own home, but rather be assigned a home owned by the Central government. You will also be rationed clothes, food and other necessities.
Finally, you must agree that the “Socialist Party supports Cuba…and we recognize the important advances the revolution brought to the poor and oppressed.” (Those “important advances” caused 8,000 Cubans to immigrate to the United States in 2005. Also, there are currently over 500 Cubans with legitimate American visas who are not allowed by the Central government to leave Cuba.)
Next time your favorite politician starts talking about how the government can help people, think carefully about what road you are going down.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Crime and PUNISHMENT
Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims of the brutal and heartless massacre at Virginia Tech University. Out of such tragedy have come stories of heroism and bravery, proving again that hope and good shines brighter than evil even in the worst of times. Unfortunately, the same tragedy also brings about a debate I have difficulty discussing. Not because I waiver in my convictions, but because it causes me to disagree with some of my closest and dearest friends who have my utmost respect.
Therefore, let me avoid the actual 'gun control' debate itself, and take a more fundamental approach. This requires a historical review of America. Why is America the way it is? Why do we have the systems we have? What was the purpose? There is no more succinct answer to those questions than what is found in the Preamble of the Constitution:
Most people focus on the nouns such as justice, defense, welfare, liberty, etc... However, my interest today is in the verbs: establish, insure, provide, promote, and secure. There is a word noticeably absent from that list -- prevent. In fact, that word is used only twice in the entire Constitution, neither in reference to crime.
Why is this important?
In a manner of speaking, a democratic society such as ours functions with the understanding that citizens have the right to commit a crime. Much like the Roman civilization and the Byzantines before that, neither of which had the liberties provided by the United States, democratic governments do not prevent crime. They punish it. Every crime is listed and beside it somewhere is the punishment for committing the crime. Therefore, again in a manner of speaking, you are free to commit a crime if you are willing to pay the consequences.
There are two primary responsibilities of citizens who live in such a society. First, you must understand what is legal and illegal so that (if basic morality is not enough of a guide) you have at least a minimum criteria of what this society permits you to do. Secondly, you have a responsibility to trust your fellow citizens to respect your rights under the same law. The moment we lack a comprehensive trust in each other is the moment we lose our liberties as Americans.
Coupled with that philosophy is a necessity to educate citizens, as well as a need to have a fundamental understanding of humanity. While we may trust 99% of our fellow citizens to stop at a red light, we understand there is going to be a lunatic out there who is going to purposely break that law and claim a victim -- a victim which may turn out to be me. I, however, am willing to live under such risk because the alternative is to restrict the freedoms we have in way or another. And I take on the responsibility as a citizen to do what I can to make sure everyone I know understands and follows the rules of the road. My tirades against drinking and driving, for example, are something everyone who knows me has heard. I live in Wisconsin where it is a huge problem, and it saddens me every time I hear someone respond to a drunk and driving fatality news story with, "I would never get THAT drunk."
We saw in Virginia the fraction of humanity that is willing to kill and die for nothing. To him it was just his final rant carried out in action, with a middle finger to the world he hates. He saw it as nothing more.
Those who know me may point out that I do not even own a gun. Therefore, what freedom is really being taken from me if we had more strict gun control laws? Perhaps none. And, for the record, I am for gun control in some aspect because technically any naval warship has "guns" that can shoot for miles and cause incredible damage. Certainly, I can think of no earthly reason my neighbor would need one of those in his back yard. So there has to be a line drawn, and where exactly that line should be will always be under debate, and rightly so. But gun control should not be the focus of preventing violence.
That attitude loses sight of the more fundamental problem. Our government is here to prosecute and punish crime -- NOT prevent it. That is our job as citizens. Therefore, when crime occurs we must look at ourselves as a society and see where we failed. I can think of any number of ways we failed to prevent this tragedy. At the same time, no individual should be held responsible for the actions of another. The murderer himself deserves full blame for the deaths of those bright minds and beloved hearts.
(Allow me to make it clear that when I say our government is not intended to prevent crime, I specifically mean domestic crime. Our government's responsibility to "provide for the common defense" is perhaps the most important task facing it today. We are to protect each other from ourselves -- our government is to protect us from others.)
Therefore, let me avoid the actual 'gun control' debate itself, and take a more fundamental approach. This requires a historical review of America. Why is America the way it is? Why do we have the systems we have? What was the purpose? There is no more succinct answer to those questions than what is found in the Preamble of the Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Most people focus on the nouns such as justice, defense, welfare, liberty, etc... However, my interest today is in the verbs: establish, insure, provide, promote, and secure. There is a word noticeably absent from that list -- prevent. In fact, that word is used only twice in the entire Constitution, neither in reference to crime.
Why is this important?
In a manner of speaking, a democratic society such as ours functions with the understanding that citizens have the right to commit a crime. Much like the Roman civilization and the Byzantines before that, neither of which had the liberties provided by the United States, democratic governments do not prevent crime. They punish it. Every crime is listed and beside it somewhere is the punishment for committing the crime. Therefore, again in a manner of speaking, you are free to commit a crime if you are willing to pay the consequences.
There are two primary responsibilities of citizens who live in such a society. First, you must understand what is legal and illegal so that (if basic morality is not enough of a guide) you have at least a minimum criteria of what this society permits you to do. Secondly, you have a responsibility to trust your fellow citizens to respect your rights under the same law. The moment we lack a comprehensive trust in each other is the moment we lose our liberties as Americans.
Coupled with that philosophy is a necessity to educate citizens, as well as a need to have a fundamental understanding of humanity. While we may trust 99% of our fellow citizens to stop at a red light, we understand there is going to be a lunatic out there who is going to purposely break that law and claim a victim -- a victim which may turn out to be me. I, however, am willing to live under such risk because the alternative is to restrict the freedoms we have in way or another. And I take on the responsibility as a citizen to do what I can to make sure everyone I know understands and follows the rules of the road. My tirades against drinking and driving, for example, are something everyone who knows me has heard. I live in Wisconsin where it is a huge problem, and it saddens me every time I hear someone respond to a drunk and driving fatality news story with, "I would never get THAT drunk."
We saw in Virginia the fraction of humanity that is willing to kill and die for nothing. To him it was just his final rant carried out in action, with a middle finger to the world he hates. He saw it as nothing more.
Those who know me may point out that I do not even own a gun. Therefore, what freedom is really being taken from me if we had more strict gun control laws? Perhaps none. And, for the record, I am for gun control in some aspect because technically any naval warship has "guns" that can shoot for miles and cause incredible damage. Certainly, I can think of no earthly reason my neighbor would need one of those in his back yard. So there has to be a line drawn, and where exactly that line should be will always be under debate, and rightly so. But gun control should not be the focus of preventing violence.
That attitude loses sight of the more fundamental problem. Our government is here to prosecute and punish crime -- NOT prevent it. That is our job as citizens. Therefore, when crime occurs we must look at ourselves as a society and see where we failed. I can think of any number of ways we failed to prevent this tragedy. At the same time, no individual should be held responsible for the actions of another. The murderer himself deserves full blame for the deaths of those bright minds and beloved hearts.
(Allow me to make it clear that when I say our government is not intended to prevent crime, I specifically mean domestic crime. Our government's responsibility to "provide for the common defense" is perhaps the most important task facing it today. We are to protect each other from ourselves -- our government is to protect us from others.)
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Belief in Scientific Accuracy Debunked
The discovery of a box that once contained the bones of Jesus would prove false the beliefs of Christianity, which have held true for thousands of years. The only problem? Such a box has not been proven to exist.
If you have seen the ridiculous amount of coverage this has received by the mainstream media, you know what I am talking about. If you haven't, then you wouldn't have found this blog anyway so I'm not going to bother explaining it. It is a wonderous thing to behold -- a Hollywood promotional campaign, that is. It is simply amazing how quickly they can occupy the attention of a massive population.
The archaeologist responsible for this "discovery", (oh...I'm sorry..."revealing the meaning of other people's discoveries" is how he likes to represent his speculations) Simcha Jacobovici, is a real winner. Not only is he Canada's finest archaeologist -- I'm sure you know who #2 is -- but he apparently can discover the truth about almost anything ever written in the Bible.
If you were not fortunate enough to see Decoding the Exodus on the History Channel, then I invite you to grab a coffee and spend some quality time reading this comical debate regarding the show. http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOexodusbeware.html
I give Mr. Jacobovici high marks for wonderful and plausible speculation. It is the imagination combined with expertise that makes a great fiction writer. He can make you believe it is possible. But does that make it truth? Does that make it history? Does that make it evidence?
To represent his most recent find as scientifically sound fact is not only humorous, but also blatantly in violation of the Anthropological Code of Ethics. Here is a portion of our American version, although Canadians may have their own version.
American Anthropological Association Code of Ethics
Article III.C.1
This "archaeologist" has surpassed the esteemed Mr. Brown (author of The DaVinci Code) on my list of abhorrent frauds. It is a shame that someone who COULD contribute so much to Biblical history instead chooses to chase fantastical theories in the name of the almighty dollar.
However, my point to this has little to do with Mr. Jacobovici. Instead, I find it ironic that so many people will cling to this one "revelation" as the proof to all they believed was false about Christianity. To believe there is a God who created everything, allowed His Son to die for the salvation of mankind, and that Man came back from the dead and physically went into heaven - to believe that requires much faith.
However, does it not take a great deal more faith to debunk thousands of years of text and evidence of that hope by your belief in an empty box with some scratches on it?
If you have seen the ridiculous amount of coverage this has received by the mainstream media, you know what I am talking about. If you haven't, then you wouldn't have found this blog anyway so I'm not going to bother explaining it. It is a wonderous thing to behold -- a Hollywood promotional campaign, that is. It is simply amazing how quickly they can occupy the attention of a massive population.
The archaeologist responsible for this "discovery", (oh...I'm sorry..."revealing the meaning of other people's discoveries" is how he likes to represent his speculations) Simcha Jacobovici, is a real winner. Not only is he Canada's finest archaeologist -- I'm sure you know who #2 is -- but he apparently can discover the truth about almost anything ever written in the Bible.
If you were not fortunate enough to see Decoding the Exodus on the History Channel, then I invite you to grab a coffee and spend some quality time reading this comical debate regarding the show. http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOexodusbeware.html
I give Mr. Jacobovici high marks for wonderful and plausible speculation. It is the imagination combined with expertise that makes a great fiction writer. He can make you believe it is possible. But does that make it truth? Does that make it history? Does that make it evidence?
To represent his most recent find as scientifically sound fact is not only humorous, but also blatantly in violation of the Anthropological Code of Ethics. Here is a portion of our American version, although Canadians may have their own version.
American Anthropological Association Code of Ethics
Article III.C.1
Anthropological researchers should make the results of their research appropriately available to sponsors, students, decision makers, and other nonanthropologists. In so doing, they must be truthful; they are not only responsible for the factual content of their statements but also must consider carefully the social and political implications of the information they disseminate. They must do everything in their power to insure that such information is well understood, properly contextualized, and responsibly utilized. They should make clear the empirical bases upon which their reports stand, be candid about their qualifications and philosophical or political biases, and recognize and make clear the limits of anthropological expertise.
This "archaeologist" has surpassed the esteemed Mr. Brown (author of The DaVinci Code) on my list of abhorrent frauds. It is a shame that someone who COULD contribute so much to Biblical history instead chooses to chase fantastical theories in the name of the almighty dollar.
However, my point to this has little to do with Mr. Jacobovici. Instead, I find it ironic that so many people will cling to this one "revelation" as the proof to all they believed was false about Christianity. To believe there is a God who created everything, allowed His Son to die for the salvation of mankind, and that Man came back from the dead and physically went into heaven - to believe that requires much faith.
However, does it not take a great deal more faith to debunk thousands of years of text and evidence of that hope by your belief in an empty box with some scratches on it?
Friday, February 16, 2007
Gays Need Sensitivity Training, Too
Are people homosexual, or are they doing something homosexual? Homophobia is often likened to racism, but is it the same? Is your race determined by how you act or live?
These are questions no one is asking in light of the recent firestorm of controversy stemming from comments by Tim Hardaway regarding the "coming out" of NBA player John Amaechi. Hardaway stated specifically that "I hate gays", and went on for several minutes during an interview backing up that sentiment.
Hardaway's attitude is just awful, isn't it? Homophobia must be one of the worst bigotries that needs to be stamped out in America, right?
Homosexuality is defined by your sexual actions. Regardless of whether you believe that is genetic or by choice, the fact remains it is not your appearance but your actions that offend or disgust others. This makes homophobia inherently different from racism. Some people don't like liars or cheaters or people who swear like sailors - some people don't like people who have sexual relations with others of the same sex. Why do homosexuals demand social tolerance equal to that given to race or gender? Perhaps they should instead receive the same tolerance given to strippers - after all, some people think that lifestyle is OK and some do not.
Personally, I have no problem with gay people and could care less what they do with their lives. I have several friends who are gay. But telling others they cannot frown upon your lifestyle by equating homosexuality with racism and sexism is ludicrous. It is a slap in the face to those who were born into suffering because of the intolerance of their appearance. These gay activists are the ones lacking sensitivity toward issues much more important and problems much more dire.
Certainly, a hate crime of any sort is inexcusable and intolerable and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent. However, there was no crime committed here. I hate people that don't respect young children in public. I hate people who insist on driving in the middle lane of the Interstate at all times. I hate Dallas Cowboy fans. Tim Hardaway hates guys that have sex with other guys. What makes the disdain for gays more outrageous than any of these others?
Homosexuality does not define who you are, only what you do. And I really am sorry, but people have every right to hate what you do. Do not insult victims of racism by equating your persecution to theirs. It is not the same.
These are questions no one is asking in light of the recent firestorm of controversy stemming from comments by Tim Hardaway regarding the "coming out" of NBA player John Amaechi. Hardaway stated specifically that "I hate gays", and went on for several minutes during an interview backing up that sentiment.
Hardaway's attitude is just awful, isn't it? Homophobia must be one of the worst bigotries that needs to be stamped out in America, right?
Homosexuality is defined by your sexual actions. Regardless of whether you believe that is genetic or by choice, the fact remains it is not your appearance but your actions that offend or disgust others. This makes homophobia inherently different from racism. Some people don't like liars or cheaters or people who swear like sailors - some people don't like people who have sexual relations with others of the same sex. Why do homosexuals demand social tolerance equal to that given to race or gender? Perhaps they should instead receive the same tolerance given to strippers - after all, some people think that lifestyle is OK and some do not.
Personally, I have no problem with gay people and could care less what they do with their lives. I have several friends who are gay. But telling others they cannot frown upon your lifestyle by equating homosexuality with racism and sexism is ludicrous. It is a slap in the face to those who were born into suffering because of the intolerance of their appearance. These gay activists are the ones lacking sensitivity toward issues much more important and problems much more dire.
Certainly, a hate crime of any sort is inexcusable and intolerable and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent. However, there was no crime committed here. I hate people that don't respect young children in public. I hate people who insist on driving in the middle lane of the Interstate at all times. I hate Dallas Cowboy fans. Tim Hardaway hates guys that have sex with other guys. What makes the disdain for gays more outrageous than any of these others?
Homosexuality does not define who you are, only what you do. And I really am sorry, but people have every right to hate what you do. Do not insult victims of racism by equating your persecution to theirs. It is not the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)