28 February 2008

What would you do?

A father in Georgia shot a man who followed his daughters home from the store and passed twice in front of his house.

This is kind of a dilemma.

What would you do? The guy should've called the police as soon as his daughters called him, I guess. But when someone's threatening your children, there's not a whole lot of "guesswork" about what you do.

First, what IDIOT follows a car of teenage girls home, regardless of how irritated he may be and however stupid the teenage girls were being?

Second, what IDIOT sees a dad with a gun waiting in the driveway and drives past the house AGAIN?

The father is claiming self-defense. (It would probably be more "other-defense," actually.)

I'm kind of from the school of thought that if someone's threatening your children, you protect your children first. Idiots following them home second.

I'm also from the school of thought of, "did you have to kill him?"

I mean, at first glance here, it sounds like the dad has a decent case, and they live in the South, after all. It'll be interesting to see how this all works out!

26 February 2008

On that "Universal Health Care" idea...

The government still thinks this (very alive) woman is dead. After multiple correspondences and proofs from her that elicited promises to fix the situation. And assurances that it had been fixed.

Do we really want these people controlling our health care?

So here's the kicker: "According to a government audit, Social Security had to resurrect more than 23,000 people from the dead in two years."

Well, there's a medical miracle, I must say; maybe we should put them in charge...

25 February 2008

One Scary Thought and One Happy, Happy Thought

I'll start with scary because that way we can end up happy: the UK parents of a baby born perfectly healthy - but projected to have some rare genetic condition - were counseled by (socialized UK) medical professionals to abort him, right up until the last weeks of the pregnancy. First off, eew - how do civilized societies promote this sort of thing? Second, this is part of the danger of thinking we understand everything. We don't. (Yes, that would be me admitting that I still have things to learn, too *wink*). One pediatrician did admit that, since the particular disorder is extremely rare, it "makes it very difficult to predict the long-term outcome for this baby." But they were ready to kill him, just in case...

The happy? Yay for parents who decided to selflessly honor their baby's life and give him a chance!!! He's a cute little kiddo! And - not that faith and hope are always rewarded so obviously and grandly - but what a wonderful surprise for these parents!

18 February 2008

A bit concerned

I've been a bit concerned lately about the presidential race, and the more people I talk to, the more concerned I get. Everyone is sick and tired of the 95% idiot, 99% corruption factor in Washington. Everyone wants something changed. And everyone is good and ready to have those changes made.


One candidate in particular promises "change." Sen. Obama articulates hope and the power of the individual. He and his wife both seem to be wonderful people who can relate to the majority of Americans, and they genuinely believe they have the solution.

That is where the problem comes in.

I've been debating whether to post anything on this topic, because I have met so many people - and more all the time - who are drawn to that genuine (as far as I can tell) idealism and hope. The promise of the American Dream. A promise to help. But I believe that so many of these people are not ones who would agree with his policies, IF they knew what they were and what the effects could or would be.

I finally decided to post because inaction when I believe the future of our country is at stake, collectively and as individuals, is inexcusable. I don't want to anger these good-hearted people - I want to help them understand what they would be voting for as "hope" or "change."

For example, from his website:
Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.
Now, he's basically saying the problem is inflation. So part of his solution is to raise the minimum wage. Rising unemployment aside, simply mandating higher wages with no economic backbone spurring and supporting that change will put more money into the economy (for those who still have jobs) - in a bad way. That's called INFLATION.

Witness the danger of ignorance. ("I don't know all of his policies, but he wants to help.")

Witness the danger of class warfare. ("I wouldn't steal my better-off neighbor's Mercedes, but the government should take their money because they don't deserve it.")

When ignorance, class warfare, and utter despair - nurtured by the same welfare state that prolonged the Depression - combine, we can fall for anyone with charisma (or establishment backing). Cases in point:
  • The Germans allowed Hitler to rise to power largely because of despair.
  • Mussolini made the trains run on time (presumably, "finally! We're ready for that change!").
  • Mao and Stalin "equalized" society (well, except for the ruling class, of course - that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it...) and managed to keep pretty decent order with massacres and labor camps.
  • Kim Jong-Il is still oppressing his people for his personal power and enrichment - something he can do because they are dependent on the state.
  • Closer to home, FDR was either misguided with good intentions and unfortunately ended up creating a welfare state by trying to artificially make everyone prosperous to a certain level, or he was slightly less nobly-motivated. Either way, look at what we have created: "I can't believe the government doesn't pay for X." "We have a right to X." "I can't do it myself."
Personally, I believe Obama is a great human being who really wants to help. I can't envision him having evil designs to create personal power through dependence. But what about the corruption in government? Obama is one (misguided but nice) person, but the corrupt will be the ones implementing his (increasingly powerful and thereby disastrous) policies. The policies he espouses that sound so good to the hopeless will take us to government-equalized misery and complete dependence on a failing government.

That's not the American Dream. It's a death sentence.

15 February 2008

Where's the problem?

Italian bishops are urging actors not to do sex scenes.


A relatively conservative religious organization is urging less porn in movies? Wonder how out-of-touch you'd have to be to be surprised at that.

But you should see the vitriol directed at them! Wow...get your asbestos glasses ready...it's not like the church is trying to outlaw it - they're just trying to reach what's left of the actors' consciences. Nothing criminal there...

14 February 2008

Out of Control

...as in Congress.

They're trying to push through yet another version of the amnesty immigration reform (HR 750) that we voters have rejected - with resounding "NO" calls, letters, etc.

They are determined to railroad the people of this country into an economy-killing legalization of illegal behavior, both individual and corporate.

They work for us. But they're overruling us. That used to be called mutiny.

I suggest it still be called mutiny.

Yes, even if they're trying to buy us off with phony "rebates."

Swamp them with more "no" calls!!!

THEN FIRE THEM. (For the unschooled in Constitutional procedure, that means voting them out of office).

Reclaim your country before the Constitution is nothing more than legend under an oppressed socialist regime.

[Update 15Feb: Apparently these bills are still in committee, so they're still working on it behind-the-scenes...we'll probably hear when they're ready to vote on it in conjunction with something Congress actually should be working on...but calling them at this point is unlikely to do anything.]

"Not Really Christian"

There's an interesting article about how the Officer's Christian Foundation is browbeating other military members about their (the others') faith, namely, that they're "not (or not really) Christian."

This is the sort of idiocy that leads to - for example - Air Force members having to fight to be allowed to have a Christmas breakfast instead of a "Holiday" breakfast to celebrate - gasp - Christmas. No one was prevented from hosting a Hanukkah breakfast/celebration or a Kwanzaa event, but it took a good deal of protest to get the "Holiday" breakfast changed to its more truthful name. Forbidding individuals to associate the event with Christmas would be anti-religious policy, in case you're wondering.

Allowing people to honor their religion is far different from endorsing it.

But these anti-religious policies are in place because of misguided (some might say "useful") idiots like the so-called "Christian" ones mentioned in the article. Harassing others because of their faith is wrong, regardless of which faith they practice. If you're blowing people up because of their beliefs, whether it's at an Iraqi marketplace or an abortion clinic, you're a nutjob. As the saying goes, "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

The thing that really gets me is that these (not all, but some) OCF members seem to exemplify what is wrong with "evangelical" culture in the US: hating and persecuting others because they don't agree with your religious viewpoints. Calling others "not Christian" when they claim they are, or "not Christian enough." You'll be hard-pressed to find anything in Christ's ministry that says "hate, label, and afflict those who are different from you."

One quote from the article that really got me (aside from the general annoyance at how people just can't manage to get along) was:
As a soldier, many times you want to believe you're fighting on the right side. It's easy to kill someone if you believe that they're going to hell and that they are religiously opposed to you.
Actually,shouldn't the thought of sending someone to hell make you less willing to kill them? I mean, as a true Christian living Christ's message of love and service?

And shouldn't you already know you're fighting on the right side? You don't have to hate other people to know that you're fighting for right things.

(Just as an aside: with the terrorists we're fighting right now, you have plenty of reasons to conclude they're horrible people without regard to their religion. You know, stuff like raping teenage daughters of political prisoners to death and other things I can't mention in good conscience because they still haunt me).

Evangelicals in the US tend to think that pure religion consists of confessing Christ as your savior, and then whether they accept your confession. But the leaders Christ taught himself gave a different definition:
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
-James 1:27
Let's work on practicing pure religion, regardless of our chosen faith or that of others. It makes all of us much happier!

12 February 2008

It started well...

Apparently Steven Spielberg was an artistic adviser (their spelling...I'm boggled as to why there are two equally-valid spellings...) for the Beijing Olympics. Until he pulled out.

I was like, 'Go Steven Spielberg!!! You tell them to stop executing political prisoners!!!' Until...

He said it was because of "China's lack of progress in resolving the humanitarian crisis in Darfur."

We'd have to boycott every country in the world, including ours, if we were to protest anyone who's not making major progress in resolving the crisis in Darfur.

Even more relevant to China would be the humanitarian crises of forced abortions and government burning of private residences suspected of *gasp* having more than one child - or not getting the government's permission before having their one child. Or maybe censoring internet access. Or a number of other things. Don't get me started on the antifreeze and lead in food and toys. And in the "Just Plain Not Nice" category, they like to beat dogs to death instead of just using one oh-so-expensive bullet apiece to take care of the feared disease carriers... a "dog-itarian" crisis among the humanitarian ones, let's say.

I mean, seriously, where were all of our rights-claiming social organizations when Beijing was chosen as the host city? I don't remember hearing an uproar, but I'd be happy to hear that there was one, even if it were short-lived...

Glad they're still on the lookout for it!

Police in the Denmark have foiled a plot to kill the Danish artist who was responsible for the offensive Muhammad cartoon a few years ago - the one that sparked rioting and death threats. Wow. The good news out of this article, to me, is that the police are still aware that the threats are real! Police are great that way!

08 February 2008

Good call, court!

A court in Nebraska has ruled electrocution is torture.

Duh! Has anyone seen The Green Mile? (I saw an edited version, and it was still horrendously disturbing all-around...)

At any rate, it's good to see that declaration at last. There are much more civilized and instantaneous ways to kill people who need to be taken out of the societal equation. Eew.

While we can still post heretical information...

A number of scientists are concerned about the possibility of global cooling.

Also in this article:
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."
Then again, it is Canadian research - I'd be more concerned with cooling than warming if I were farther north, too. *wink* But starting up a carbon credit-issuing firm might be a good idea anyway, considering the socialist agenda on the menu for our upcoming election!

07 February 2008

Thoughts for the Twister Victims

Hey guys - our thoughts and prayers are with you - here's to a speedy recovery and rebuilding.

You know that "Rebate" thing?

It's on hold.


I was all for the government returning more of my tax money, until I realized that it wasn't a "rebate" - it was a handout. Rebates are what you get when you spend money and you get some back. These "rebates" would be rebates for some people (around our income bracket), but they would also go to people who didn't pay any taxes in the first place. Kind of like giving so many credits that people make money off the Feds - oh, make that other citizens - every year.

That's not a rebate. Keep my stupid money, Feds.

06 February 2008

Give conservatives a LITTLE credit here...

So here's an interesting article about McCain and how he's ... um, fibbing about his conservative values ... to get elected.

But at the end of the article comes this paragraph:
But if those conservatives sit out the general election, they will help Democrats make history by electing either the first black president or the first female president next November.
That's phrased like it'd be a bad thing for conservatives - what is with all this assumed racism/sexism?!?! Conservatives do NOT object to people being in power on the basis of race. In fact, most conservatives I know, (myself included), have a lot of respect for Obama because he's HONEST. That's what's cool. And if I weren't sure his policies were going to prove the last forty-some-thousand straws on the camel's back that is our economic security and well-being, I'd actually vote for him.

Repeat with me now: It's not about skin color!!! Sheesh, people!!!

So THAT'S what it is!

Original link headline: "Deal-making sets us apart from chimps."

New headline: Chimps show reluctance to barter.

This isn't the first time I've seen a headline get revised from something dippy to something more reflective of the actual content of the article, but I thought it was pretty cute.

And back to that original headline, I can think of a lot of things that set us apart from chimps - wonder if I could get a grant to write it all up...