Presuppositions, two by two

On July 7, there's going to be a grand opening of an interesting but controversial attraction in Northern Kentucky. An Australian named Ken Ham runs a ministry called Answers in Genesis and has already built one attraction called the Creation Museum in the same region. The new site is called the Ark Encounter.

Some people oppose these types of endeavors mainly because they don't believe in God. That's understandable. I mean, if you don't believe in God, there are many things in life you don't have to worry about. For example, if there's no God, there aren't any consequences for sin. In fact, if there's no God, there's nobody to say what sin is.

That's got to be a great way to live your life... do whatever you want and not have to worry about any repercussions. However, if someone comes across evidence that demonstrates the reality of God's existence, you'd have to completely change not just your worldview but your entire lifestyle. That'd be a bummer!

However, not everybody opposed to what Ken Ham is doing are atheists. Some people who believe in God say that the message this project seeks to spread is antithetical to science. They say that stuff like this makes all Christians look stupid.

But I have a question for those people; if the word "science" means knowledge, (and it does - I looked it up) shouldn't these projects be considered "science" museums? I know they might be presenting conclusions about the evidence that may not conform with what you believe but the evidence is still real.

Science is supposed to be about seeking knowledge, no matter what conclusions we find. If studying the evidence leads to a conclusion that contradicts our presuppositions, what's the most likely reason; a bad conclusion or a bad presupposition?

God bless ISIS

I wonder if I should be concerned. I realize that some of my recent posts have been dealing with what might be considered controversial topics. Heck, if someone reading doesn't know me personally and my sense of "snark." they might even consider them inflammatory.

I've noticed that in the past few weeks, some of my page views have been coming from places in Europe. Am I now on one of ISIS's watch lists? If so, I just want to take the opportunity to say a few words to that potential audience.

You claim to be followers of the Prophet. He recorded, "If you were in doubt as to what We revealed unto you, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before you: the Truth has indeed come to you from your Lord: so be in no wise of those of doubt." Surah 10:94

If you are true followers, you know the Book to which he refers is the book I know as the Bible. Of it, the Prophet also recorded, "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message, and We will assuredly guard it from corruption." Surah 15:9

So, according to the Prophet, what is recorded about Isa (Jesus) in my Bible should be an accurate representation of the things he did and said while he was on Earth two millennia ago. One of the things he taught was that we should love ore enemies, bless those that curse us, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who persecute us.

I don't know how you feel about my previous posts but if they enraged you and you're seeking to avenge the Prophet for something I've said, just know that I love you and will pray for you and may God bless you.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

"But this was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control." -1984, G. Orwell

The "he" in that quote is the protagonist from 1984, "Winston." The context is that he's in the middle of considering the world stage at the moment. Of the three world powers, his homeland, Oceania, was presently at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia. Everyone else had been brainwashed into believing that this was the way it had always been but Winston remembered that not long before, it had been the other way around.

Winston worked at the Ministry of Truth and it was his job to monitor the news and make sure that all reports and records conformed to what was considered to be the official record provided by Big Brother. If something came in that went against that, it was rewritten to align with whatever the official propaganda was and then all traces of the actual story were destroyed.

The ultimate result of this was to effectively erase people's memories of the event. However, Winston consistently had access to the truth, so his mind wasn't so easily duped.

Orwell's work was sci-fi about the 80's written in the 40's so it's pure fancy, right? Well, consider this story about how 60% of Democrats don't think the Orlando shooting had anything to do with Islam. Right before our very eyes we see the Orwellian nature of the current administration. Even worse, they don't need a Minitrue to scrub the news for them... the press is doing it for them without coercion! What's more, we've got our own Miniplenty telling us the unemployment rate is under 5%.

Ultimately though, the ones to watch for are the Ministry of Love and the Thought Police.

Wanna mess with the IRS?

You know all those tax forms you fill out when you start a new job? Like the one called W-4? You know what that's for, right? That's where you instruct your new employer just how much of your paycheck you'd like them to send to the IRS each pay period.

Well, did you know you can fill out a new one at any time and your employer will adjust that amount? The system is set up like that in case you ever have any changes. Maybe you had a baby and you need to change your number of dependents. Maybe a child grows up and starts to claim himself as a dependent.

Whatever the case, the amount you have withheld isn't written in stone. Some people like the feeling of getting a big refund so they set it up to have a little extra withheld each week. That's kind of stupid because it's like loaning your money to the feds, interest free. But hey, it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. Do whatever floats your boat. Personally, I try to set it so they take just the right amount so that when I do my taxes at the end of the year, I don't get a refund.

Anyway, that same system actually allows you to reduce your withholding to zero. You could set your dependents so high, they don't take anything out. Now you'd still have to set that money aside to be able to pay your taxes when they're actually due on April 15^th but imagine what that would do to the federal government if everyone did that.

You see, they spend that money as soon as they get it. How shocked would they be if they didn't get any for an entire year?

On orchestrations and overtures

George Lucas said, "Music is the magic dust of movies."

If you're like me, you missed the TNT broadcast the other night of the AFI Lifetime Achievement Award honoring John Williams. Fortunately, I knew I wouldn't be able watch it live so I watched it today on the DVR.

As I watched, my recurrent thought was, "Who's going to take his place when he's gone?" But then I kept thinking, "Who came before him?"

At the end, when Williams gave his acceptance speech, he shared a story about Steven Spielberg and the first time Spielberg showed him Schindler's List. Williams recounted how much the movie, without music, had impacted him and how he had to go outside to gather his emotions. When he came back, he told Spielberg that this movie needed a better composer. Spielberg replied, "I know but they're all dead."

I realized at that moment how fortunate we all are to be living at this time. Sure, it would have been amazing to live in the age of the greats like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. It's like composers grew on trees up until about 150 years ago but then the industrial revolution came along and the Renaissance died.

At least the music hasn't died. We might only have one great composer in our time but he's left his mark on our culture. It was overwhelming hearing them roll through the clips of so many familiar themes... E.T., Jaws, Superman, Close Encounters, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Star Wars. It's just incredible to think one man could create so many different sounds that are recognizable the instant we hear them.

Of course, the one that's probably the most recognizable in the world is timeless and it's my personal favorite, Williams's 1984 composition, Olympic Fanfare and Theme.

"That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."

A few posts back, I linked to a clip from The American President. That movie is packed full of blog ideas so let me do one now.

In that same clip, President Shepherd (Michael Douglas), in reference to his reelection opponent, Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss), says, "Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it." He then goes into a spiel about Bob, a Republican, not being interested in solving problems but rather, making voters afraid of something and getting people to vote for him.

The movie speech is definitely inspiring. Heck, in the edit room, I'm sure someone could make Hillary Clinton look inspiring. But in reality, Bill Clinton was naturally good at this kind of speech. On teleprompter, Barrack Obama's also good at it.

But the irony is, when they do it, they themselves are guilty of the very thing Shepherd accuses Rumson of doing. Shepherd is making people "afraid" of Rumson by accusing Rumson of making people "afraid." There's some liberal logic for you. And in the movie speech, Shepherd goes on to make people "afraid" of global warming and guns.

In real life, Obama does the same thing. He keeps trying to make Americans "afraid" of global warming, guns, the rich, free speech, you name it. Obama's career would have never gotten started without finding and exploiting the fears of his constituency. Hillary's trying to do it, too, but she just doesn't have the flair for it. For one thing, she's so robotic in her delivery but her biggest problem is that she just doesn't have a shred of credibility.

Anyway, they all get their tricks from "Rules For Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. I wanted to introduce him to the continuum of my blog to write about him occasionally.

You majored in what?!?

I want to come at the Stanford rape story from a different angle. I wrote about it here but I also made a provocative post about it on my facebook wall. That started a conversation with a female friend who called me out on poor timing. A few days later, I also had a male friend do the same thing privately. What I found ironic is the number of women who privately applauded me.

In case you're in the dark, I took the opportunity to address the problems with rampant alcohol consumption on college campuses. Without excusing the rapist, I was pointing out that if the woman wasn't drunk to the point of passing out or if she had a sober chaperone, the incident wouldn't have happened.

The point here is that, inappropriate timing or not, nobody told me I was wrong. So why is booze such a big deal in our centers of higher learning? I'm not asking that rhetorically. I didn't go to college and I don't drink... I never have and at this stage in my life, it's likely I never will. So I honestly can't answer the question myself.

Also, it's apparent sex plays a large role in the lives of college students. That I can verify from some of the conversations I hear from my collegiate Uber passengers. Sometimes, I feel I'm invisible when I hear how openly they talk about it with each other... guys and girls.

All of this leads me to wonder about the nature of these institutions these days. Are our colleges and universities really about education or have they simply become the most expensive brothels in history? Wouldn't it be cheaper and safer to just let kids lay around and get drunk at home for four years?

What about report cards?

Post #70.

A couple of weeks and I'll be finishing month number three, a quarter of the way to my goal. A month and I'll hit 100 posts. At 300 words each, that's 30,000 words.

Am I a good writer? I don't know. I'd like to think so but the jury's still out. I know someone is reading these things because in 2½ months, my blog's had over 1,000 views. But apart from dependable ol' Mom hitting "like" on facebook with each entry she reads, I don't know what you think.

In case you're reading this but you're new to my blog, I recommend going back and reading my older posts, especially the first two. If you want to know what I'm trying to do, those are critical to "getting it."

However, getting people to read it isn't the point. My stated goal is to see if I have what it takes to be a writer and if so, to maybe even launch a writing career. I don't know what that'd look like but I'm just getting started. But even beyond all of that, I really want to make a difference.

As a result of the road I've travelled in my life, I've read many different things. I've studied a combination of topics that've given me a worldview that I want to share with others. In recent years, I know conversations I've had with a lifelong Democrat have brought them revelation and they're now highly disillusioned with that party. I didn't brainwash them but I did shine light into dark corners and they came to their own conclusions.

If this project and any future opportunities that come my way have the same kind of results, I'll know my effort wasn't a waste.  So, please, comment if you're so led.

You're a grand ol' flag...

Flag Day has come and gone so maybe I can get away with being a little irreverent on the subject.

I support the right to burn the American flag as a form of protest. In other words, I oppose laws banning flag desecration.

I just ticked off a lot of people, I know. And there's no point apologizing because I'm not sorry and I doubt I'll ever change my mind. Don't get me wrong... it's not because I like or support people who burn the flag or walk on the flag or do any other disrespectful act to the flag.

In fact, I think they're idiots. I think they don't have a clue about the price that's been paid over the past three centuries in order to protect their right to do so. But being an idiot isn't a crime. Being offensive isn't a crime... at least not in America.

I think Michael Douglas did a pretty good job as Andrew Shepherd in The American President. Though he plays a Democrat and I'd argue most points he makes in the role, I agree with his line, "The symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. (It) also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest."

That's exactly the point. No matter how patriotic you are, if you're an American, your allegiance isn't to a piece of fabric. It's to those words written on parchment, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

You'll never see me burn a flag and if I see someone doing it, I'm probably going to find out what they're protesting and go support that. But if I see you attacking someone for burning a flag, I'm going to defend the flag burner.

Sticks and stones, or something like that

After my last post, my thoughts lingered on perverts and Islam and Obama. I started thinking about how the left's explanation for why Muslims hate us is that we do so many things to upset them; that we made them so mad for invading Iraq, for being in Saudi Arabia, the we help Israel fight Hamas. They say that if we just left everyone alone and minded our own business, the Islamic world would be our friends.

I find that terribly hard to believe. One reason is that a while back, in an attempt to broker a peace deal between Israel and the late PLO leader, Yassar Arafat, the Israelis once offered him more than for what he had asked. The Israelis really wanted a peace deal and they were willing to pay a steep price for it. The catch was, Arafat never wanted peace. The whole reason for his existence was strife. A deal would've put him out of business.

Not much has changed. The recent negotiations that Secretary of State, John Kerry, had with Iran weren't much different. We got nothing out of the deal, the Iranians got more than they expected, and the Iranians are even closer now to getting nukes than they were before. The icing on the cake was the billions they got to fund terrorism.

No, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of doing what it takes to make the Islamic world like us, at least in that regard. But they still hate us and they're still trying to kill us. Over seven years of playing nice and what's it getting us? Boston. Paris. San Bernardino. Orlando.

So what's the problem? Do you think maybe they hate us so much because someone's calling them religious perverts and they can't get to the Namecaller-in-chief?

Who're you callin' pervert, Mr. President?

I don't suppose it should surprise anyone to see President Obama and Donald Trump get into a war of words. And while I'm certainly not a fan of Trump, I have to admit that the President has me scratching my head over his remarks on Islam.

He, and others, insist on characterizing the Orlando shooter and ISIS of "perverting" Islam in order to justify their actions. What I'm wondering is exactly how they're doing that. The Qur'an and the Hadith are pretty clear on what they have to say about homosexuality - it's a sin.

And in nations that adopt Islam as a legal system, that makes it a crime... punishable by death. In fact, 11 Muslim-majority nations have made it a capital offense. Polling in those nations show that anywhere from 80-95% of the population think homosexuality is morally wrong.

So, just who's perverting Islam, Mr. President? ...ISIS or whoever's advising you on what Islam teaches?

On top of this, the President uses terms like "hate" to describe the Orlando shooter. From what I've read, the nations that execute individuals caught in the act claim to do so out of compassion. they teach that the "guilty" parties are in misery so execution releases them from their bondage to their sins.

And while I'm thinking about it, compare all of this to Christian fundamentalists. Yes, we also teach that homosexuality is a sin and we also have compassion for those guilty of it, as well as any other sin. The difference is that we don't want to kill anyone. We just want to share the message that someone shared with us; repent of sin and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

You're free to ignore us and you're even free to be mad at us. Just don't think we're perverts.

This little light of mine

It's been a long time since I stubbed my toes on anything. There could be a couple of different reasons. One is that we've been in our house for almost 7 years, so getting up in the middle of the night has become somewhat familiar. Another is that it seems like just about all of our furniture is kind of toe-friendly, if you know what I mean... soft couches without exposed legs, bedpost legs that are fat and round. Plus, our layout creates fairly clear and straight paths.

But I think the biggest reason is that our house never really gets that dark. The neighbors have a streetlight and when we moved in, I installed some on our garage, so at night, there's always this dim glow throughout most of the house from the light coming through the windows. Now, if there's ever a power outage in our neighborhood, that's a different story.

Isn't it amazing, the difference a little light makes? Have you ever been in such darkness that you couldn't see your hand if you held it right in front of your face? But even in that kind of darkness, isn't it amazing how much difference just the slightest amount of light can make?

Sometimes, I come home late from Uber-ing and I go in the closet to change clothes. To keep from disturbing my bride, I close the door and just the little light from my cell phone is enough to help me see what I'm doing.

As chaotic and violent as our world is becoming through the darkness of sin, it's not hard to imagine what happens if someone shines a little bit of the Light of the World by way of living their own life as a follower of Jesus Christ. How brightly lit is your world?

Uber me back to the ballpark

1997.

That's the last time I followed Major League Baseball with enthusiasm. Born and raised in Northern Virginia in a post-Washington Senators era, Baltimore was my team. Cal Ripken, Jr, Brady Anderson, Mike Mussina... the mid-90's were heady days to be an O's fan.

For two magical seasons in '96 and '97, they were competitive with Davey Johnson at the helm. He led them to the post-season each year but it wasn't without turmoil. Johnson never got along with hands-on owner, Peter Angelos. With future Hall of Fame second baseman, Roberto Alomar, serving as a catalyst, Johnson was forced out the day he was named AL Manager of the Year.

All of this came on the heels of several strikes and lockouts and many baseball fans were getting fed up with the sport already. Add to that the beginning of a 15 year stretch of losing for the Orioles and I just lost interest.

But I have to admit, two decades later, I get the feeling the ice might be starting to melt. I've mentioned before that I drive for Uber in Washington. One of my new experiences coming with that is becoming acutely aware of baseball in DC. The Nationals are hot right now and I don't go a day without giving a ride to at least one fan.

Business-wise, it'd be foolish of me NOT to listen to the games on the radio while I work. For one thing, it gives many of my riders entertainment with something they enjoy. But just as importantly, if the Nats are at home, it gives me a way to know when the game's about to end so I can head to the ballpark to be available.

What's all this mean? I think I might be becoming a "curly W" fan.

Ask not what your country can do for you, or something like that

Once again, if collectivism is beneficial to humanity, why does it have to be forced? Most people accept living in a family setting, in a town, in a state, even within a national governmental system. Collectivism has its benefits. It reduces workloads while increasing quality of life. But at what point does it become unacceptable to us?

If we're honest, nobody would say they'd be perfectly content to live their entire lives in complete isolation. In fact, if someone said they would be, I'd suspect they have a mental disorder. And as such, it's incumbent upon us to be able to live in community with each other.

In community, we've learned that it's more efficient if we each specialize in something to meet a specific need for the entire community as opposed to having to meet every one of our own needs by ourselves. One of us is able to produce all the food needed, another all the shelter needed, and another all the clothing needed.

But what happens when someone decides to take a day off? Or a week? Or forever? Some people are simply lazy. Even productive people get lazy sometimes. The collectivist system breaks down when the community guarantees everyone's needs will be met, even if they don't produce anything for the community.

Selfishness is the default setting of human nature. If you don't believe me, look at a baby. There's no one more selfish than a baby, crying when he's hungry or soiled or just plain sleepy. And he won't be quieted until his needs are met, without regard for others.

On the other hand, selflessness has to be learned. And no collectivist society can long survive unless all members know and exercise complete selflessness.

Back to Ind vs Coll

So, why is communism a dirty word? Many old enough to remember what the world was like prior to the end of the Cold War bristle at the idea of collectivism. Meanwhile, younger generations, many of whom embrace the ideas suggested by the likes of Bernie Sanders, are at odds with such sentiment. They see the ideals of socialism as justice, fairness, equality.

So where's the disconnect? How can one generation despise collectivism while the next romanticizes it? Forgive me for my lack of a better word but I'd say it's simple ignorance... on both sides. And it's not actually new to this generation.

Just as some glorify collectivism today, there have been others before. Think Johnson's "Great Society" or Roosevelt's "New Deal." These were all about "progress" and "helping those who can't help themselves." The catch is, Hitler and Stalin kind of got the same ideas from Marx.

But while there is that connection between Western Progressives and the European tyrants of the eary-1900's, not many conservatives would suggest that the American counterparts were so despotic. Even still, most are quick to denounce any form of collectivism as evil. But why?

Well, the bottom line is that we, as individuals, typically reject the parts of collectivism that cause us to lose. We might accept it when we benefit at the expense of others but when we find ourselves amongst the "others" and someone else is reaping what we sowed, we resist.

That's where communism gets its ugly history. Those who sought to implement it quickly discovered that human nature tends to exhibit a selfish side and the only way to overcome that is to force people against their will to do what needs to be done.

So, if collectivism is beneficial to humanity, why does it have to be forced?

The Day After

Sorry, but I can't help myself. Where's that dead horse?

In the midst of this Stanford rape story, I saw an article about campus rapes. (Forgive me but I didn't save the link and I don't remember what site it was on.) It seems that claims have been made that 1 in 5 women on college campuses have been raped. The article cited a study that debunked that claim and found that it's actually more like 1 in 50. Now, they were quick to point out that that's still too often, that just one rape is too many.

However, I'm even wondering about the 1 in 50. Maybe it's because I never went to college, I've never been drunk, and I've never raped anyone, but even that still sounds high. I mean, the typical university has something like 10,000 students? And over half of those are women? So, at any given moment, there are over 100 rape victims on the average campus and we're not doing anything about it?

It makes me wonder if instead of rape on our college campuses, we don't have a plague of regret. I mean, how unreasonable is it to think Girl gets WAY too drunk and loses inhibition, goes wherever she's led by Boy, wakes up in his dorm room the next morning not remembering how she got there or what she did, has to do the walk of shame, and utterly regrets getting so drunk?

I can certainly believe that 1 in 5 college women have experienced that feeling. But does that qualify as rape?

Again, I come back to my point of preserving the English language. If there's a blur happening between the words "rape" and "regret," do me a favor and let's stop it before it gets out of control.

One more on rape

I don't like "beating a dead horse" but I've never let it stop me. This one isn't about Stanford but it is about rape, a specific rape.

Ben Roethlisberger.

Love him or hate him, he's a great NFL quarterback. However, if you hate him, I'm guessing you also think he's a rapist. For the record, yes, he did pay a settlement to one woman who was interviewed by police after they had been together one night. However, it's also the record that he's never been charged with a crime for that or any other incident.

My past two posts have been an effort to get people to make a distinction between "reasons" and "excuses" and I want to use Roethlisberger as an illustration.

I'd like to think we still operate under the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Well, to prove guilt, you have to ascertain the facts and then use judgment to determine guilt or innocence based on those facts.

With Roethlisberger, the facts are:

1. His party went to three separate bars that night.
2. The girl was already at the first bar and was one of several who accepted free drinks from Roethlisberger.
3. The girl followed his party to the other two bars and continued to accept free drinks from him.
4. The girl interacted (flirted) with him throughout the night.
5. She was led to a secluded area but was not forced to stay, where she and Roethlisberger had physical relations.
6. When she rejoined her friends, she was disheveled and shaken and they later contacted the police on her behalf.
7. She and Roethlisberger were separately interviewed and he wasn't charged.

Those are the facts. Is it enough information to determine if it was rape? Well, that's where judgment takes over. What's your judgment?

More on Stanford

Now let me take a swing at this from the other side of the plate.

In my last post, I bemoaned being chastised for pointing out that the girl being too drunk was one of the reasons the Stanford rape happened. It turns out that to the other party, me saying so implies that the guy's actions were justified.

I made no such claim but as I pointed out in that post, many of us are confusing "reasons" and "excuses."

There's a big problem if we let that confusion continue. We actually enable the rapist. You see, that was his legal defense. His lawyer laid out the reasons why this incident happened and then tried to argue that it wasn't rape as a result. Perhaps this lawyer is also clouding the distinction between "reason" and "excuse" or perhaps he's aware of the differences but he knows the jury isn't and he's playing to that.

Either way, that's a dangerous place to go. As I said in the last post, there's always a reason something happens. Good or bad, right or wrong, if you have enough information, everything can be explained. In fact, if you want to exercise proper judgment in determining guilt or innocence, it's critically important to ascertain the reason why it happened. Only then can you properly determine fault, if any.

In this age of political correctness and even more so with the rise of an anti-PC presidential candidate like Donald Trump, it's important that we don't lose our ability to communicate with each other. Expressing ourselves is so much more that what clothes we wear or what bathroom we use. We have to be able to have discourse with one another without fear of being misrepresented.

Otherwise, we're in for an arduous and painful descent into idiocracy.

On Stanford and reason

What's happening to the English language? Are we becoming so undereducated that we don't know the difference between words?

The recent news story about the Stanford rapist generated many conversations, to be sure, but one I had led me to wonder why we can't do a better job expressing ourselves.

Of course the guy was guilty of rape. I never questioned that. However, if we, as a society, want to learn from incidents like this, we need to be able to analyze why they happen. And in the process, we have to be able to draw the distinction between "reasons" and "excuses."

In other words, there's always a reason "why" something happens but the judgment of guilt or innocence comes based on whether or not someone's actions are justified based on those reasons.

For example, breaking the windows on a locked car isn't justified if you're doing it to steal something our of the car. However, if it's a hot, sunny day and the driver left a baby in the backseat, it is.

In my conversation, I was breaking down the reasons this rape happened. One of them is the guy's character being accentuated by his impaired judgment. However, another is the girl's availability coming as a result of a lack of consciousness.

We should be able to say as much without assigning guilt to either party. Maybe it's because I have an engineering type of mindset but I'd like to think it's also simple common sense; there's a mechanical failure, you find the cause, you fix it, then you let the court decide if anyone is liable.

It should be the same here; the incident happened because... Then let judgment dictate whether or not it's rape. Has political correctness gotten so bad that we can't follow that simple process?

Be fruitful, or something like that

It's been a while so I thought I'd come back to my individualism vs collectivism conversation. I've tried to demonstrate that despite the best intentions of leftists, true collectivism doesn't work. However, despite claims from some on the right, pure individualism isn't possible, either. Let's dig a little deeper.

In it's purest form, what does individualism look like? Have you ever seen those wilderness survival reality shows? You know the ones with a guy with a camera on his own out in the wild? Individualism is kind of like those reality shows, but with no camera.

A lone individual, on his own in that setting, is responsible for his own food, shelter, clothing, and security. It's possible, but he'd have to set priorities in order to make it. The first priority would be water, then food, then maybe temporary shelter. As those needs are met, he could then begin to focus on long term needs, like replacing worn out clothing and finding or building better shelter. Meanwhile, he'd have to focus on security at all times.

His initial food supply would have to come from basic hunting and gathering but as more of his needs are met, he might begin to have time for cultivation in order to grow and store food supplies.

Of course, if he ever finds and secures a mate, the work load could begin to be shared and he'd have more spare time. That might lead to children, who while at first, might mean extra work, eventually, they'll become additional hands to also share the workload.

And now, we're well on our way to collectivism. But that's my underlying point in this discussion. While nobody wants a completely collectivist society, we don't really want to live as individuals, either. Some might say, "The more, the merrier!"

It's a small world after all?

By now, you should know what Uber is but you might not know what UberPool is. Picture sharing a ride with a random stranger.

Last night, I picked up two guys at the Lincoln Memorial. They'd been sightseeing on the Mall all day and were ready to go back to their apartment. One of them, Evan, had just arrived to begin a summer internship at a law firm.

As they're getting in, I got another request to pick up Hannah at the GWU Medical Center. We get there to pick her up and as she gets in, they introduce themselves to each other and out of the blue, Hannah asks Evan if he went to USC. By his tone, I could tell he was surprised by the question but he answered, "Yeah, why? Did you?" Turns out, they were both at USC at the same time, had some mutual friends, and had actually connected briefly through a campus online dating site.

She's originally from Seattle, was a med major at USC, did nursing school at Johns Hopkins, and now works at Children's in DC. He's originally from Georgia, got his degree from USC, but I forget where he said he's going to law school.

The thing that prompted me to blog about this is that of all the hundreds of passengers I've picked up in the months I've been doing Uber and of all the potential passengers that could've been brought together on that particular ride last night, to have what should've been two random strangers actually know each other was freakishly odd.

Will this be the next "Harry Met Sally" kind of story we see on the big screen? I wonder who they'll get to play the Uber driver?

Oh, by the way, they're going out to dinner tonight.

On Couric, Limbaugh, and Truth

If you haven't heard, Katie Couric's in the news. I don't mean she's in the news for reporting the news. No, she's actually making the news these days. It seems she's got a gig doing "independent journalism" but in truth, what she's doing looks less like reporting and more like some Goebbels propaganda.

It's no secret that she's an anti second amendment activist and a recent project she's been working on is meant to promote her cause. However, it turns out that she couldn't make her point without some drastic and deceptive editing of interviews she conducted with gun rights supporters.

But that's not what I'm writing about here. That was just some background. What's really bugging me is that I wouldn't even know about this story if Rush Limbaugh hadn't talked about it on his show. Rush has a policy of not giving MSNBC any free press. Rush has an audience in the millions and MSNBC has maybe a couple of hundred thousand. He avoids running any audio clips of their broadcasts and he avoids talking about them as much as he can and he insists that his ban is helping drive their numbers down.

Whether he's right or wrong, their numbers are definitely down, but I can't help but wonder why he doesn't do the same thing with the rest of these leftist hacks. He's always bemoaning the garbage that's discussed by the "drive-by's" but the fact is, most of us wouldn't even know about it if he didn't bring it up. The only people that get their "news" from those sources are generally the people who also think it's actually truth.

So Rush, if you're reading, just let the hogs go ahead and wallow in their own excrement. Stay away and we won't have to smell 'em.

Mechanics, fishing instructors, what's the difference?

When you have a problem with your car, you take it to a mechanic, right? You probably don't have a garage with a lift or chests full of tools or all the specialized diagnostic equipment. The mechanic's shop's equipped with all these things because that's what he does for a living. And since he has so much stuff, it's not exactly convenient for him to make house calls.

My brother's a mechanic and he's been known to do that from time to time but that's also a matter of convenience. I mean, if the car won't run, how are you supposed to get it to the shop? If the mechanic can come to you, it's so much easier.

The past few years, the world's been given the impression that America doesn't want to make house calls anymore. Our President's throwing the doors wide open and telling everyone, "Come on in! And bring your problems with you. Central Americans, Mexicans, Syrians... we don't care who you are or what your intentions are. We know there are problems where you live and that you want to get away so come here, we'll take care of you."

The thing is, these people still love their homelands. If not, why do you see so many Mexican flags? They don't want to be Americans. If they did, why do we have to press 1 for English?

Wouldn't it make more sense for us to help them fix their own countries? That's what we used to do. We have that reputation. The world knows that just because we invade a country, that doesn't mean we're there to stay.

What ever happened to that old proverb? "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for life."

The defintion of poor?

If you're following along at home, you should have an idea by now of what it's like to be an Uber driver. I'm sure every city has its own kinds of people but DC definitely has some good ones. That's certainly a well I'll be able to frequent for blog ideas. Today is no exception.

Yesterday, I picked up a well-dressed, well-spoken, and well-mannered African-American who was probably in his early to mid-30's. He had his young son with him who looked to be not much more than 1 year old. I'm in the habit of letting my passengers initiate conversation, just in case they don't want to talk.

He started off asking me about my day and when I asked him about his, he explained how grateful he was to have received  a check in the mail but that it was too late for him to make it to his bank so he had to catch an Uber to go downtown to find an open bank.

About 20 minutes there and 20 minutes back gave us quite a bit of time to chat. Turns out, he's the oldest of 8 kids, he's an Army reservist, he served a tour in Kabul, and he's suffering a mild case of PTSD. Something that stood out was him talking about a class he attended at some point and how he was influenced by something the instructor taught.

He said that the instructor asked the class to define "poor." He remembered that many of the responses had to do with a lack of material possession and a few referenced what might be called a poverty of relationships. But he said the thing that moved him and that sticks with him to this day is how the instructor defined it...

"Passing Over Opportunity Regularly"

Raisin Cain?

There's a story on Islam making its rounds. Seems there's a question on the accuracy of an interpretation of an idea within Islamic circles. In case you've never heard this before, many of these radical Islamic terrorists are perfectly willing to die as martyrs by committing suicide in an attack that kills or wounds infidels. They do it with the notion that in so doing, they'll receive eternal rewards in paradise, among which are 72 virgins.

Well, this new story points out that there's a question about the validity of that interpretation. First of all, "experts" aren't in agreement over the number. However, my reason for discussing this is a question over the translation of the word that some believe means "virgins." Turns out, some experts say that the correct translation of the word is "raisins."

Imagine if Achmed, the car bomber, wakes up in paradise thinking he's going to be surrounded by beautiful women and instead, gets a pile of dried up, wrinkled grapes.

I read several articles on this issue to research this post. Some of these people go at each other like a bunch of Calvinists jumping on some Armenians. (Sorry, that's an inside joke. Maybe I'll explain it later.) They're pretty passionate about their opinions, that's for sure. But even after Rush Limbaugh made light of it yesterday, I'm left with an awkward feeling that EVERYONE is missing a very important point.

Does it really matter how that should be translated or is there a bigger question that needs to be addressed? I mean, think about it, what's more important; the reward these nuts get or the idea that they're being encouraged to kill other human beings? If these Islamic "experts" are so hung up on what clerics are teaching, why don't they start with that?

Is it time for another "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" moment?

One article inspired my posts on individualism vs collectivism. This morning, I read a warning to the droves of young people being wooed by Bernie Sanders and his utopian message. It does a great job detailing just how ugly collectivism can get but it doesn't really address why.

Socialism/communism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it comes with a compelling draw, especially to the downtrodden. If you're poor and hopeless, of course you're going to respond favorably to a "Robin Hood" who blames the rich for your woes. It's not that hard for Robin Hood; he just has to find enough people with hungry bellies and get them to look in the windows of those drinking champagne while he whispers, "Rise up!"

Robin Hood might be a power-hungry despot just using revolution as a means to an end but then again, he might be sincere. But when you realize the real reason why these revolutions all end in tyranny, you have to ask what difference does it make why Robin Hood wants revolution.

So why do all of these collectivist experiments eventually slide into oppression? Simply put, because of you... and me and everyone else. Human nature must be one of the most reliable forces in the universe. You might not be able to consistently and accurately predict what an individual will do in a given circumstance but you can do it with the masses.

Yes, the revolution's foot soldiers can be inspired to rise up and crush the bourgeoisie, but when they're finished, they get disenchanted when they realize they're no better off than they were before. So, if Robin Hood wants to keep his own place, now he has to keep the mob from killing him... he restricts their speech, movement, association and assembly, he limits their resources, and most importantly, he takes their guns.

Mohammed vs the world

I used to get my news from the pages of The Free Lance-Star but these days, most of what I learn comes from my facebook time-line. Occasionally, some of what was in the paper actually came from my own hand. Over the years, I think I've had more than a dozen letters to the editor published. I was reminded of one today when I ran across this story from Breitbart.

This Czech lawyer might get labeled by a lot of different groups but the only label I have for her is accurate. In her speech, she gets much more critical of Islam than I did in my letter but I was restricted to 300 words. The common point for both of us is that Islam isn't compatible with Western ideology. That point can be made without being critical of Islam, so saying so shouldn't be characterized as Islamophobic.

Fundamental Islamic doctrine calls for rule by an Islamic state around the world. It allows for Jews and Christians to remain so, as long as they pay a tax to the state. It doesn't allow for Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, or any other ideology. In an Islamic state, an atheist would have to convert to Islam or be executed.

These aren't meant to be criticisms of Islam. In fact, if you asked an Islamic cleric, he'd probably proudly inform you that this is all true. But therein lies the problem. Western governments, including our Constitution, are built to protect freedom of thought. A Christian and an atheist may not share beliefs but neither one of them are looking to incarcerate or kill the other over their disagreement.

So, if Muslims don't seek to operate within our Constitution, why should they be protected by it? Do they have the right to restrict our rights?

Team Cap or Team Iron Man?

I'd seen all of the Marvel movies so far and I hadn't detected any in-your-face political subtext until I saw the newest Captain America tonight. But I don't think it's a bad thing, at least not in the way they address it.

Collateral damage.

If you are now or ever have served our country in the armed forces, I'm sure those two words send chills down your spine. I've never served but I do think of myself as an astute student of history and from what I can tell, there are four ways to view collateral damage.

I shudder to imagine that anyone would relish it but understanding human nature, I have to accept the possibility that there are some who do. The horror stories of Nazi Germany suggest as much.

Another kind of person may be indifferent to it. They may not get a thrill but they have no remorse. "It's a means to an end." "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs."

The third kind of person would say it's horrible and tragic but unavoidable. Maybe they are callous enough to say it's the cost of doing business or maybe they view it as a noble sacrifice. Either way, they regret it but accept it.

The final group says we can't accept this. We have to find another way. They would rather "fall-on-their-sword" than harm an innocent.

Without giving away any spoilers, that's the moral of this story; how should the Avengers deal with collateral damage? How should we?

I can say that I'm one of those third kind of people. In fact, what nailed it for me was this line from the movie by one of the heroes:

"If I can do what I do but don't, when something bad happens, it's my fault."

Mellonomics

I spent two posts talking about fountains to get to Andrew Mellon. Most of my conservative friends understand how tax cuts have positive effects on the economy. In recent history, we've studied them under Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush.

Well, Andrew Mellon might be considered the father of the modern tax cut. The US income tax had only been around about a decade when he got appointed to serve as Secretary of the Treasury under President Harding. During his nearly 11 year tenure, he pushed Congress to enact a lot of legislation that effectively lowered the top bracket from nearly 75% to less than 25%. At the same time, the bottom bracket went from 4% to 0.5%.

The things that opponents then and now consistently contest are that tax cuts are an expense that we can't afford and when we give such big cuts to the "rich," we're doing it on the backs of the "poor." If you believe that, you should probably stop reading now because you're an idiot.

One of Mellon's inspirations was Henry Ford. Ford was selling his cars for $3000. Ford's genius was to reduce the price to $380. If you're one of those idiots I mentioned before but you're still reading, you probably think Ford was crazy and you're wondering how it turned out for him.

Well, Ford's increased volume at a lower profit margin more than made up the difference... he made MORE money by REDUCING the price?

Taxes work like that, too. If the "rich" don't get punished so badly for making money, they're going to try to make as much as they can. And while they're at it, they're going to hire the "poor" to help them. We don't have to take their money; we just need to encourage them to spend it.

Another wet one

OK, I have to confess, that last post about fountains was secretly a staging point for this post. I really wanted to write about Andrew Mellon (of Carnegie and Mellon fame) but I had to explain why first.

About a year ago, before I was driving for Uber, I was working for a utility construction company and we had a job near the intersection of Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues in Washington. The small triangle they form is between the Newseum and the National Gallery of Art. In that triangle, there's a little park with an old fountain.

A year ago, that fountain wasn't working, the vegetation was overgrown, and the sidewalks were crumbling. The fountain appeared to be a huge bronze casting and there was a bench on one side with an inscription explaining the origin of the fountain.

Andrew Mellon was a contemporary of John D. Rockefeller and Henry Ford and at one time, was the third richest man in the world, just behind the two of them. He also served as the Secretary of the Treasury to three Presidents and became a generous philanthropist in his retirement. One of the things he did was donate his vast art collection and millions of dollars to build the National Gallery of Art. This fountain was paid for by his friends as a memorial to him.

Years ago, there was an episode of The West Wing filmed on the location and at that time, the fountain was still in service. However, at some point since, it had fallen victim to neglect.

Until now.

Over the past few months, someone has restored that little park and brought that beautiful fountain back to life. The next time I'm there on a sunny day, I'm going to get a picture of it for facebook.

Water, water everywhere

Do you realize how many fountains there are in DC? I love water fountains. Not only can they be mesmerizing to watch but who doesn't feel relaxed by the sound of moving water? (...unless you have to pee)

I've always known there were a lot of them in our nation's capital, but since I started driving for Uber and especially since Spring has sprung, I've been learning just how many there are. Downtown, it seems like there's one on every corner.

The Neptune Fountain in front of the Library of Congress and the WWII Memorial fountains have to be among the boldest and best known but you would not be doing yourself a disservice if you ever made an effort to expose yourself to others of these works of art spread around the federal city.

One of the amazing things about them all is who has paid for them. Yeah, there are some that were funded by tax dollars but I'm not outright opposed to that. It's only foolish if we had to borrow the money to build them. But these things were built during better times, when America was strong and flush with cash. In fact, not only is it fiscally smarter doing stuff like that then, it also has to help politically by showing off to any potential enemies just how strong we are.

Some of the fountains being built today, not only do they bring a contemporary feel to the city, they're also privately funded. Builders are often adding water features to make their properties more appealing to prospective tenants. However, many of the best fountains have been built through charitable giving. The WWII Memorial did get some public funding from the feds but a lot of the money came from private and corporate donations.

Of crime and punishment

In my last post, I introduced Austin Peterson and the Libertarian Party to my labyrinthine train of thought and now, that's taken me down a new rabbit hole. One of the planks in the Libertarian Platform is criminal justice reform. In some ways, they share the position with the Democrat Party.

What I mean is that some view the American criminal justice system as simply a racist nation's way of ridding society of undesirables by rigging the system is such a way that certain groups are targeted, tempted, and trapped for crimes they're more likely to commit that other groups. Meanwhile, other groups are more often guilty of particular crimes that receive lighter punishment.

There is demonstrable evidence to support their claims but the real argument isn't over the problem. It lies in the solutions. Some propose that we lighten the consequences for the crimes that these supposed "victims" are committing. A few might suggest that we stiffen the punishments on other criminals to level the playing field.

Whatever you think, it's certainly a contentious matter and not one that should be quickly dismissed. The reason is that if the government can target a particular group, what's to stop it from targeting any group? Right now, society looks unfavorably on illegal drug use but what if we ever reached a point where society looked unfavorably on Christianity?

One thing is sure though; the solution has to be better than ignoring the problem. That could lead to anarchy. Just consider what may happen if we bypassed the entire criminal justice system altogether. What if no matter what the crime or the punishment were, the executive had the power to change the sentence by decree? (see Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe's recent action on felons' voting rights)

Do you trust a man's wisdom that much?

Third party musings

It would be fair to say that I'm no fan of Donald Trump. I think he's a vulgar, unprincipled, pompous blowhard with no discernible attributes that qualify him to seek the Republican Presidential nomination. Unfortunately, there were enough GOP primary voters who disagreed with that assessment and voted for the guy anyway, giving him the prize.

So, like many people across the country, I'm faced with a quandary. I won't even consider voting for the lying and corrupt socialist who's masquerading as a Democrat but I don't know how I can vote for the lying and corrupt Democrat who's masquerading as a Republican.

For the first time in my life, there may be the potential for a legitimate third party contender to make an impact. The Libertarian Party will soon have a nominee and it looks like it will either be former Republican Presidential washout, Gary Johnson, or Fox News contributor, Austin Peterson.

From his past forays, I know enough about Johnson to say that I think I'd just as soon vote for Trump. However, Peterson is only 35 and as such, he's relatively unknown. I know he's a sort of internet and social networking guru. I think his biggest claim to fame is that he practically turned Judge Andrew Napolitano into a social network phenom.

Does any of that qualify him to be President? I don't know but what qualifies Trump? What qualifies Hillary Clinton? This is where due diligence comes into play. Are you the kind of person who will sign the contract to but a car without doing any research on it? Or do you do some homework and maybe even compare it to other brands first?

Are we ready to hand the keys over to someone who would be the youngest American President in history?

Happy Birthday, Israel!

How often does someone get a second birthday? Around 3,800 years ago, God made a promise to a man named Jacob and in the process, changed his name to Israel. That moment could be marked as the official creation of the nation of Israel.

Of course, through the lens of hindsight, we know that Jacob's progeny didn't always live up to their end of the deal so God had to enforce some consequences and Israel nearly got erased from history. However, 68 years ago today, Israel had a second birth.

I ran across this interesting story that looks at Israel's "Independence Day" from the perspective of Christians living there. It was fascinating to try to view the parallels between them and us. Israel is pretty much a nation built on immigration, like the US. In Israel, the predominant people group has had to learn to co-exist with various other minority groups, like the US.

Among these minority people groups, there are some who willingly co-exist peacefully while there are others who seek to become the predominant group and perhaps ever get rid of the current majority. Is there a parallel here? You be the judge.

One thing is certain though, Arab Muslims living in Israel would celebrate the destruction of the same people who give them more freedom and a better quality of life than they could experience anywhere else in the region, even with their ideological peers. What does this say about the difference between Islam and Judaism?

And what does it say about American Democrats who seem hell-bent on denying the rights of Israel while sucking up to Muslims and refusing to acknowledge the connection between terrorism and Islam? And finally, what does it say about the American Press who seem to be ignoring all of this?

As for Friday the 13th

While channel surfing, I noticed that on several stations, they were running Friday the 13th marathons. Maybe I was a little bit out of it but it took a few minutes for me to figure out why. I mean, it's not like it's Halloween. Why on Earth would they be showing...?

Oh. It dawned on me what the date was. Anyway...

It gave me an idea for a post. Are you superstitious? Do you fear Friday the 13th? Personally, I can't think of any bad luck I've ever had on Friday the 13th but there have been several Saturday the 14ths that've caused me to wonder who hates me.

The most memorable one happened in the mid 80's. My best friend growing up lived on a farm. His family had several large bird houses where they raised quail and pheasants. They also ran a hunting preserve so sometimes they would put some of the birds out in the fields for hunters but many of the birds they would sell.

Once, I had the "privilege" to travel with my friend and his dad up to New Jersey to deliver a few hundred birds to a customer. We were in their pickup going up the hill on the Delaware River Bridge when the truck broke down about a hundred yards from the crest. I don't know how high that bridge is but it was high enough to make me pretty scared with the wind blowing and the trucks blasting by us.

Of course I survived or you wouldn't be reading this but it was still a pretty harrowing experience. There have been other Saturday the 14th incidents that led to a broken finger and a blown motor but it's going to be hard to surpass that Saturday afternoon walking on that stupid bridge.

Addiction and detox

I've never been drunk or high in my life. At times, I've been around others who were and I enjoyed being in their company... sometimes. I understand the effects that drugs and alcohol have on our minds and bodies but I've never been attracted to it. That's not to say that I look down on anyone who does. I just never acquired a taste for it.

Knowing what I know, I've always been intrigued by accounts of detoxification. I enjoy the bio-pics of entertainers overcoming addictions, like Walk the Line (Johnny Cash) and Ray (Ray Charles). These men had tremendous talent and for all I know, it may have been enhanced by their addictions. I'm not an expert so I can't say but it's obvious that their addictions did harm their personal lives.

I can't imagine how someone going through the process of breaking an addiction feels but I understand what's happening to them physiologically. By it's very nature, an addiction is the result of the body becoming dependent upon regular consumption of a substance. That bond between mind and drug is not easily broken. For whatever period of time it takes to rid the body of all traces of the substance, the mind cries out in demand for more. however, if the individual can survive that process, the sober mind will return and can regain control.

Right now, this country is getting ever more addicted to socialism. Mot many are willing to admit there's a problem but the body is crying out. I'm wondering if electing Donald Trump isn't America's way of checking into rehab. If so, we're about to begin a painfully chaotic detoxification period but if we can see it through, America could come out the other side stronger and wiser than any other nation in history.

On Confederate memorabalia

We'll be celebrating Memorial Day in a few weeks and I intend to do a dedicated post for the occasion but there are other things I'd like to say on the topic so let me get started here.

Confederate history and heritage are a big deal where I live. Within 20 miles of my home, there were 6 Civil War battles and over half of all Civil War battlefields are within 100 miles. Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson were fellow Virginians and their battlefield strategies influenced modern day warfare. As a result, here in Virginia and throughout the South, they and others have been lionized with memorials.

However, their "cause" was marred by association with slavery. That's manifesting itself today in calls to purge society from all of these tributes. The logic is that if someone defended the institution of slavery, they were by default, a racist, and not deserving of such honor.

Personally, I agree with the idea of not publicly recognizing the Confederacy itself. The Confederacy was formed to defend slavery, was rightfully defeated, and is unworthy of honor. For that reason, I think it's a bad idea to use public funds to create a Confederate Memorial of fly a Confederate flag in a state-recognized setting.

But when it comes to recognizing individuals, I think we have to evaluate the person as a whole on their own merits. For example, through his own words, Jefferson Davis, even in defeat, can be shown to be a vile racist with no redeeming virtues worthy of honor.

However, upon his surrender, Robert E. Lee humbled himself in defeat and went on to serve our nation as an educator. Why can't we honor him for his contributions to the United States and his devotion to the service of her people?

Time for a primer

Something I'm discovering to be tough in this little blogging project is finding a lowest common denominator for the level at which I want to write. There are some topics where I'll admit a high amount of ignorance while others I might be able to call myself an expert. However, this blog isn't just about what I know; what you readers know is also important.

I can wax poetic on something but if you don't have a clue about it, you won't get it and you'll stop reading. So, my challenge is giving enough information to let you know what I mean while simultaneously making my point with brevity. If I ever post something that makes you wish you could raise your and ask a question, you can. Just leave a comment on the blog and I'll be happy to explain.

There have probably been posts to date and there will certainly be some in the future that could create this kind of issue. Please, don't be shy. I said at the outset that my goal is to make people think and I know when I think, I have questions and unless I get answers, I won't learn much.

This makes 40 posts for my blog, well on the way to my goal of 365 in a year. There are roughly 11 views per day so I know someone is reading. I have several drafts in the works but while working on one in particular, I realized that there will be a wide range of understanding on the selected topic so I have to be sure that I craft it in such a way that almost everyone will get it.

I know I said I want to create "dumbfundities" but I don't want to create confusion.

As in the days of Daniel

"(They) answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods" -Daniel 3:16-18

Ol' Nebby K thought pretty highly of himself to have built a statue of himself and then order everyone to worship it. If you can imagine that kind of vanity, it's not so hard to imagine the rage that followed.

Despite the theories behind "progressive-ism," mankind hasn't changed much, at least not in the past 2500 years. There are still vain men in power and there are still men faithful to God facing persecution for not bowing to that vanity.

This post was prompted by an article about a Harvard professor seeking to lord it over evangelicals but that's not by any means the only example. In the past couple of decades, there have been countless cases of scientists and teachers being ostracized for their lack of faith in evolution. And in the past few years, the high priests of climate change are calling for the heavy hand of government to come down against the infidels to their religion.

At some point, persecution of Christians is to be expected, Jesus prophesied such things for anyone willing to follow him. However, he also spoke of a harvest. That implies that no amount of persecution could crush the church. The outcome of the account of Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace gives us more reason to believe that.

That Harvard professor might feel snug and smug in his ivory tower but his will is no match for God's.

Mum's the word

This is where I could share a funny story of Mom having to do with Diet Coke or a chandelier...

But I won't.

For one thing, I value my own life too much to risk that kind of harm. But mostly, I love Mom just enough that I don't really want to cause her that kind of public embarrassment. So, those stories shall remain confidential.

Besides, in my relationship with her, how we've gotten along hasn't had near the impact on me as how I've observed her relate to others. I've got a reputation for being sarcastic, even snarky, and for being a straight-shooter.

I don't get that from her.

When dealing with others, you'd be hard pressed to find a kinder, gentler soul. She exemplifies politeness to strangers and is a real butterfly in social settings. Her impact on me is that I shudder to think how prickly I'd be without her influence on me.

That's not to say she won't speak her mind, even if she's wrong. She's passionate about several things, one of them being how she thinks her children should comport themselves. Any doubt on that could be quickly dispelled by asking my brother. In fact, in the past couple of years, I think she's beat herself up pretty hard over her relationship with her own mother.

Some reading this already know that my Granny passed away last December. What you may not know is the devotion Mom showered on her as she slowly deteriorated. Mom has a lot of painful memories of the struggles she had as a caretaker but the memory I have is that she never gave up.

As frustrated as she was, she remained diligent. Granny was never lacking in anything, especially chocolate milkshakes. That's what I love about my Mom.

Trumped!

I've stayed away from commenting on the GOP primary until now because...

I was mad!

And too busy. The showdown in Indiana Tuesday came at a bad time for me. I've been working on meeting requirements for an Uber bonus so I haven't had much screen time to keep up with the blog. But hey! That's good for you! All of my thoughts have just been stewing and they're primed and ready to go now.

First things first, despite the spin, even in these latest states, Trump hasn't won anything that impresses me. Yes, he won by "YUGE" margins in the Northeast states. But if you looked closely enough at the returns, you'd see that all the votes cast in the GOP primaries combined didn't add up to what Bernie Sanders got for a second place showing in the Democrat contests. In other words, if everyone voted together in one primary, Trump came in a DISTANT third to Clinton and Sanders.

If you really want to see how "popular" Trump is compared to Cruz, consider this: In the 5 states that voted April 26, including Trump's home state of New York, Trump got less than 1 million votes... COMBINED! In Texas alone, Cruz got nearly 1 1/4 million. Overall to date, Trump has received about 10.7 million votes, Cruz 7.3 million, and all the other candidates combined have won about 9.3 million.

Whether you like Cruz or not, he was campaigning for the support of many of those 9 million voters whose candidates didn't make it all the way. That's the way the system is set up but Trump saw his weakness in that area so he did what he does best. With his lies and name-calling, he managed to convince enough Hoosiers that Cruz was the liar.

Imagine that!

Time to roll up the sleeves

What is government? I ask because listening to people talk about it, I get the impression that the predominant view is that "government" is some powerful alien that conquered us and now we're forced to live under its oppressive rule. The catch is, I seem to remember learning something about "government" getting its power from the consent of the governed.

Abraham Lincoln was fond of Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. He had a tremendous influence over the early development of the Republican Party because of his view that slavery was antithetical to the ideals laid out by the founders. He had other inspirations as well, but Jefferson's work was forefront when Lincoln remarked that the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

So with that said, again I ask, what is government? If it's "of the people," I assume that means that the government is run by people of the nation, not by outsiders. If it's "by the people," I assume that means that its power is granted to it from the people. And finally, if it's "for the people," that should mean that the only reason the government exists is to serve the people.

But if all of this is true, why do so many people complain about the government? Are they just a bunch of masochists? I mean, I think the complaints are justified; the government does do some pretty stupid stuff, but it's your government. If you have a problem with it, in a way, it's your fault.

Now, is all of this to say, "Shut up and get over it?" Not exactly. Instead, think of this as my way of saying, "Stop being so ignorant of what the people we put in government are doing! Go fix it!"

'Oh stay, O pride of Greece! Ulysses, stay!

I'm a "ditto-head." That's an affectionate term Rush Limbaugh has for those who regularly listen to his program and agree with him. During the current Presidential election campaign, more so than ever, Rush has been having to explain why so many people are attracted to the message of the Democrat Party and reject what is actually best for th country.

Sure, the Democrats seem to be compassionate because they demonize the rich and make promises to the poor. Who doesn't love Robin Hood? Well, the Sheriff of Nottingham didn't but nobody cares about the villain.

But what if we're being duped? What if Robin Hood was the bad guy? Well, trying to dissect a fictional story to determine such things is an exercise in futility. However, real life is very real and questions of a "true or false" nature have serious ramifications.

In other posts. I have and will continue to highlight problems with socialism, or collectivism, if you will. But widespread awareness of the reality that socialism doesn't work doesn't change the fact that so many people still believe it's the best way to run a society. The question that I've never heard Rush satisfactorily answer is, "Why?"

The conclusion I draw is that a soothing lie is more desirable than a painful truth. Yes, the benevolence of socialism is a lie. However, the alternative is that we all have to work for a living, that we're all responsible for our own fates, that we're not victims and nobody owes us a thing. Though that's the truth, it's a painful and unacceptable reality to many.

Ultimately, the only hope we have of avoiding the rocks is if the masses realize that the sirens of socialism, while singing their beautiful song, are only luring us into decay and destruction.

More on Ind. vs Coll.

I've been analyzing an article on the topic of individualism vs collectivism. It's a subject that gives me a lot of ideas so I want to come back to it again.

Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives are fond of saying that government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. Briefly, what that means is that they shouldn't be giving grants or subsidies or tax breaks to individuals, companies, or fields. This gives the recipients an unnatural advantage against their competitors. In the absence of such aid, they would be subject to the usual ebb and flow of the economy.

In those past posts, I've yet to stake a position on the question of which is proper, individualism or collectivism. All I've covered so far is that each has its faults and merits. Don't expect anything different here.

For example, almost 200 years ago, the country moved its resources and goods around almost exclusively by water. Whether it was sailing ships, steam boats, or canal barges, government policy everywhere supplemented the private sector to build and maintain canals, wharfs, and ports. To a small extent, they still do but that was eventually surpassed by the favor shown towards the railroads. And later, that was overtaken by the highways and airways.

My point is that we, the people, are essentially the "lords" of this democratic republic and we ultimately decide what works best. Granted, we don't always get it right. Throughout our history, we've come up with ideas that needed help to get off the ground and those running the show gave the help but even still, the idea never took off.

In the end, we are free to pick winners and losers, if we want. We just have to be prepared that sometimes, we get behind a loser.

The Flood: pre-meditated or a fit of rage?

If you don't believe the Bible, if you don't accept the Genesis account of Noah's flood, you might want to skip this post. For everyone else, this one's inspired by the soon-to-be-opened Noah's Ark exhibit in Kentucky.

According to Genesis, the flood occurred roughly 1650 years after creation but I've always wondered about the nature of the flood. Was it just a supernatural event that God sent at that time or was it more like a ticking time bomb that God set up at the beginning?

My understanding of scripture is that "In the beginning," God created everything to be perfect and that there was no death. Adam was designed to live forever, provided he remained within God's grace. Some people try to refute the long life spans described in Genesis but I think they fit perfectly with the assumption that Adam's DNA would also have been perfect. It wasn't until after the genetic bottlenecks following the flood and Babel that lifespans rapidly deteriorated to the limits we know today.

However, scripture also teaches us that God knows all; past, present, and future. So, before He created man, He knew man would rebel and He knew that ultimately, He'd end up sending the flood.

So, the point I ponder sometimes is did God create the Earth with the mechanisms that brought about the flood already in place, like a booby trap waiting to be set off when time ran out? Or was the flood an extra-ordinary act where God moved to enact His will?

To Christians, it doesn't really matter because we're still the beneficiaries of God's grace. However, we're instructed to "always be prepared to give an answer" and for the deep-thinking skeptic, I'd imagine this is a tough question. For that reason, I think God understands my curiosity.

Obama's third term?

Always one to observe proper manners, I typically avoid bringing up politics in polite conversation but whenever prompted I like sharing a theory with people who like to hear what I think. It revolves around the current presidential campaign.

As President Obama was in the process of securing his re-election bid, many suggested that at least he'd be gone after 2016. I said then and I still suggest that I'm not so sure.

The first version of my theory was that he would run for a third term. Naturally, many balked at that suggestion because the Constitution only allows for two terms. My response was that in order to be successful, he would only need three things; first, a blatant disregard for the Constitution, second, 51% of the voters supporting him, and third, a Supreme Court unwilling to oppose him in the event of a lawsuit. At the time, that idea provoked quite a bit of thought.

Some time has passed since then and he hasn't made the moves (yet) that would put him in a position to pursue the Democrat nomination. However, other events have transpired that led me to alter my theory a bit.

Imagine this scenario; the two nominees, (Trump and Clinton, for the sake of discussion) get together for the final debate weeks before the election. It's held at a college campus in a major city in one of the swing states. Not only are the nominees there, all of the leaders from both parties are there to watch. In the middle of the debate, terrorists detonate a nuclear device in that city, killing many, including both of the nominees. In the aftermath, President Obama is forced to declare martial law and suspend the upcoming election indefinitely.

The again, maybe I've just read too many Tom Clancy novels.

One for the dogs

To kick off my second month, I want to get a little lighthearted. In case you didn't know, I'm the proud papa of a couple of Labrador retrievers, both girls, one 8, the other 6. The older one is a black lab and we call her Bonnie. The 6 year old is a chocolate and her name is Reese.

I've been around dogs before and have even had a couple of dogs in the past but this is the first time that I've ever actually shared a home with a dog. It didn't take very long for me to accept them as family and I'm pretty sure that they accept me as a part of their pack.

Anyway, I thought it'd be fun to share some "dog" quotes I've collected over the years. Enjoy!

The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue. -Anonymous

There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face. -Ben Williams

A dog is the only thing on Earth that loves you more than he loves himself. -Josh Billings

The average dog is a nicer person than the average person. -Andy Rooney

If your dog is fat, you aren't getting enough exercise. -Unknown

Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea. -Robert A. Heinlein

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man. -Mark Twain

Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. -Roger Caras

If you think dogs can't count, try putting three dog biscuits in your pocket and then give him only two of them. -Phil Pastoret

1 month down, 11 to go

Wow, April 30! Has it been a month already?

When I first started this thing, I knew the first couple of days would be easy because I'd already written the posts in preparation for the launch. But just between you and me, I was a little worried about what would happen going forward. I mean, 300 words a day really isn't THAT much, but coming up with a different topic each day, that could prove to be challenging.

Fortunately, I've got a couple of themes I'm going back to from time to time and the news never fails to provide me with inspiration. Anyway, I thought I'd take a breather today and do something a little different.

If you've been with me the whole month, you'll know that this "experiment" is really about discovering if I have what it takes to be a writer. The first measure of success will be seeing if I have the creativity, stamina, and discipline to come up with 300 words a day for a year. So far, so good.

The second benchmark is to see if I can actually interest others in what I have to say. Well, the blog site I'm using to publish these things has a tool to monitor that. So far, my first 29 posts have generated 326 page views. That's more than 11 a day. Since I'm new to this, I'm not sure if that's good or bad but my guess is that since this is a new blog and since I'm not advertising it anywhere other than my Facebook page, it's not bad.

As I learn more about this, I expect to do more things that increase awareness. For now, I'd like to ask if you'd share with your friends any posts that you think might interest them.

Individualism vs collectivism, Part 3

As promised, I'm returning to the train of thought that I started here and here.

Capitalism, socialism, communism...

There are a lot of "labels" that get tossed around, especially on the political stage, but what do they mean? How can we differentiate them? Well, hopefully, you've taken some time to not only read my previous posts on this thought but also the article I referenced in them. If so, you'll recognize why I'm narrowing it down to individualism vs collectivism.

I think I've made it clear that I don't acknowledge individualism as a viable way for a society to exist. Ironically, now I want to explain how I also think collectivism isn't a viable way, either.

A popular axiom amongst conservatives is that everywhere socialism has ever been tried, it has failed. Another one is that the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other peoples' money.

While those might sound trite to some, why are they true? The idea of collectivism is a noble principle; "From each according their abilities, to each according to their needs." If you're sick or weak, you shouldn't have to worry about your needs being met. Meanwhile, if you're perfectly healthy, you should have compassion for your fellow man and be sure to work hard enough to compensate for the weakest in the society.

But why hasn't that nobility born fruit? The Plymouth Plantation tried it and failed. The Communist Revolution in Russia tried it and failed. Even today, China, North Korea, and Cuba don't even exist as true collectivist societies.

Well, as I suggested in the previous post, it has to do with human nature. Simply put, when we produce something, we naturally think it's ours and when we're handed everything, we lose the desire to produce anything.

Happy Birthday to Me!

Psychiatrists explain that a mid-life crisis comes about when someone realizes that they have more life behind them than they do in front of them. The odd things that people might do at that time are just their way of dealing with the realization of their own mortality.

I'm 46 years old today. There could be some kind of miracle happen between now and... whenever, but I think it's safe to say that I'm personally past my mid-life point. Men in my family historically have had a pretty early expiration date but besides that, physical fitness has never really been a going concern in my life.

Be that as it may, my worldview kind of precludes the concept of a mid-life crisis, anyway. You see, I happen to be of the persuasion that the world itself has an expiration date. While "no man knows the day nor the hour," I have reason to believe that the concept of "Armageddon" is non-fiction. Not only that, I also have reason to believe that it could come about "soon and very soon." A good summary of some of the reasons I happen to believe something that many people dismiss or even deride can be found in a 1998 movie called The End of the Harvest.

I started to believe this notion was real before being exposed to that movie but when I eventually saw it, it confirmed what I was already thinking. So as a result, I've been living with the presumption that my life could end at any moment. It's incredibly liberating being able to live as if there might not be a tomorrow. At the same time, it's also incredibly demanding.

What about you? You don't have to wait for your birthday to get introspective. How now shall you live?

Uber on

Driving for Uber affords me so many opportunities to meet new people. Granted, it's impossible to get to know someone in such a brief time and many of them don't want to engage in conversation at all, but when I've got those that do, it's a good way to get a snapshot of what so many different demographics are thinking.

Yesterday, three young people needed a ride and when I say young, I mean early 20's. When they got in, they heard Rush Limbaugh on my radio talking about Donald Trump and they started asking question.

One asked if Rush wasn't a racist. I asked him if he had ever listened to Rush before. He said that this was the first time. So, I asked him why would he think Rush is a racist if he had never listened to him. He replied that he'd heard that said about Rush. So, I had an enjoyable minute explaining that Rush doesn't like Democrats so Democrats say a lot of things about him trying to discredit him. They asked, "You mean people like Hillary?"

Turns out that they can't stand Hillary Clinton. They don't trust her. They believe she's in bed with the big banks. They know that everything she says could be a lie. Now, they like Bernie but they don't really want to support him and they couldn't really put their finger on why.

Just for fun, I poked at the minimum wage and then the free college thing and asked them why they thought college was too expensive. I brought up that the most expensive thing about college is personnel salary. Then I led them to a question about why should a college professor make so much more money than a McDonald's burger flipper.

Yeah... they're not feelin' the Bern.

A carrot for Redskins fans

Do you know Aesop's Fable, The Tortoise and the Hare? It simultaneously teaches lessons on idleness and perseverance. It gave us the axiom, "Slow and steady wins the race." Look around and you can find evidence of that being true just about anywhere.

I'm a football fan, specifically a Pittsburgh Steelers fan. I think the Rooney's, who own the Steelers, incorporate that axiom into the way they run their team. Coaching tenure in the League is a rare thing. Some teams have a reputation for firing a coach almost every year. Others, though a little more patient, won't let a coach go more than a couple of years without results.

In Pittsburgh, they've had 3 coaches in 47 years. And the first two weren't fired, they retired. Now, there were a few bad seasons sprinkled into those 47 years but the owners let the coaches work through those times.

Their philosophy also shows up with how they acquire and retain players. Rarely do you see a case of the Steelers paying big bucks to go out and get the splashy free agent. Rarely do you see a case of the Steelers paying big bucks to keep one of their own.

Contrast that with the Washington Redskins. I hope the deal they made to get free agent Josh Norman works out well for both parties. However, I think too many Redskins fans still remember the Albert Haynesworth debacle.

Human nature is a curious thing. Capitalism can bring out the best in us but it can also bring out the worst. When not pressed on the issue of survival, why do we tend to default to apathy? And when we perceive a competitor has an unfair advantage, why do we tend to surrender in self-pity rather than rise to the challenge?

Not a Never-Trump rant, but close

In case you're not following closely, Donald Trump is one of the men trying to secure the Republican nomination for President this year. That by itself is a little surprising to a lot of people because of his past views on political issues and his past support of other politicians. But it seems that many people are taking him at his word and voting for him in the primary process.

Meanwhile, his leading opposition, Ted Cruz, is doing everything he can to give himself a chance to be the nominee. It's to the point now where he won't be able to do so before the convention this summer, but if he can prevent Trump from clinching, Cruz does have a realistic chance at the convention. That's because of the way the convention will work.

If there were just two candidates, only one would've had a chance to get a majority of delegates. However, since this thing started with 17 and still has 3, it's not unrealistic to think that nobody could get a majority. When they set up the system, they realized this could be a possibility. So, they wrote the rules in such a way that in this particular case, despite the fact that Trump will likely win a plurality of votes and delegates and probably a majority of states, he may not end up being the nominee.

That sets the stage for Trump and everyone who voted for him to be very upset. And this brings me to my point; he's already griping about the system being "rigged" and that Cruz is "cheating" and that Cruz is an "insider" making deals. However, Trump knew all the rules before he started.

So, why didn't he run as a Democrat? Or even better, why didn't he run as an Independent?

You're getting warmer?

I didn't observe Earth Day. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for keeping our house in order but Earth Day is moving beyond just being good stewards of the planet so that our progeny will be able to enjoy clean air and water. Radicals are "seizing the day" in order to promote a corrupt agenda.

I'll admit that I believe climate change is real. I'll even concede the possibility that the ice caps could melt and the sea levels could rise. I just don't accept that anything humanity has done has had anything more than a negligible impact and I don't accept that there is anything we can do to remedy any potential problems. As such, I'm led to analyze the motives of anyone who promotes such nonsense.

What I've concluded is that there are 3 basic groups amongst those who believe in man-made climate change. The first is the least worrisome. They're not fanatical and they really don't know much about the issue. They just see and hear all of the propaganda and simply have a genuine concern. The second is also nothing to fear but they won't be swayed. They're zealots and really believe this stuff and probably lose sleep at night over the fact that it seems like nobody wants to do anything about the problem. The final group is the one to worry about. They either know it's a hoax or they don't care; they just want to profit from it. They refuse to relent because they're building an infrastructure that will reward them if they're able to dupe the rest of us.

Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't form my view in a vacuum. You can't depend on "research" from just one point of view. Study the opposition, too, and test each side against the other.

To infinity and beyond?

This post is dedicated to my baby sister. Growing up, it sometimes felt like she was the center of the universe. At least that's the way I thought I was being forced to treat her. Anyway, she just celebrated a birthday and I actually hope she felt like the center of the universe for a little while.

I love logic. It breaks my heart to see so few people in the world that understand logic and even fewer people who employ it on a regular basis but just because it's endangered, that doesn't mean it's extinct... yet.

As a Christian, I frequently engage non-believers in conversation about our existence. One of the points they try to make to discredit Christianity is that early Christians believed the Earth was the center of the universe. When Copernicus suggested that the Earth and the other planets moved around the Sun, the church was fit to be tied.

Personally, as a Christian, I don't have any gripe with Copernicus because frankly, I know he was limited in what he could've known about the universe. For example, he didn't know how big the universe is or about how many other galaxies there are. He didn't know that the universe was expanding.

Fortunately, we live in an age where technology has revealed all of this new knowledge. And with logic, we can now correctly deduce that my sister is the center of the universe.

The logic goes like this:
     1. The universe is something. Ergo, it must have a center.
     2. The universe is everything. Ergo, from our limited vantage point, we can't determine where the center is.

Conclusion: the center of the universe can be anywhere.

So, at least on April 23, help me remember that Kimberly Diane Riddle is the center of the universe.