The Down-Low-Down

Coming to Terms

2008-11-05T07:37:00.004-05:00

Today is a rough day. I'm coming to terms with the fact that I live in a country where I don't think the way the majority of people do.

Obama was elected president yesterday. It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone with two active brain cells could vote for him. All you have to do is look at who he associates with (Ayers, Wright and his hate-mongering racist church, Rezko, etc.) and the things he says ("spread the wealth", bankrupting the coal industry, the Constitution is "in the way"), coupled with his extreme left voting record (support for partial-birth abortion, voting against funding for babies who survive after an abortion) and utter lack of experience, and anyone with enough of a brain stem to draw breath can see that he is the wrong person for president.

Yet we elected him.

I figure it boils down to two types of vote. The first is the vote from minorities who will vote for a minority candidate no matter what because all that matters to them is skin color. They couldn't care less about what he says, how he votes, what he stands for, and who he befriends, they just want a minority in office.

The second vote is from the people who don't understand how wars are fought and how economies work, who have worked themselves into a lather of baseless hatred toward the current administration, and then get taken in by a cult of personality who promises "change" and "hope". They don't care about the fact that "change" and "hope" are never defined, as a matter of fact they don't care about anything he says, because he's good looking, is a great speaker, has a great smile - and he isn't a member of the current president's party.

And in reality, there is a third vote, although I don't think it's necessarily a major bloc. It's the jealousy vote. You can read my previous blogs for a more full explanation, but basically it boils down to "I don't have everything I want, somebody else does, they should have to give me some of what they got even though they earned it and I didn't, and Obama's gonna make them do it!"

None of these voting blocs cares about the issues or the facts. None of these voting blocs researches a candidate and makes an informed vote. All of these voting blocs are uneducated knee-jerk voters - the worst possible way of voting.

In the mean time, a friend sent me a link to a Mike Huckaby interview of Bill Maher regarding Maher's new movie about religion. While the interview was pretty civil, Maher did get in his arrogant, elitist jabs about religion being a bunch of myths, that western Europe has "grown up" and thrown religion away, why would a loving God allow suffering, blah blah blah. After I watched the interview, I read some of the comments left by other viewers, and it saddened me to the core. Almost all of them were along the lines of "religion is for the weak", it's just a bunch of silly stories, on and on.

Everything I believe in... everything I stand for... everything by which I define myself... It's all under attack. Whether it's what I believe is right for America or my religious beliefs, it's all being villified, looked down on, ridiculed, dismissed, dishonored, and disrespected.

So this is what it was like to live in Rome as the empire crumbled...

Why Does Obama Want You to Vote Early?

2008-10-30T08:30:00.002-04:00

I've noticed something in Florida... The Obama camp has really, REALLY been pushing people to vote early. I mean, not just a suggestion, not just a "hey, make sure you vote, it's important" kind of thing. It's very much a "GO VOTE RIGHT NOW DON'T WAIT ONE SECOND" kind of thing.

Why?

Why are they freaking out about going to the polls before November 4th? Why are they insisting that their supporters vote that very day, right after the rally, don't wait until tomorrow, you must vote TODAY?

Here's why: They know McCain has been saving his advertising money for one big push during this week prior to the election. Obama is scared to death that once McCain starts to really point out his flaws, people are going to think twice. Obama knows better than anyone that his campaign is very much a cult of personality without real substance. He is scared stiff - and rightly so - that if his supporters actually start to think about his (lack of) qualifications, actually start to think about his connections with certain people and organizations, if his supporters walk out of the hall of smoke and mirrors and just simply start to think ... he'll lose them.

So Obama's strategy is to push his supporters to lock in their vote while he still has them snowballed.

There's going to be a lot of "voter's regret" after this election...

Liberalism = Jealousy

2008-10-24T12:04:00.003-04:00

(This is an email I sent to a radio show host today.)

Schnitt,

Several of your callers over the last few days, especially George, have heightened my understanding of liberalism. I used to think of it in terms of class warfare, but I now understand that it's even more basic than that.

It's just plain jealousy.

That person over there has something I want, and they should be forced to give it to me because I want it. I want something I don't have and they do have, so they should have to give it to me.

There is no connection for liberals between working hard and reaping the rewards of the hard work. There is no connection between coming up with a popular product or service and reaping the rewards. If you have something I don't have but I want, you should have to give it to me whether I have done anything to earn it or not.

Liberals don't understand the concepts of "responsibility" and "earn." They only understand "want" and "have."

George is such a perfect example of this. He saw no connection between having more kids than he could support at the level he wanted to support them. He thinks he should just go out and have as many kids as he wants, and then somebody else has to come in and help pay for them - even though they had no input as to the number of kids George had.

Do all careers earn what they deserve? No. As you said to the caller right before George, teachers and police officers and firefighters should make a lot more. But they don't, and if you choose to go into one of those careers you have to accept what they make. If you can't accept it, find another career, don't try to take wealth from someone else just because your career doesn't give you what you think you're worth.

Not long after accepting a job with a major corporation, I was asked to train a couple of temporary contractor workers. I came to find out that they were making a fair amount more than me, which I considered to be unfair since I knew more than they did and I was training them - seemed like I should be making the top dollar. When I mentioned this to my project lead, he said something that has stuck with me to this day:

"They made their deal with their employer. You make your deal with your employer. If they got a better deal, good for them. If you think you deserve a better deal, present your case to your employer, but don't hold it against them that you aren't getting what you deserve."

But the reason I think of it as jealousy instead of class warfare is because it goes beyond just money. Take one of the main planks in the liberal platform: abortion.

Is abortion about a woman's right to choose? No. Women have always had the right to choose to sleep with a man and risk getting pregnant (except, of course, in the case of rape).

Is abortion about "keep your laws off of my body?" No. The unborn child has a unique set of human DNA - it is not a bacterial growth, and it is not just another part of the mother's body. In the same way that a parent is not permitted to kill a unique human existance outside the womb, they have no right to kill a unique human existance inside the womb. The child is not "her body."

So what is abortion REALLY about? Women being jealous that a man can hop in the sack for a night, then walk away in the morning with no repercussions. They want that, but physiologically they can't have it. The reality is, their situation is different from a man's situation. So they're jealous of what a man has (the ability to walk away), and abortion is their means of getting what a man has, even if it means terminating another human existance to get it.

Liberalism is the refusal to acknowledge that not all things are equal or the same in this life - and there's nothing wrong with that. Some flowers are prettier than others, some mountains are taller than others, some people are smarter than others, etc. etc. etc. Yet instead of accepting reality, they try to live in a world of complete sameness.

Sad.

McCain and Abortion

2008-09-08T15:43:00.003-04:00

I've heard a very disturbing political advertisement (approved by Obama) on the radio several times over the last few days. In it, a female health professional states that "as president, John McCain will make abortion illegal" and "We can't let John McCain take away our right to choose."

This is just patently wrong. The president of the United States cannot make law or amend the constitution. As a matter of fact, he has nothing to do with the amendment process, it is purely up to Congress and the states. About all he can do is nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court, and even that must be approved by the Senate.

If John McCain is elected president, he cannot overturn Roe v. Wade, he cannot amend the constitution, and he cannot take away a woman's right to an abortion. The Obama campaign is blatantly lying in this ad, and is using nothing short of pure scare tactics to frighten poorly educated women into voting for Obama.

That's really sad. And dishonest. And despicable.

This Just In: Life is not Fair! Deal with it.

2007-10-15T09:14:00.001-04:00

Big stink in the Tampa, FL area: Muslim girl on a soccer team wanted to wear her head scarf while playing. Soccer rules require all players to be dressed exactly the same, so ref decided she couldn't play unless she dressed exactly like the other players. She refused to remove her head scarf, and therefore sat on the sidelines.

Of course, everyone feels sorry for the girl, and as expected, there were immediate accusations of Muslim-hatred on the part of the ref. But how about this?
1. Soccer has rules, which are published and available to all prospective participants prior to try-outs.
2. Ref's job is to enforce rules.
3. The girl was breaking the rules.

The girl wasn't singled out because she is Muslim, she was singled out because she was breaking the rules. The rules require that all players wear the same uniform so that no one player stands out and is easier to identify by teammates. She was wearing something that no one else on her team was wearing. It didn't matter if it was a head scarf or a bicycle flag strapped to her back or a screaming neon pink jersey - it was different, and therefore not allowed. So the ref did what he was supposed to do.

What if the ref decided to arbitrarily not enforce other rules? What if he allowed the other team to field an extra player? Do you really think that would be tolerated for an instant? So why is he being excoriated for enforcing the uniform rule?

And in an attempt to be fair to this girl and let her wear her head scarf and therefore be more easily identified by teammates, wouldn't that in fact be unfair to the other team? (For the record, the other team was fine with her playing with the head scarf.) So it's okay to be unfair to the entire other team just so this girl could violate rules that she should have known about before even trying out for the soccer team?

And just for grins, how quickly do you think the girl's parents would sue the soccer league and everyone else within a 30-mile radius if the girl had worn the head scarf in the Florida heat while engaging in an athletic activity, overheated, and suffered health problems?

Look, the rules have been in place for a long time. The girl should have looked at the rules, or the coach should have informed her of them on the first day of try-outs, and she should have made a decision: Which is more important, playing soccer, or following my religion's dress code? We all make decisions throughout our life, and most of those decisions have ramifications with which we must live. So here's one for the girl: If you follow a religion that has a dress code, you may have to refrain from participating in certain activities that have uniform requirements.

Please don't say that it's discriminatory. The rules are there to ensure the fairness of the competition. The girl and her parents are free to petition to have the rules changed. They are also free to start a "head scarf required" league. Just don't ask for special privileges in the current league with the current rules, especially when it's unfair to the other team. These are the rules. If you can abide by them, great, feel free to participate. If you can't, that's fine too, but you'll have to find something else to do with your time, because you won't be playing soccer in this league.

Why Elijah Dukes Matters

2007-06-13T08:08:00.000-04:00

I am a fan of the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team. (They're changing their name from Devil Rays to just Rays.) In case you haven't heard, we have a guy on the team named Elijah Dukes who has been in a lot of trouble off the field over the last couple of years. (He also had some team-related problems last year in AAA Durham, but nothing so far this year with the Rays.) The main thing lately is that he threatened to kill his estranged wife and their/her children. It's also just come out that he got a 17-year old girl pregnant a few months back. And he's dealing with some legal issues involving marijuana found in his car during a traffic stop.

As is always the case when things like this happen, some fans are calling for him to be cut or traded, while other fans are taking the position that what he does in his personal life is his business, and as long as he helps the team win (and he is VERY talented), keep him. I fall into the former category, and here's why.

The whole point of a sports team is to represent its community. The community rallies behind the team, the team plays for the community, it's a big community spirit/bonding thing. That's why we celebrate when the team wins and we feel bad or mad when the team loses - when they win, we win, and when they lose, we lose. We don't sit back and casually observe, and say, "Oh look, that team that happens to be based out of our area won a game, well good for them." No, WE won because that team is a proxy for us.

That's why a player's ability to help win games does matter. As our representatives, we want the team to do well. But the team's representation of the community goes so much deeper than just the win/loss record.

What community takes pride in being known as a bunch of thugs? What community takes pride in having no morals or ethics? What community wants to be represented as being less-than-decent people? Because when a team represents a community, everything about the team represents everything about the community. And that includes character as evidenced by off-the-field behavior. It's not just about wins and losses, it's also about being decent people.

So while Elijah Dukes' off-the-field behavior may not win or lose games, it still represents our community, and the vast majority of our community doesn't want to be represented that way. And the team owners need to take that into account.

One thing that they need to consider is that for a player to contribute to wins, the player must be available. When the player has to make court appearances or go to jail, the player is no longer available. Wouldn't it be better to have someone who can be counted on to be there?

Also, a team is a business. They want to make money. How do they make money? By filling seats at the stadium, selling gear, and getting viewers to watch the game on TV so that they can get television money. Right now the Rays have a pretty small fan base. They need to build it up to generate revenue. One way to build it up is to field a winning team, which attracts fans who go to games, buy jerseys, and watch games on TV. But if you upset those fans, especially when you don't have many of them, you can lose a lot of revenue. Lose the revenue and you can't pay quality players that attract fans. It's a spiral, and the spiral can go up or down.

So the ownership needs to pay attention. Yes, the community wants wins, but we want wins with players of whom we can be proud to have representing us. Ditch Dukes. Keep and grow your fan base. Generate revenue. Get even better players. Grow your fan base some more. Generate more revenue.

Upward spirals are a good thing. Players like Dukes don't contribute to upward spirals.

I'm Scared to Death

2007-01-14T18:53:00.000-05:00

My 15 year old daughter is going on a missionary trip to Africa this summer. She's spending a month in Zambia and a month in Botswana.

I'm terrified.

She's going to be working at an orphanage that cares for children whose parents have died of AIDS. Many, if not all, of the children are HIV-positive. What if my daughter contracts HIV? I love her desire to help others. I love her desire to declare the gospel to the lost. But the father in me just can't tolerate the idea of a death sentence in return for following her heart.

What if some rebel group attacks her bus on its way from Zambia to Botswana and kills everyone on board?

She's going with Global Expeditions and I know they would not knowingly allow the young people to go into a dangerous situation. I know their track record. But still, it scares me to death. But how can I say, "No, you can't follow the Spirit's nudge, I'm too scared."? I realize she isn't mature enough or doesn't have enough life experience to fully understand what she's getting into and therefore be as frightened as I am.

Or maybe she is, and she's going anyway.

So I pray for her. I pray, and I pray, and I pray, and I sure would appreciate it if you'd pray, too. Pray for her safety. Pray for her health. Pray that she would introduce those children to the love of Jesus, because they're not getting any love from anybody else.

Kinda weird when your kid is the person you'd like to grow up to be...

(If you'd like to support her trip, you can make a secure, tax-deductible online donation here. Click on "Missionary ID" and put in 2331798. And then pray that God would forgive me for hoping that you won't, and she won't have enough money to go.)

Are We Being Conditioned?

2007-01-14T18:33:00.000-05:00

Okay, time for a little conspiracy theory indulgence...

Six Muslim imams do their prayer thing in an airport, then board the plane in the standard hijacker seating arrangement. They ask for seat belt extensions even though none of them need them, and then place them under the seat in front of them instead of using them (maybe to be used later as a weapon?).

So some concerned passengers say something and the imams are removed. What's their response? We were picked on because we're Muslim. It's discrimination. CAIR gets involved, big outcry, and there's even talk of legislation that would levy heavy fines on airlines for discriminating against Muslims.

Then we have three Muslims who drive a truckload of car wiring harnesses from Detroit to the port of Miami. Couple of things: Many car bombers get hold of junk cars that insurance companies total and that are supposed to be demolished. But they aren't demolished, they disappear into a black market, where they are bought by terrorists, fixed up enough to run, and then used as car bombs. Using junked cars from the black market means they can't be traced. And here's three Muslim men driving a truckload of automobile electrical wiring harnesses.

Another thing is that two of the three men hid in the truck when it went through security at the port. Why?

But now that they've been arrested and (for some bizarre reason) released, what are they doing? Threatening to sue for (you guessed it) discrimination against Muslims.

Now, think about 9/11. The hijackers planned and trained for years before carrying out their plans. Years. Islamic fascist sleeper cells are known for lying in wait for years. The terrorists think long term. They hold grudges long term. They're in it for the long haul. They're not into the instant gratification thing.

So is it possible, just possible, that there is an active effort in the works to desensitize Americans to suspicious terrorist behaviors and activities? Is it just possible that they are trying to make us afraid to say something, for fear of being sued or being called prejudiced? And then, after spending years setting up this mindset, they walk onto an airplane and an hour into the flight... They walk into the Mall of America carrying a suitcase, and 30 minutes later...

Understand something: We have an enemy who is focused on killing us, and this enemy operates in ways we've never experienced before.

Why Is This So Hard To Understand?

2006-11-24T12:06:00.000-05:00

Islamic terrorists brought down an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Islamic terrorists flew two jets into the World Trade Center buildings.

Islamic terrorists flew a jet into the Pentagon.

Islamic terrorists tried to fly a jet into the White House.

An Islamic terrorist tried to set off a shoe bomb during a flight.

Islamic terrorists tried to blow up as many as 10 airliners over the Atlantic.

(Are you seeing a trend here?)

Six Muslim men start performing some ritual, in Arabic, in an airport or on an airliner sitting at the gate.

And somehow it's unreasonable that other passengers might be a little concerned? Other passengers are completely out of line for being a bit anxious?

I think it would be truly unreasonable to expect the other passengers to be aware of the facts regarding Islamic terrorists and airliners, and NOT be concerned when a group of men start chanting in Arabic.

Let's get something straight here: Over the course of the last 20 - 30 years there has been a group of people that have perpetrated heinous acts of violence and evil on innocent people, solely because they don't like the way the innocent people behave or what the innocent people believe. Those people have been followers of specific religion, have generally been from a specific area of the world, have been male, and have been of a certain age group. It is NOT racism or profiling or bigotry to be nervous when a person fitting the description just given starts chanting in Arabic. It is self-protection.

The Islamic fascists have a well-documented history of violence against innocent people. THEY are the ones who have established their own reputation. THEY are the ones that have exhibited a specific pattern of behavior. People are not being suspicious because of their skin color. People are not keeping an eye on them because of their religious beliefs. People are sensitive to them because of factual, documented, repeated deadly behaviors in which members of their religion and ethnicity have engaged. This isn't a bias, it isn't a prejudice, it's a reaction to actions taken. It is unreasonable, dangerous, and just plain stupid to ignore that history and act like nothing has ever happened.

People calling themselves Christian have shot abortion doctors and blown up abortion clinics. Throughout history people who called themselves Christians did horrible things. We routinely see leaders who call themselves Christians bilking people out of their life savings or hiring male prostitutes and doing drugs. We see people who call themselves Christians spewing hatred for homosexuals. We see leaders who call themselves Christian sexually assaulting little boys. So am I surprised when people look at the documented, factual behaviors of people calling themselves Christians, and have doubts about the integrity of my message? Absolutely not. Their doubts are well-placed, and it is my job to show them that the evil behaviors of others calling themselves Christians are simply not acceptable, and that true Christianity is all about something else (namely, love, grace, mercy, and salvation).

So why is it so hard for some people to understand that when people calling themselves Muslims establish a well-documented, factual behavioral pattern of violence and death, we recognize it and react to it?

I am simply fascinated by the fact that Islamic leaders, instead of acknowledging and combating the evil in their midst, expect the rest of the world to simply ignore the facts and act like nothing has ever happened.

This Just In:

2006-11-23T19:15:00.000-05:00

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers absolutely suck, especially the defense. As in stink the joint up. As in really, really bad.

I'm okay with the offense. Gradkowski is a rookie with a fair amount of promise. The offensive line has two rookies on the right side. Clayton is only in his 3rd year, and his 2nd year was mostly spent being injured, so it's only his second healthy year. Cadillac Williams is in his second year. All this to say that we have a young offense that is gaining experience and I believe will be improving over the next couple of years.

But the defense... We had a dominating defense several years ago. Those days are long gone. We gave away a lot of picks to get Gruden, and what we've had has been spent on the offense. Now it has caught up with us. We can't tackle. We can't defend the pass. Offenses are pretty much having their way with us.

So what to do? Well, this year is toast, trying to win is a waste of time. The rest of this season should be dedicated to giving the young guys, especially on defense, as much experience as possible. Seriously, sit the starters. Let the up-and-comers get some valuable experience.

Derrick Brooks, I love you, man, you are the ultimate role model. You are what is good and right with professional sports. Announce your retirement at the end of the season.

Smack Juran Bolden up side the head. He can be brilliant on one play, and blow chunks 20 seconds later. He needs to get his act together or get out of Tampa.

It is time for Monte Kiffin to go. It has become clear that a great deal of the coaching skill lay with his assistants, and they are gone. Monte has done a magnificent job over the years, if only in picking great assistant coaches, but it's time for a change.

Jon Gruden had better show something next year, or we will need to switch head coaches as well. He took a team that was taught discipline by Tony Dungy and fired them up enough to win a Super Bowl. But once he was truly on his own, he has sucked royally. Last year was a fluke - we should not have won many of the games we did win, and now we're seeing what a fluke last year was.

You know, if we had just kept Tony, and brought in a true offensive coordinator, and made Tony let him run the offense...

Let's Go Over This One More Time

2006-11-21T08:51:00.000-05:00

Six Muslim imams were removed from a US Air flight just the other day, here's the USA Today article. Seems while sitting at the gate, the 6 stood up and started going through their evening prayers. This concerned a passenger enough that he/she passed a note to a member of the crew. The pilot asked the men to step off the plane, they refused, security was called, blah blah blah.

Needless to say, the imams are screaming discrimination, the Council on Islamic-American Relations is promising to get to the bottom of it, and everyone is generally up in arms. But no one is saying the obvious, so I guess I'll jump in there.

If you would just turn in the terrorists, we'd stop being suspicious of every one of you.

There. I've said it. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim. Those of us outside of that religion have no way of telling the difference, so we tend to err on the side of NOT GETTING KILLED, know what I mean?

Look, we all know that silence implies consent. As long as all the "peace loving" Muslims out there allow their terrorist brethren to run around killing innocent people without making a single move to stop them, I (and a whole lot of other people) will hold them ALL responsible. You want the suspicion to end? TURN IN THE KILLERS AMONG YOU. Really, it's quite simple.

But let's look at a couple of quotes from the article. I really find some of these attitudes to be quite amazing. How about this one: "They took us off the plane, humiliated us in a very disrespectful way," said Omar Shahin, of Phoenix.

Really? Were you humiliated in the same way that the Americans whose burned bodies were dragged through the streets were humiliated? Were you humiliated kinda like the people who were savagely beheaded were humiliated? Was it along those lines?

Here's another: "I never felt bad in my life like that," he said. "I never. Six imams. Six leaders in this country. Six scholars in handcuffs. It's terrible." Yeah, six leaders who should be doing everything in their power to help the authorities catch and imprison the lawless, soul-less killers within their religion, but who instead do nothing. Wow, I feel for ya, bro. It's absolutely tragic. You went out in public in a nation that has been attacked by members of your religion and you put on a display, flaunting your religious membership, and then you're amazed that people reacted? Or is that what you wanted?

Listen, brother Omar, if you want to understand what it means to "feel bad", why don't you go talk to the families of the people who were beheaded? Why don't you chat up the husbands and wives and children of the innocent people on those four airplanes that members of your religion used as WMDs on 9/11/01? I bet they could school you on "feeling bad."

And now from CAIR: "CAIR will be filing a complaint with relevant authorities in the morning over the treatment of the imams to determine whether the incident was caused by anti-Muslim hysteria by the passengers and/or the airline crew," Hooper said. "Because, unfortunately, this is a growing problem of singling out Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims at airports, and it's one that we've been addressing for some time." WELL, DUH! Muslim terrorists flew jets into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and were trying for the White House, and just a couple of months ago they tried to take down as many as 10 trans-Atlantic flights out of London. (BTW, let's not forget Lockerbie.) You better believe there's a little anti-Muslim hysteria involved, especially at airports! Once again, if you would just turn in the killers, prove that you don't agree with them, maybe some of these things would go away.

And my favorite: Shahin expressed frustration that — despite extensive efforts by him and other Muslim leaders since even before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — so many Americans know so little about Islam. "If up to now they don't know about prayers, this is a real problem," he said. So, members of your religion kill thousands of innocent people, you do nothing but give a little lip-service to pooh-poohing what they did but don't take any real action, and somehow it's MY responsibility to understand YOUR religion? That I'M wrong for not understanding YOU? Uh, I don't think so. I don't expect any non-Christians to understand my faith, and I don't see where it's my job to understand Islam's rituals and requirements. Until your religion engages in some serious self-cleansing, if you stand up on an airplane and start chanting in Arabic, you're going down, it's just that simple.

I will not stand idly by and allow your nutjobs to kill me or my loved ones. If you don't want me to take action, you will need to take action - namely, turn in every one of the terrorists (and the religious leaders who spur them on, and the financial backers as well). Stop brainwashing your children with anti-Semitic, anti-American, "death to the infidels" crap. STOP HATING AND KILLING US, AND WE'LL NO LONGER HAVE A REASON TO DISTRUST YOU.

Geez, it's really that simple.

I'm really quite upset about the logical intelligence bit...

2006-10-27T18:44:00.000-04:00

Your IQ Is 130

Your Logical Intelligence is Below Average

Your Verbal Intelligence is Genius

Your Mathematical Intelligence is Exceptional

Your General Knowledge is Exceptional

A Quick and Dirty IQ Test

I Deserve Special Treatment (Pt. 2)

2006-10-15T19:53:00.000-04:00

I went to a Mexican restaurant tonight (Vallarta's in Wesley Chapel, absolutely fabulous). I ordered the fried ice cream for dessert. It was NOT what I expected.

I ate it.

And then I paid for it.

What a concept.

See? I told you I wasn't a fascist!

2006-10-09T23:07:00.000-04:00

You are a
Social Conservative
(26% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(60% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Republican

Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

The End is Here

2006-10-09T22:39:00.000-04:00

Mr. T has a "reali-T" show on TVLand.

Have you seen the commercial? T has not aged well.

"I Deserve Special Treatment!"

2006-10-07T10:47:00.000-04:00

Here's the story if you want to read the whole thing

Synopsis:
Ralph Paul and his girlfriend eat dinner at Angelino's restaurant. They order a full meal, drinks, and dessert. Ralph gets Seafood Verdura, which is pasta with 5 shrimp and 5 scallops, plus vegetables, which is the way the restaurant has prepared it for years with no problems. Ralph eats the seafood, decides that there should be more, and asks that more shrimp and scallops be put on his plate. He's told no, that's how the dish is made. So Ralph decides that he will only pay a portion of his bill, but the restaurant tells him no, you ordered it, you ate 14 bites of it, you pay for it. So Ralphie boy skips out on his bill.

He's later arrested for defrauding a business, goes to court - and wins. The jury said he didn't enter the restaurant planning on defrauding them, and they were impressed that he offered to pay at least part of the bill.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Let's start with Ralphie boy and his sense of entitlement, his sense of being better than everyone else. See, here's what happened: Ralph read the description of the dish on the menu, developed an idea in his head of what it should be, ordered the dish, and didn't like it when it didn't match his expectations. The chef did not promise him 10 shrimp and 10 scallops and then only put 5 of each on the dish. The description in the menu can't be that far off - they've offered the dish for years and never had a complaint. So what it boils down to is Ralphie got an idea in his head - on his own, by himself - and then got ticked when his idea didn't come to fruition. He was not led to believe something that wasn't true, and the restaurant did not misrepresent the contents of the dish.

So Ralphie decides he wants more seafood. Tough noogies, Ralphie boy. Just because you decide the dish should have more seafood doesn't mean the restaurant is obligated to give it to you. Just because you interpreted the description to mean something it didn't, a problem many other diners apparently have not had, doesn't mean the restaurant has to bend over backwards. Why does Ralph think he should get special treatment? Why does Ralph think that because he has decided there isn't enough seafood on his plate, the restaurant should scurry to give him more? What makes Ralphie boy so special?

Here comes the best part. After eating 14 bites of the dish, Ralph decides he shouldn't have to pay for it. Never mind the fact that there is an implicit contract between a diner and a restaurant that diner will ask for a product, restaurant will provide that product, and then diner will pay for that product. Never mind the fact that Ralph ate a not-insignificant portion of the dish. No, Ralph decided he shouldn't have to pay for it, and that's that. What makes him so special that he can start dictating the terms of the agreement? Why does he suddenly get to tell the restaurant how things are going to go down? Ralph entered the restaurant of his own free will, they did not force him to enter or trick him to get him to come in. Ralph asked for a dish as described on the menu and the restaurant provided that dish in a reasonable manner and in a reasonable amount of time. Why does Ralph think he can suddenly decide that he doesn't have to hold up his end of the deal, especially after eating part of the dish?

But out of the goodness of his heart (?!) Ralph offers to pay for part of the meal. Man, I wish I could do that. I wish I could go drive a car off the lot, decide I don't like the engine, and just decide to take $10,000 off the price of the car - regardless of what the dealership thinks. Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't you love to go buy a new plasma flat-screen TV, decide that you don't like the remote, and just inform the dealer that you will be taking $50 off the price? Sweet. Well, that's what Ralphie boy did. He asked for food, the restaurant delivered as described, and he decided what he would and would not pay for. Why does he get to do that, but I don't? What makes him so special?

So he walked out on his bill. The entire bill, including the drinks that they drank, the dish that his girlfriend ate, and the desserts that they both ate. He decided not to pay for any of it.

Ralphie says that he refuses to be intimidated. His lawyer says that he lives by a code of honor taught to him by his years in the Air Force. I could have sworn that a code of honor would dictate that if I ask for something and it is provided to me, I pay for it. Honor says that if you consume a meal, you pay for it. Honor says that you don't cheat a person out of money owed to them. Honor says that you acknowledge a disconnect between what you hoped for and what you got, re-align your expectations, and go on down the road. Honor doesn't cheat a business out of what is owed them. Ralphie boy wasn't intimidated, he was asked to hold up his end of the implicit agreement between patron and establishment. And good ol' Ralphie came up short on the honor thing, by a long shot.

If you order something and don't get what you expect, you point it out immediately, not after you've eaten a portion of it. Almost every restaurant I know will take the dish back and get you something else, even though they really have no obligation to do so. If you don't like the way you were treated at a restaurant, you pay your bill and never return.

Ralphie boy isn't an honorable man. He's a self-absorbed jerk who thinks the world revolves around him.

But then we get to the saddest part of all. The jury found him not guilty. The first mistake is that they misapplied the law - you don't have to enter an establishment with an intent to defraud. You can decide to defraud the establishment at any time, including after your meal when you decide not to pay for services and goods rendered in good faith. The fact that Ralph didn't decide to not pay his bill before he went in is irrelevant. The fact is, at some point he decided to leave without paying, and that is defrauding the business right then and right there.

The second mistake is that the jury was impressed that he offered to pay part of his bill. That makes it okay? He offered to change the terms of the contract mid-stream, and when the other party (the restaurant) did not agree to the change in terms, it made it okay for Ralphie to void the contract completely? I think not.

This points out something I've been saying for a long time: We need to get rid of jury trials as they are carried out today. People sitting on juries a) don't understand the law, and b) are too easily swayed emotionally. The way I see it, we have two choices:
1. Make being a member of a jury an actual occupation. Professional jurists must study the basics of American law, the proper application of logic, and the appropriate use of emotion in the decision-making process. Then they must pass an exam, be certified, and get paid for hearing a case.
2. Do away with juries completely and have cases heard by 3, 5, or 7 judge panels (which, if you stop to think about it, is almost suggestion #1).

The worst part of all of this is that Ralphie-boy is being hailed as some kind of hero. He "stood up to the man." He refused to just sit back and take it. He stood up for himself and all us "little guys."

Bull----.

He went into a restaurant, got something other than what he decided on his own it should be, ate part of it, and ran out on his bill. Then he hired a lawyer who emotionally manipulated a jury into letting him get away with it.

Code of honor? More like a code of shame.

Westboro Baptist Church is not Christian.

2006-10-05T08:38:00.000-04:00

I want to make one thing perfectly clear to anyone reading this blog who has questions about Christianity, faith, God, and all that stuff: The people of Westboro Baptist Church (the people who protest at funerals saying that an angry God deliberately killed the fallen soldier or the Amish schoolgirl as punishment for American society's tolerance of gays) are not Christian and do not represent true Christians and Christianity in any way, means, shape, or form. Anybody can call themselves anything they want, but that doesn't mean they are what they call themselves. I am a causian male whose ancestry goes back to Sweden. I can call myself an African-American female all I want, but that doesn't make me one, know what I mean?

So am I violating the cardinal sin of "judge not, lest ye be judged?" Nope, not at all. That verse refers to judging the worth, the value of another person in God's eyes. I have no idea what's in their hearts and how God views them. But I do see their actions. Their behavior is a matter of factual record, and I am supposed to hold my fellow Christians to a higher standard of behavior. I am supposed to use the Bible to teach and rebuke other Christians. So let's do just that, shall we?

The term "Christian" means "little Christ" or "follower of Christ." The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all describe (from various viewpoints) how Christ lived, things He said, things that were important to Him, etc. Christ was all about love, grace, and forgiveness. He ate with sinners - prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. He imposed a high standard ("go and sin no more"), but it was because He loved His children, not because He wanted to punish them. He was (and still is, by the way) all about changing people through their hearts, not through physical beatings and harsh rules.

Then we proceed to the letters written by Paul, much of which have to do with Christian behavior. Again, no "beat up people who don't agree with you" to be found. Paul's instructions on how to live the Christian life have a lot to do with loving and forgiving and changing hearts.

So I compare the behaviors and statements of Christ and Paul with the behaviors and statements of the Westboro Baptist Church members, and I see a huge disconnect. Simply put, they are not behaving in a Christ-like manner - not even close. I call on the members of that church to spend some serious time in prayer and Bible study, and then fall on their knees and beg for mercy. In the mean time, all of you non-Christians looking in, thinking that Westboro Baptist is what Christianity is all about - no, no way, not at all. Do NOT equate what those people are doing and saying with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

'Scuse me, Rosie? Shut your pie hole.

2006-09-24T23:04:00.000-04:00

O’Donnell: "We were attacked not by a nation. And as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people we invaded two countries and killed innocent people in their countries."

O’Donnell: "And just one second, radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."

Why do people even listen to this woman? Why is she employed? Without question, she is a complete and utter idiot.

Rosie, you're right, we weren't attacked by a nation. So? We were attacked, and we went after our attackers and those who supported them. The attackers were part of an organization, and we went after that organization. Anyone (e.g. the Taliban) who supported them was fair game, too. Certainly you're not saying that if we're attacked by anyone other than an "official" country, we're not allowed to take them out before they attack and kill again, are you? According to your logic, anyone who does not officially represent a country can come in and perform horrendous acts of inhumanity, and we're not supposed to do a thing.

Yes, we invaded two countries, and innocent people were killed. But so were the enemy. And we didn't target innocent civilians, they were casualties of war. But what about if we didn't go in? How many more innocents would be killed by further attacks? How many more people would the Taliban torture and kill - every single day? How many more people would disappear in the night under Hussein's rule? Hussein and the Taliban were routinely killing their own people, and you don't think that should be stopped?

But then the pinnacle of your stupidity: radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam. Please, Rosie, show me one case of a radical Christian beheading an innocent person. Show me one case of a radical Christian forcing a conversion to Christianity at gunpoint or blade edge. Show me one radical Christian who wants to convert the world by force, killing anyone who doesn't succumb.

Yes, there are nutjobs like David Koresh and Jim Jones. But guys like that weren't out doing the convert-or-die thing. Radical Christians may support ideas that you don't like or agree with, but that doesn't put them on the same level as radical Moslems.

You really don't understand, do you, Rosie? You want to make this a gay thing? Okay, let's. Radical Christians will tell you that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. They will encourage you to repent and change your ways. They may even condemn you, shun you, even hate you (at which point I would suggest that they are not Christians at all). None of this is anything you want to hear.

But what will the radical Moslem do to you? Scream at you? Condemn you? Call you names?

Nope. They'll just kill you. As in dead, no questions asked. Dead, Rosie, dead. They're not interested in explaining their position and hoping that you will embrace the truth. Nah, they'll just lop your head off.

Radical Islam is intolerant. They want nothing to do with anyone who disagrees with them. You either believe exactly as they do, or you are wrong. No diversity, no compromise, no exchange of ideas. Their way or no way.

Sound familiar to you, Rosie? Was I describing radical Islam, or liberal gay activism?

Wake Up and Smell the Coffee

2006-07-24T21:06:00.000-04:00

Israel is carpet bombing southern Lebanon! They're killing innocent civilians! Oh the horror! Sure, they gave warning to the civilians, telling them to leave, but they had already bombed the roads and bridges, so the civilians had no way to get out! Oh the horror!

*sigh*

Let's go over it again. Israel made concessions years ago, and pulled out of southern Lebanon. They have honored their agreement ever since. In the mean time, the "beautiful, wonderful, innocent" people of Lebanon have allowed Hezbollah to set up camp and flourish in their midst. Then Hezbollah makes an unprovoked attack on Israel.

Lebanon made their bed, and now they're sleeping in it. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET BOMBED BECAUSE OF TERRORISTS IN YOUR MIDST, DON'T HARBOR THEM! Is that really such a tough concept? IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN TERRORISTS SET UP CAMP IN YOUR COUNTRY, RISE UP AGAINST THEM AND KILL THEM OR AT LEAST BOOT THEM OUT! What is so amazingly complex about that statement?

It is time for the bleeding heart liberals to simply accept the fact that Lebanon harbored killers and now it's come back to haunt them. Oh, but wait - next the leftist loonies come back with "Israel's playing too rough! They're response is disproportionate!"

Okay, next simple truth: You can't be reasonable with unreasonable people, you can't trust untrustworthy people, and you can't negotiate with people who have no interest in negotiating. When will people come to understand this? The Islamic extremists are not interested in compromise. They have no desire to live in peace with other religions and cultures - as a matter of fact, just the opposite. They are not out to grab some land for themselves, they are not content to disconnect from the rest of the world and live in their own society. They have one, and only one, single purpose: to make every other single person on the planet think exactly like they do - or kill them. Black/white. On/off. True/false. Profess radical Islam/die.

That's IT, people. No other options. No compromise. No deals. No co-existence. Just their brand of Islam. Or death.

If you knock that kind of person down, they will get up and come at you again. As long as they draw breath, they will keep getting up and trying to kill you. They understand but one thing: kill or be killed. So if you do not want them to kill you, you only have one course of action: kill them.

I wish it wasn't so. I wish they would understand that conversion by sword results in a hollow faith. I wish they would try to convert me by showing me the merits of their tenets, the beauty of their faith, the logic of their arguments - and not the sharpness of their swords. Present your truth to me and either it will win me over or I will pay the price in the next life.

How much confidence do you have in your beliefs if you have to force people to adopt them?

Israel is doing the right thing. They are going in and killing the terrorists before the terrorists cause them any more (unprovoked) harm. The only diplomacy that should be going on is an agreement with Syria for Syria to stay out of it, and an agreement with Lebanon for Lebanon to help clean up the mess it has created. If the Lebanese people don't like what Israel is doing, then they should identify the terrorists and help Israel. If the Lebanese people are okay with Hezbollah, then they must be okay with suffering Hezbollah's fate right along with it.

The Way It's Meant to Be

2006-06-26T08:57:00.000-04:00

So I'm in a Harrisburg, PA hotel room this morning getting ready to go take a training class. I'm half-listening to ABC's morning show, and they announce that super-rich Warren Buffet is giving 85% of his wealth to the Bill Gates Foundation. I also heard last week that Gates was stepping down from day-to-day obligations at Microsoft to focus on philanthropy.

The female anchor is interviewing this "Warren Buffet expert" and says something about "is it possible that these billionaires are getting better at helping poor nations than our own government?" and I'm thinking duh! Not only are they better at it, they're the ones who are supposed to be doing it!

In a perfect world, as society matures, we should have more and more Warren Buffets and Bill Gates doing the philanthropy thing. The rich and powerful should step up to the plate and help the weak and poor. That's kinda the point of being in a society.

Unfortunately, human beings are evil in nature, and the vast majority of the wealthy have only one thing on their mind - getting to be more wealthy. Now don't get me wrong, I have NO problem with wealth, and frankly, I tend to favor the idea of having it. But those with wealth should use it responsibly, and part of that use should be caring for the sick and poor and downtrodden.

This is NOT the government's job. It is NOT the government's responsibility to take MY money and redistribute as they see fit. The government is there for national defense, treaties and dealings with other nations, national infrastructure, stuff like that. Philanthropy, charity, all of that stuff - that should come from the private sector.

Not only is it not the government's job to redistribute wealth, they are amazingly bad at it. Congress people are just like the wealthy - they see big numbers and they want more of it. They are inefficient. And they use money for things like multi-million dollar bridges in Alaska that benefit 50 people who have gotten along fine for a very long time without a bridge. These are not the people to be trusted with millions and billions of dollars of charity and financial aid.

So three cheers for Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Warren Buffet's investing prowess helped businesses grow, open new stores or expand product lines, which in turn employed more people, meaning more people were eating in restaurants and taking vacations, which means more restaurants and hotels were hiring, and everybody was paying taxes. Microsoft has changed the way we live, made us more productive, opened up lines of business of which we never dreamed, and in doing so created jobs around the world. Both of these men earned every penny by creating jobs and helping our economy and economies around the world.

And now they're using all that wealth to help the poor, the oppressed, the uneducated, the sick, and the starving. They are examples of societal leaders heading in the right direction. I hope a lot more of the wealthy and powerful follow their lead.

Democracy in Iraq: Will it Work?

2006-06-17T15:05:00.000-04:00

PC warning: the following post is not in any way, means, shape or form politically correct. Liberals and anyone not from America will also find themselves screaming "arrogant American" before they get even half-way through the post. You have been warned.

As discussed in previous posts, I have no problem with us being in Iraq:
- Bush did not lie, he was going off the same intel info that other world leaders had, they all believed Hussein had WMDs, and everybody was surprised to not find any.
- Hussein had blatantly violated 18 or 19 UN resolutions, including ones that clearly stated that he was gonna get his butt kicked if he didn't comply. (Unfortunately, the UN didn't have the guts to back up the resolutions itself, so we did it.)
- Hussein was a ruthless murderer and needed to be taken out. If we hadn't done it, the very same people who are whining about us being in there would be whining that we weren't using our power to stop him from killing thousands and thousand of Iraqis every year.
- Terrorists were attacking us on our soil as well as abroad. The Taliban supported terrorists. Hussein supported the Taliban. He had to go.

As long as the mullahs are allowed to weave hatred of everything non-Islam, and especially hatred of America, into the education system, the area will continue to be unstable and a breeding ground for terrorists. The Arabic royalty give the mullahs free reign in return for their support. The only real way to combat this is our representative republic means of governing. In other words, I agree that we need democracy in the area, to open up freedom of thought and speech, and combat the brainwashing of the mullahs.

My only concern is that the area simply isn't ready for democracy. A representative form of government requires a certain, um, societal maturity. I'm not convinced that the societies in that area of the world, or at least in Iraq and Afghanistan, are at the point where they can handle debate, compromise, study of issues, consideration of all viewpoints, and all the other things that go along with voting for leaders and having them represent the populace.

Many people in America simply do not understand the Arab/Muslim society. It cannot be compared to ours. We're not talking apples and oranges here, we're talking apples and elephants - WAY different way of life, WAY different sense of right and wrong, WAY different set of values, etc. A lot of people don't understand why Sunnis and Shias are going after each other - they're both Islam, right? Just different denominations, right?

Wrong.

Christian denominations get along because Christ never commanded that anyone who doesn't believe EXACTLY the right way MUST be killed. He basically said that if you don't get it right, things won't be pleasant, but He didn't say "kill the infidel." However, this IS the Muslim take on things - if you don't believe EXACTLY the right thing, you must die - even down to what we would consider to be ticky-tacky differences between Sunni and Shia.

But wait, doesn't the Koran say "tolerate the Christian and the Jew", etc.? Well, that part of the Koran was written when Mohammed's new religion was a tiny minority surrounded by lots and lots of other people of other religions. He was telling his followers to play nice so as to survive. But later in the Koran, after Islam had grown and had some muscle to flex, Mohammed suddenly changed his tune and headed down the "kill the infidel" path.

Oh, c'mon, Doug, Islam is all about peace and love and the ones doing all the killing are just radical extremists that the average Muslim detests. Really? Then why doesn't the average Muslim rise up in outrage and turn these people in? Why doesn't the average Muslim say, "Hey, you're giving the rest of us a bad name, and you don't stand for what we believe, so we're taking you out ourselves."? Remember, silence implies consent, and when you think about all the heinous things terrorists have done around the world in the last 30 years, the average Muslim has been amazingly quiet.

So what we have, if we drop the pretenses and political correctness, is a barbaric, tribal society, bent on "my way or the die way", where insults are remembered (and retaliated against) for hundreds of years, where decisions are made by strength and force - and we're trying to introduce a means of governance that relies on compromise, rule of law, fair treatment, etc. Can they handle this? I doubt it.

What would the Arab world be like if they didn't happen to be sitting on all that oil? Do you know that the Iranians can't even refine their own oil? They don't have the technical know-how. They ship the crude out and import gasoline. The only reason that area of the world has any technology whatsoever is because they can buy it. I would love to see what their society would be like if they hadn't stumbled onto pretty much unlimited wealth, and therefore were of no interest to the rest of the world at large.

So we were justified going in, we're doing good things there, and I think that many Afghanis and Iraqis appreciate what we have done for them and what we are giving them. But until they police themselves and remove the trouble makers who are still living in the medieval ages, they won't be ready to take the step forward into democracy.

God? or Coincidence?

2006-06-08T11:18:00.000-04:00

I'm putting together a band called the skywire project. I've been posting for musicians for about 8 weeks. I have had a lot of responses from drummers (including a response 20 minutes after I put out the very first posting!) and also connected with Leah, our lead vocalist, in short order. My daughter Chelsie plays rhythm guitar, so we had enough of a band to start practicing relatively quickly.

However, the lead guitarist and keyboardist positions were a lot tougher to fill. I got no lead guitarist responses for quite a while. Suddenly a couple of weeks ago I got three of them, but none of them worked out. Finally I heard from Mark, who sat in with us last Saturday and was a joy to work with; he's coming back this Saturday to continue our audition of him and his audition of us.

And just in the last couple of days did I get a response from a keyboardist. It's the only keyboardist response I've gotten the entire time. Jesse sounds great, very excited, and we're going to work together this Saturday.

What I'm thinking about is this: What is God's role in all of this? One thing I heard all the time, and spoke it myself on several occasions, was "be patient - God will bring the right person at the right time." Did He really? If so, why did He wait? Is it possible that maybe it just took this long for these musicians to stumble across my postings? I know that God is blessing this band, I can feel His favor upon it, but is He micromanaging to the point of directing specific people to be in it? Or is He happy as long as we have competent musicians who play music that honors Him and He really doesn't care who specifically is in the band? Could it be that it took 8 weeks for a keyboardist to reply simply because there aren't that many keyboardists in the area who wish to be in a Christian band, and not because God was trying to teach me some kind of lesson in patience?

If God is such a micromanager, why did He give us free will? If He's going to direct every little aspect of our life, what do we need a will for? Or is He directing certain critical things, but otherwise He's given us the Bible with His set of instructions, and wants us to use them to live a life pleasing to Him - and the details are up to us, as long as we stay within His general will?

But then again, why not? Why couldn't or wouldn't God be involved with individual believers on a minute-by-minute basis? He certainly has the power to do so; after all, He created everything that exists, He's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-hearing, all-everything. And we were created because He desired to have a relationship with us. He walked hand-in-hand with Adam and Eve in the garden, talking and laughing and loving with them one-on-one. Why would He create us just to ignore us or only be involved with us on an occasional, high-level basis? Is He some kind of voyeur, watching from a distance? What fun is that?

The corollary to this is: Is everything bad that happens attributable to Satan? Well, in the long run you could technically say "yes" because Satan tempted Eve and introduced sin into the world, but I'm thinking more on a case-by-case basis. For example, the praise band at my church was going through a great deal of turmoil at one point. Certain people were all "we're under attack from Satan, he doesn't like what we're doing and he's trying to bust us up." But I'm thinking, maybe it's just because some members of the band simply didn't like each other, there were some egos and jealousies involved, and maybe we just plain ol' behaved badly. I'm sure Satan took delight in it, but do we really need his direct involvement and guidance to screw things up?

Honestly, I don't think so - I think we can do a fine job of sinning on our own. I think blaming Satan for every bad thing is a cop-out and an abdication of our responsibility for our part in the situation. There needs to be a little less "Satan is attacking" and a little more "I was a real jerk, I need to apologize, and then I need to make some behavioral changes" going on.

Where Angels Fear to Tread

2006-05-28T22:17:00.000-04:00

Well, the time has come for me to wade in to the most controversial current event out there - the Iraq war.

Everybody screams about the lack of WMDs and "Bush lied." Can we give this a rest? Bush and a bunch of other world leaders were given bad info. Bush didn't spin it - they all came to the same conclusion given the info. He didn't lie about WMDs.

At one point I read about satellite photos of truck caravans heading into Syria in the days before the invasion. Could they have been carrying WMD materials? Not sure, but I'd love to see what we might find in Syria. There is also info out there leading to the conclusion that Saddam had every intention of resuming his WMD work as soon as the inspectors were gone for good. If he didn't have WMDs, he was going to eventually.

We didn't go in like a bunch of vigilante cowboys. We worked through the UN as much as possible, given the complete waste of oxygen that is the UN. There was what? 18 or 19 UN resolutions that Saddam blatantly violated. That right there was justification - enforcement of the resolutions, except that the UN has no guts.

What about the civilians that have been killed? Well, what about the civilians Saddam was killing on a regular basis, year in and year out, decade after decade? See, this is where we get into a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation. If we say, "They're a sovereign nation, they put up with Saddam, they need to take care of their own affairs," then the bleeding hearts come back with, "You're a powerful, rich nation, you have an obligation to stand up for the oppressed people of Iraq who can't stand up for themselves!" But if we stand up for the oppressed and take Saddam out before he can hurt anyone else, then we get, "You have no right to meddle in their affairs." Frankly, if we're going to get criticized, I'd rather get it for taking out a mad dictator than for sitting idly by.

And speaking of civilians, why aren't they helping? Why aren't they turning in the insurgents? If they don't like the violence, if they don't like the bombings that are killing civilians, why aren't they helping root out the bad guys? We freed them from their oppressor, they want us gone, but they won't take control of their own destiny and clean up their own house.

Finally, the recent killings of innocent civilians... Horrible. Despicable. The dark side of war.

My oldest brother served two tours in Viet Nam. One day, years after his return, he was kneeling down and I approached him from behind. I didn't make any noise as I walked across the lawn. When I got close I made a noise or said "hi" or something, and in one motion he came up out of his crouch, spun, and went into a martial arts self-defense posture. Luckily, he didn't strike, and soon his eyes focused and he relaxed. He was terribly shaken (he probably would have crushed my windpipe with a single blow, killing me), and he told me to always announce myself from a distance, because he couldn't control what he did by instinct according to his Marine training.

My point is, war is hell. It changes people. They do things they wouldn't normally do. If you have not served in a battle zone, under constant threat of enemy fire and death, you have no concept of the stress levels. I'm not excusing what was done, I'm just trying to say that there's more to it than what meets the eye.

Am I happy about Iraq? Absolutely not. Do I feel it was necessary? Absolutely. In the short term, we needed to remove a madman who was torturing and killing his own people in a reign of terror. In the long term, we needed to introduce freedom and democracy to an unstable region of the globe that was producing groups like the Taliban and Al-Quaida. As long as the mullahs continue preaching hatred for the United States, we are not safe. Only a free and open society, with freedom to speak and exchange ideas, can bring stability and peace.

And do I want us out of Iraq? As soon as absolutely freakin' possible.

Pinch-hit for Jesus?

2006-05-26T09:28:00.000-04:00

There's a new song on the radio, something about "would you take His nails", and it got me to thinking:

Would you take Jesus' place? Would you be arrested, falsely accused of trumped up charges, go through the kangaroo court, be beaten/flogged/spat on/crown of thorns, get nailed to the cross, and die - just so Jesus wouldn't have to?

And here's the catch - no one would know. You will get no fame, no fortune, no credit for what you have done. It is purely between you and Christ, He is the only one who will know. The result (salvation) will be the same, it's just that you will step in and take Christ's place.

No theological stuff here, nothing about "it had to be Christ or the sacrifice would be worthless" - the outcome will be the same, but you will have spared Christ the suffering and torture.

Would you do it? Just for Him? With no other reward except knowing that you spared Him from it?

Rebellion

2006-05-25T09:12:00.000-04:00

I was looking at musician classifieds today, saw an ad for a metal band, and decided to follow it just to see what they were like. As I suspected, the site was covered with all the standard satanist themes and imagery. I read some of their lyrics, and everything was hatred, violence, death, evil, darkness, etc. I listened to some of their music on myspace, it really wasn't music at all - the vocalist didn't sing, he basically screamed in as low of a voice as he could. If they are trying to project a message, they're doing a really poor job of it because you can't understand a word. I looked at their list of friends and messages, everything was pentagrams dripping blood, skulls superimposed on crosses, on and on.

And then I realized something. These guys think they are rebelling. They think they are flipping God the bird, that they're so powerful. They think they're fighting against something.

They're not. They're surrendering.

They're not rebelling against anything. They are simply caving in to their sinful nature. They're taking the easy way out by giving in to the world. They're taking the coward's way out by not even trying to be what they were intended to be - they're lazy and spineless.

You want to rebel? Tell the world you're not buying what it's selling!

You really want to rebel? Tell your own very nature that you won't give in!

It doesn't take power or strength to give in. That's the easiest thing to do in this world. Anybody can do it. "Let's see, the world wants me to do this, and my own nature wants me to do it too, so I'm going to go along with it, and MAN AIN'T I SOME KIND OF REBEL!" Oh, please. You're letting the world do your thinking for you, you're letting the world dictate your behavior, you're going along for the ride, and you're rebelling? What exactly are you rebelling against? NOTHING!

Man's sinful nature instills him with a desire for evil - we're wired for darkness and sin. To follow that path is not to rebel, it's to give in. It's to take the path of least resistance. It's to be too lazy to do your own thinking, take your own action, and rise above the lowest common denominator of existence.

The rebel is the one who stands up and says, "Not only am I not going to do what the world wants me to do, I'm not even going to do what my very nature wants me to do!"

Rebels. Feh.

So Much Anger!

2006-04-25T09:17:00.000-04:00

I've been working on starting a band lately. It's a Christian rock band called the skywire project (http://skywireproject.com if you're interested) and I've been advertising for musicians on a variety of Internet bulletin boards.

Apparently this upsets some people. I noticed on one board that a guy specified "no Jesus freaks" in his ads. I don't know if this is in response to my ads on the same board, but his earlier posting made no such stipulation, this latest requirement only appeared after I had posted a couple of rounds of ads.

But the real kicker was a guy who put a fake posting on a board right after I put one out. Here's what he wrote, offensive language and all:

looking for a satanic rock guitarist for a satanic rock band. satan rules, satan
is your friend, satan loves you, & satan will walk you through life holding
your hand all the way. let us praise satan for all that he has done for us &
all that he is. satan is the only true way to live. if you haven't accepted
satan as your lord & savior you are lost, & you will die an unpleasant
death in the clouds where they play yanni & kenny-g music all day &
night. oh yeah, & life will really suck.free will fuckers. how stupid does
all of this sound? ok, now put "jesus" in place of the word "satan.? has
anything really changed? No. as you see, nothing has changed except the accepted
meaning. now can you see how stupid this all is? fuck all religion &
religious beliefs (because that's all it is, "a belief"), & it's all
bullshit.

I have to wonder - why does he feel the need to respond like this? If he's not interested in being in a Christian band, couldn't he just ignore my posting and move on? Maybe if he took the time and energy he put into this posting and directed it toward practicing his instrument, he wouldn't need to be trolling the "musician wanted" boards looking for a band...

But my real question is "how should I respond?" Part of me says that this guy is so angry, so full of hatred, that responding would be a waste of my time and energy, so I should just add him to my prayer list and move on.

Another part of me wants to email him directly, maybe ask him why he hates religion so much (I suspect Catholic school, or death of a loved one), and see if I can open up a little bit of a dialogue.

The third option would be respond to his posting publicly, maybe with a lighthearted retort like "so does this mean you don't want to be in my band?" It might make me look like a reasonable guy, but I'm pretty sure it would probably set this guy off, and I really don't want a flame war on the bulletin board.

Your opinions are welcome, I'm a little lost on this one.

Why Do We Care?

2006-04-15T20:56:00.000-04:00

I am completely fascinated with our fascination with famous people. Why do we care what Tom Cruise thinks? Why does anybody pay even the slightest attention to Barbra Streisand's political opinions? Why do we put so much energy into keeping up with this famous person's marriage and that famous person's divorce and the other famous person's alleged affair?

These people play make-believe for a living! Most of them don't have a single original thought or contribution to art - they regurgitate someone else's words while acting per someone else's direction, or sing a song written by someone else. How does this qualify them as being worthy of our undying attention and unwavering loyalty, especially with regards to opinions and behaviors that have absolutely nothing to do with their area of "expertise"?

I could see being interested in what a knowledgeable and experienced person has to say on subjects pertaining to his/her area of knowledge and experience. I can definitely see admiring a great humanitarian, or peacemaker, or medical researcher, or leader - you know, someone who has made a real and positive contribution to society, someone who has helped mankind move forward in some way.

But an actor? A musician? An athlete? Why are we even the least bit interested in these people's personal lives? I can see admiring talent - "That actor really portrayed that character well" or "That vocalist has amazing range" or "That guy can really run." But there's nothing about being famous that automatically makes a person intelligent or qualifies a person as a social commentator, much less a societal leader.

Are we so uninterested in our own lives that we feel the need to live vicariously through people whose sole contribution to society is to entertain? Maybe if we took the time and effort that we put into watching "Entertainment Tonight" and reading "The National Enquirer" into something crazy like pursuing a hobby - in other words, if we got a life - we wouldn't care so much what people in the entertainment industry are doing in their private lives.

Maybe if we enjoyed a musician's music, but instead of reading gossip rags about him/her we took guitar or voice lessons and developed a little talent of our own... Maybe if we enjoyed an actor's latest movie, but instead of spending hours reading about his viewpoints on mental health we volunteered at the local food bank... Maybe if we enjoyed an athlete's performance on a Sunday afternoon, but instead of pretty much worshiping him in an autograph line we volunteered to work at a Little League concession stand...

Fascination with Sports

2006-03-25T09:36:00.000-05:00

I find it amusing how some of us get so wrapped up in sports, and I am one those types. Not completely nuts, but I'm definitely in a better mood the day after a win than I am a day after a loss. My two main weaknesses are Devil Rays baseball and Buccaneers football.

The Devil Rays have enough talent to give you hope from time to time, but not enough so that they don't dash those hopes in a heartbeat. This year we have no real starting pitching. Unbelievably we made no moves in the pre-season/free-agency. Scott Kazmir is the opening day starter, whereas he might be 5th in the rotation if he was a starter at all. He's young and he's going to be great, but he's not there yet. He had a decent rookie year last year, especially in the 2nd half of the year, but he has had some real problems in pre-season this year. When you look at our overall starting rotation, I'm thinking our opponents are salivating over teeing off on these guys.

Our closers are no better. We traded our star closer for a couple of prospects, and we can't seem to find a replacement. We brought over Mori from Japan and he promptly blew out his shoulder. Looks like we're going with closer-by-committee, which means "we don't have a closer, so we're hoping somebody will magically appear."

We do have some good points, though. Fabulous speed, some decent hitters, good defense behind the pitchers. We certainly have some triple-A prospects like Delmon Young who will come up at some point and contribute in coming years. But this year is shaping up to not be much different from years gone by.

The Bucs are in better shape. The only real downer there is that we had to re-sign Walker at right tackle, protecting Simms' blind side. Walker was a "settle for" signing - we were letting him hang in free agency while we tried to get someone else. We can't seem to land anyone, so suddenly we're touting continuity as we bring Walker back, trying to make ourselves feel better. However, there's going to be some serious offensive line talent available when we draft in the first round. I'm betting that's what they were thinking - let Walker do free agency, where he got pretty much zero interest from anybody, re-sign him cheap, and bring in some college stud to take Walker's place, if not this year, then next.

So begins another baseball season of hope and disappointment, of yelling at my computer screen as I watch games over mlb.com while in my hotel room traveling for work. Then football comes along, and I get my hopes up each week that my best friend's wife will let him watch the game with me, only to watch the game alone when she won't. All the same as last year, and the year before, and the year before that... And here I sit, more excited than ever.

Living in a Fantasy World

2006-03-20T09:23:00.000-05:00

There was an anti-war protest downtown over the weekend. This morning's news included a quote from one of the protesters: "Nothing good ever came from war."

What fantasy world is this guy living in?

Let me state for the record that war is a terrible, horrible, ugly thing to be avoided if at all possible. I also readily acknowledge that many wars have resulted in many evils. C'mon, I'm not an idiot.

But while war brings death and destruction, it can also bring good things. The Revolutionary War produced the (arguably) greatest nation on earth. The Civil War helped end the atrocity of slavery in America. The World Wars stopped the evil of men like Hitler and Hirohito. The Korean War kept North Korea from overrunning South Korea. The Gulf Wars ultimately removed Hussein from power, ending his reign of death over the Iraqi people.

The protest went on to babble about diplomacy being the only way to resolve conflict. It's really important for people like him to wake up and face reality. Hitler and Mussolini and Hussein and their ilk are not interested in getting along and playing nice. They're not interested in compromise and deal-making. They're interested in power and control and they are happy to take it by force. The only way to stop evil men such as these is to remove their ability to exert force over others - they are not going to give it up voluntarily.

I don't like going to war, and it should only be considered when every other avenue of conflict resolution has been exhausted. But war is a fact of life, and living in some la-la land of nicey-nice and pretty flowers doesn't do anyone any good.

And we had all better get used to it, because we're going to be at war with the terrorists for a while. These people have one goal: eradicate everyone who does not subscribe to their belief system. Period. End of story. There is no compromise. There is no diplomacy, no deal-making. There is no co-existence. You're either one of them, or you're dead. That's all they know. You can't sign a treaty or work out a deal with someone with that mind-set. The only way to keep them from killing you is for you to kill them. I wish it wasn't that way.

All Dressed Up and Nothing to Write

2006-02-19T21:40:00.000-05:00

How is it that I can be one of the most opinionated (to the point of being boorish) people on the face of this planet, yet when I finally sign up for a blog, I can't think of a thing to write? Maybe it's because I have so much I want to say that I just don't know where to begin...

I guess I can go with the basic intro posting. My name is Doug and I live in Florida. I am a Christian, married with two teenage daughters, and I play bass. Oh, yeah, there's that job thing - technical instructor for a big corporation, I mostly develop and teach courses on Internet technologies. One of these days I'll launch into a rant about off-shoring of American jobs, the lack of respect for employees, insatiable greed on the part of CEO's, but when you get right down to it, I have a job just to finance my bass guitar-related purchases. Okay, I also am honored to serve my fellow employees by transferring knowledge to them that makes them better at their jobs or more employable if they lose their jobs, but that's just the official story - it's really about the bass purchases.

So am I Geddy Lee crossed with Paul McCartney with some Vic Wooten thrown in for fun? Nah. I'm a mediocre hack who just plain ol' loves to make rumbly notes. I probably lean towards the Paul McCartney school of melodic bass lines, throwing in little fills at the end of phrases, and I do some rudimentary slapping and popping on a couple of songs, but nothing spectacular. I have four basses: Spector NS 2000-5Q 5-string, Dean Performer CE fretless acoustic/electric, MusicMan Sterling 4-string, and a Dean 4-string that I defretted a couple of years ago. I play through a Line 6 Bass PODxt Pro multi-effects pedal into a Gallien Krueger 1001 RB II 2x10 combo, and I also have a Crate BX160 1x15 combo as well as a few stomp box pedals.

I play in a band called The Painless Truth. I don't want to get all mushy, but my bandmates, Christina on drums and Sean on lead vocals and guitar, are two of the greatest people I've ever known. As if that wasn't enough, my two daughters sit in with the band most of the time, Kayla on background vocals and Chelsie on rhythm guitar. Yes, I play in a rock band with my daughters - how cool is that? Sean's wife, Becky, also sings with us a bunch, and Casey plays keys with us most every Saturday night. We have another friend, Cyndie, who also adds to the bgv's on a regular basis. Mostly we play on Saturday nights, leading worship for The Solid Rock Cafe. We're starting to branch out a little; we're playing at the Florida State Fair tomorrow, we're part of the Real Fest Christian music festival, and we're playing at the Gates of Graceland (for the second time) in June. There's also an outside chance we might get to open for a major Christian band in July, but I don't want to say anything until some contracts are signed... Right now we cover praise and worship tunes as well as the occasionally radio cut, but Sean and I are working on several originals.

I think that's about enough for now. Check back regularly - I guarantee that eventually I'll spew out something that will offend you, tick you off, or at least get you thinking.