I'm going home.. Will you come with me?

Words

2010-07-18T20:57:00.000-06:00

Words sometimes present
themselves jumbled yet
I take them for meaning
as your voice arranges
a phrase to be sequenced
letters in rhymth sentenced

The night exhales, slowing
warm blankets capture children already abed
leaving me with two still awake, my
heart and head are full, my youth play
as I change the memory youtube warbles from
Billie's kiss to Natalie's torn, he smiles
as the cardigans sing, he laughs and
"Love me, daddy, love me" escapes his mouth,
Preserving in type; I watch strawed hair dance
three foot two, with eyes of blue
Love fool'd as Hootie decides to let her cry
and the memories fall down and away
she walks right out on me
and tomorrow's sunrise is yet to be.

Hurricane

2010-07-08T06:00:00.002-06:00

Last night I laid down to sleep
and drifted off into safe slumber
I thought; until the wind rustled
the sheets, and I found the house
had crumbled away as easily as
I could shed my clothes, I found
a hurricane had brutally forced
into my bedroom, the wind itself
wound around my vulnerable body;
vengefully it tossed my form from
the bed and dashed my, no, dashed me
into pieces against itself, until spent
it left me collapsed, gasping for a breath
of the air that just devoured me.

2010-07-07T20:28:00.000-06:00

This morning I awoke
to silence, I longed
to hear your greeting
your felicitations
but you slept and I
slipped away to silence

Later I found you; busy
I left you to your own device
Waiting for you to come
to realize the missing
I surrendered and futile, I
slipped away to silence.

I awoke to hear you explain
you'd mirror my flaws
repeating my mistakes
verbatim to me and then
wondering why I sighing
slipped away to silence

Never seen

2010-05-17T09:00:00.000-06:00

Invisible me-
I woke up this morning to thoughts of you
which you might think should be the farthest from my mind
but I was online looking at photos of myself to find
myself looking for a glimpse of you as well
and I thought of how I had loved you
and when everything was over- how I
had borne the pain so badly- that
when you had left my world was so built
around you that it appeared to collapse
and I angrily reviewed every second
wondering when it had begun to end
and yet knowing it had been dying long
before that fateful last note
and I remembered talking to you years after
and giving you the most cynical view
of the reasons I might have gone through
with all my love for you, I assigned
bitterness and selfishness to all my actions
so that I could pretend I had some control
over how I loved you, but they were lies
to hide my hurt and vulnerability-
I melted before you once in slavish devotion
It remains that at that time I thought you the world
And so yes, I find I love you still
not as then when all I could want was your happiness
to be with me, no, time has taught
what the teenaged heart knew naught
all I want now is your eternal happiness
apart from me, as it should be
but I do confess I still love you
Not as someone for you to worry about
I no longer have room in my life for that
but know I want you to know love by Someone else
I'm content as someone by whom you are prayed about.

What Post Tribulation folks believe.

2010-05-06T05:50:00.001-06:00

1. We believe in a Resurrection of the saints that have died before us occuring when Christ returns- and then those christians who are alive will be caught up into the air to be ever with Christ. Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:26, 1 Cor 15:23, 50-52, 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17

2. We believe Jesus said this resurrection of believers would be at the last day. John 6:39-40

3. We believe the saints are simply Christians- we do not make non biblical theological arguments that they are post church christians- there is no biblical reason to suppose they are unless you are approaching the passages trying to make a pretrib view fit. The saints are clearly on the earth during the AntiChrist's reign- Dan 7:21-22, Mark 13:21,22, Luke 21:28, Rev 6:9-11, Rev 7:13-15, Rev 13:7

4. We believe the Ressurection Rapture happens after the AntiChrist is revealed and that the AntiChrist is defeated by Christ spectacularly at this return- Dan 7:22, 2 Thess 2:3, 8.

5. We believe the Bible clearly teaches one return of Christ- and this is at the end of the tribulation. Matthew 24:21, 29-31, Mark 13:24-26, Heb 10:13, Rev 19:11-20

6. There are some things listed as occuring before Christ comes for us.

They are:
Great Tribulation: Matt 24:29, Mark 13:24,

Anti Christ being revealed: Mark 13:14, 1 Thess 2:3

Last trumpet/trumpet of God: 1 Cor 15:52, 1 Thess 4:16

The sign of the Son of Man: Matt 24:30, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-26,

7. The apostles looked for the AntiChrist and the Day of the Lord and gave us instructions on how to act because they expected these things to happen (not a pretrib rapture!) 1 Peter 1:7, 2 Peter 3:10-14, 1 John 2:18,28

8. Only one Church is promised to be "kept from" the hour of trial- the church of Philadelphia Rev 3:10- this may simply mean He postponed the rapture until after that church passed away naturally. The other 6 churches have no such promise.

No Pre Trib Rapture. Only a Post Trib

2010-03-22T09:15:00.002-06:00

As if the head covering break wasn't enough, now I really step into it.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Two events occur here- v16 there is a resurrection of the dead in Christ. v 17, there is the rapture of the church. These two events are linked.

1 Cor 15:51-53

51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Again, two events, a ressurection of the dead (v 52) and we are changed (raptured).

Timing? v 51 at the last trumpet.

John 6:39:39,40,44, 54
39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day"
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Timing for the resurrection per Christ? v39,40,44,54 The last day.

John 11:24

24 Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” (speaking of Lazarus) Now, we know from Paul, that Lazarus will go before us (as he is dead in Christ). This will happen at the last day (then comes the rapture)

Rev 20:6

6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

Note this is the first resurrection. Not the second (post trib) resurrection with a pre trib 1st resurrection and rapture.

Sign of the Apocalypse

2009-11-25T06:28:00.003-06:00

Me posting a new post? Perhaps. Actually, for those of you that read this (mainly, I think, my um, well, myself), the sign of the apocalypse I refer to would be hearing the following message at a certain type of christian gathering.

AKA "the message at a chapel the day hell freezes over"

Dear brothers and sisters, let us open our bibles today to one of the fundamental chapters of our belief, 1st Corinthians 11. We'll take our text today from verses 1-19, using the authorized Darby translation. (While I don't actually own a Darby, h/t to biblegateway.com)

Be my imitators, even as *I* also [am] of Christ. Now I praise you, that in all things ye are mindful of me; and that as I have directed you, ye keep the directions.
But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman's head [is] the man, and the Christ's head God. Every man praying or prophesying, having [anything] on his head, puts his head to shame. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved [woman]. For if a woman be not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if [it be] shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered. For man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God's image and glory; but woman is man's glory. For man is not of woman, but woman of man.
For also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. Therefore ought the woman to have authority on her head, on account of the angels. However, neither [is] woman without man, nor man without woman, in [the] Lord. For as the woman [is] of the man, so also [is] the man by the woman, but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman should pray to God uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you, that man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonour to him? But woman, if she have long hair, [it is] glory to her; for the long hair is given [to her] in lieu of a veil. But if any one think to be contentious, *we* have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God. But [in] prescribing [to you on] this [which I now enter on], I do not praise, [namely,] that ye come together, not for the better, but for the worse. For first, when ye come together in assembly, I hear there exist divisions among you, and I partly give credit [to it]. For there must also be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you.

Thank you for staying with me as I read this passage- I realize most of you didn't actually need to read the words, you were able to mouth them along as I read it, it is a very familiar passage to us. This is the message I am particularly unqualified to give, based on my gender and youth, please feel free to disregard anything I say.

Ladies, this message is for you. Dear sisters, many of you wear a headcovering, some to the point where you come to sunday services asking yourself as you scan the crowd of gathered fellowshippers "Who will be obedient today?" By obedient, of course, you mean, which women have their head covered, and which women are flagrantly denying their husband's headship and flouting the above passage. The question I pose to you today is simple- Are you being obedient or legalistic?

Here's where the water starts to boil around my flabby frog legs. Elder Bob, please, don't get up on to your walker yet, and Elder Tom, please have a seat and put down the mace.

The answer in most of your minds at the moment is "Of course I'm obeying and not being legalistic! The bible says to wear it, so I wear it!"

The goal of this message is not to critize you -for- wearing a headcovering. I am not denying the biblical instruction, but I am going to ask each of you if we are actually following Paul's teaching or if we've become a brood of vipers, pharisees that have strayed from the teaching and intent.

Let me describe a typical scenario that I observe. Sally Christian walks into chapel with her head uncovered, but a doily or napkin, or (as one brother put it) a lacy pair of what would be in victoria secret's catalog if you sewed the ends together a certain way. We'll have a message on reprobate men's minds, in fact, by looking at Elder Jon's face, I suspect it will be next sunday, and you're becoming very familiar today with his main example.

Back to Sally. Sally converses with her friends and fellowships, the folks shuffle into the chairs, and the service begins. As it starts, Sally pulls her head covering of indeterminate size and perches it on top of her head. It may or may not come off between services, but it's off at the end of the day, and she goes home. We as a body note that Sally was obedient and go home as well. Thursday night (or whatever night it happens to be) Sally meets and bible studies with the other women, and it's the highlight of her week until she comes back next sunday. No one here really sees anything wrong with Sally, eh?

Sometimes though, to illustrate legalism, you have to out legalism it. Let's get back to the text- "Every man praying or prophesying, having [anything] on his head, puts his head to shame. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved [woman]. For if a woman be not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if [it be] shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered. " and
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman should pray to God uncovered?"

Please note in what we just read when Paul instructs the heads to be covered. It clearly states "During any message preached or time in the chapel not fellowshipping". Thank you to each of you who nodded your head in agreeement.

Let me expand on the point I just illustrated in a gentler tone. There are only two times a woman is instructed to cover her head. We have prophesying- I'd go further into this, but as this appears to not happen in this group (I mean no disrespect, it just doesn't happen), we will focus on the remaining time- praying. Scripture teaches it that simply. If you are praying ladies, cover your head. I bless those of you who pray throughout the sermon, but I think you are in the minority. Is this different than what you were taught? I know we usually have the idea as Sally did- We cover the head during sunday services. If we are covering heads other than praying, what credit is there to us? What does it do for the angels or ourselves? Yes, we like the pharisees can honor God in our conscience by drawing lines further down the sand than what the bible teaches, but in doing so we risk losing our souls and worshipping a God not as He is, but a God as we decorate Him to be.

I am in boiling water up to my chest now, but I shall press on. Let's talk about headcovering sizes and styles. If you want your head covered ladies, then cover your head. You wouldn't say a man with a bald spot the size of the circle pinned to the middle section of your head had a "full set of hair" so, how do you place a fabric coaster on your head and deem it covered? I beforehand mentioned the look of some of the pieces you ladies use, intricate laces that men only see on a tablecloth or in the bedroom. Peter asked that our adorning not be that outward one of tressing of hair, and wearing gold, or putting on apparel. If you put on that headcovering this morning because it made you feel outwardly beautiful- you may be in danger here.

Well brother, you say, you're on a full head on tilt towards islamic extremism here. You suppose I want burqas for the women of the flock. No, indeed, I would simply like headcoverings to be head coverings, and the women that choose to wear them to understand when it is biblical, and when it is not.

Back to poor Sally. Remember the thursday night bible study that she has with the ladies? For you women who have been to one, do you really think twice if Sally has her head covered at chapel but not at bible study? Don't you pray at both? If you wear it at one, and not the other, are you not pointing out how far you've strayed from Paul's teaching? To legalism it up here- does Sally cover her head before praying at meals? Does she do it for morning and evening prayers? Or does she really not care anything about the praying part, and only about the "when other women at the chapel deem it socially acceptable" part?

So, if you wear a headcovering, wear it while praying (or prophesying), and WHENEVER you do either. Anything else becomes just show, not obedience. Now, if you read Thessalonians 5, and you want to follow the instruction there to pray unceasingly, then by all means, wear a headcovering throughout the day, and you won't have to take it on and off between your unending prayers. Now we're back to the burqa thing, but I simply ask you to judge your own heart and whether your obedience is to a church's evolved teaching or to the biblical instruction. As I see Elder Joe has my car warmed up just outside the door, I'll leave now without a closing prayer, just for those here who aren't yet covered. God bless you all, I may not be seeing you inside these doors again.

strange first thoughts of the morning

2009-03-07T07:32:00.000-06:00

Regression
is a funny word
it means
to go back
from where you are
to where you were
a connotation negative
sometimes, like
backslide
or sometimes
it is positive
like
reorient
or
repent
it all depends
on where you are
and where you were
and which one
was truly
best.

vanity

2009-03-05T20:27:00.002-06:00

love affair with
the scents and the sounds
watching, letting ink flow
rhythmed with songs I n'er let go
rewriting words, aligning to tunes
of disparate songs, whispering tombs
of teenage years with promise filled
that fertile mind eroded- overtilled
brings us to the present, the tragedy
no prodigies remain so upon aging to thirty
only has beens, weres and wannabeens sadly
wrapped in what-if memories grad'ly
adjusting to reality, longing for the mem'ry
vain escape to when when all was what could be
for now only finds when all is was what could be.

with you

2009-03-05T20:04:00.003-06:00

I love your
fingers
when they lightly dance
across the breadth of my shoulders
and I find my lost breath
when my hand is able
to capture those gypsies that scratch
and entwine with my hand in a clasp
that finds my heart within that grasp
beating a message against your skin
into the veins on fingertip surface
passing my surrender proclamation
from my lips so poor, inaudible
to the heart mine finds adorable

mindless ramblings

2009-03-05T19:48:00.002-06:00

mellow tones acoustic
honeyed vocals caustic
torn by erosion
gutteral implosion
feelings fail, emoting
inspire, perplex, cloturing
patch, warp, work finding
familiar doubts slow playing
planted among pigeon's crumbs
imbroiling retrospection numbs
a decade circling canaan's land
thirty failures still at hand
aural melodies embrace, remind
recall again a virginal time
sit on wood, lean on stone
past embrace, failure for to repent
erase the middle, grace to atone
arise now Rillian; flee the serpent.

My thoughts on Obama

2008-11-05T08:33:00.000-06:00

1. We have alot of work to do in the next four years.
2. I am praying that no one martyrs him. That would be the best thing to happen for his party, as it would elevate him to Kennedy status instead of revealing the obvious- he is a man, and a politician. People get tired of both, but they never tire of mourning a martyr. The political implications of his death would be a free reign for Biden with great public sympathy.
3. In four years, there will be no history to be made. Our current situation is a recession. During Bush's first 4, GDP was fueled in part by the money flowing out of home refinancing. Today that option is closed, and folks are turning to their credit cards and the scourge of mankind- payday loans. These problems will take more than 4 years to solve. Since Bush bore the blame for the recession following 9-11 on his watch, Obama will find himself (unfairly or not) blamed for the economic problems still being faced in 2012.
4. In two years, watch to see if the Republicans pull off another contract with America type deal with the voters. The economy simply is not able to be bandaged in two years, and the party in power is the one (unfairly or not) that gets the blame. This would hamper Obama like it did Clinton in 94.
5. With everything being said negatively about Bush, and the millions spent on his campaign, Obama won 62.5 million votes to McCain's 55.5 million, according to totals early Wednesday. You have to figure those 55.5 million are pretty hardcore against Obama to pass up voting for history, and their votes are unlikely to change in 4 years. That means we are looking at 7 million votes, only 4 million of which would have to change(approximately 7% of Obama's voters) in order to hand control of the country back to the other party. If there's not the record turnout and/or if things are not better in 4 years, that 7 % or less will not be there for his re-election, and the private label of Carter will stick to him.

Just my .02. There's work to be done, and we need to start now even before his honeymoon fades. :) Thanks for reading.

What's wrong with NCD?

2008-08-14T04:14:00.008-06:00

If your church, like mine, has adopted a program called Natural Church Development, you might find yourself among the minority of people who oppose the program- however, you might be at a loss to clearly explain why. Here's my point of view...

1. The author Christian Schwarz is selling a product, which in this case, happens to be measuring sticks in the form of surveys and his personal "Trinitarian Compass". Is there anything wrong with measuring sticks? Since his book advises Christians to judge their spiritual and church health by his idea of "health" gathered from his "surveys" and "Trinitarian Compass" instead of the biblical measuring stick of Christ, I would say, yes, there is.

2. It is a self admitted form of Ecumenicalism. I'll leave it at that.

3. If your church is like mine, and never has enough funds to fully support it's obligations to missionaries, but yet can find the cash ($1500 for books and perhaps more for surveys in our church's case) to finance this program that measures church health, then yes, there's a poor use of funds happening. That's right, your church is in effect spending funds that previously would be available for mission work in order to buy a measuring stick of surveys and one man's philophical leanings. Perhaps a cheaper way would be for the church to self evaluate and actually listen to it's members itself rather than paying an outsider to interpret the church's needs? Or is it needed because your church isn't honest enough to do so? That's a problem a survey can't fix. It can bypass the symptom, but not solve the problem.

4. His work and surveys do not show church health as how many Christians are being discipled to Christ- instead, he focuses on issues like "inspiring worship services" and "passionate spirituality" "churches growing churches" all of which he (and you!) can find in any church regardless of theology or heresy.

5. The only proof that his program "works" is contained in surveys adminstered over time by his organisation. This is simple chicanery at it's best. If for example I give you a survey, tell you from my survey what areas you need to work on, and then you are willing to take the survey again, will you not "show improvement" in those very areas? It's kind've like the old story of the Emporer's new clothes.

6. It's a church fad, but often is not recognised as such. See "Left Behind" series, "Prayer of Jabez", "The Purpose Driven Life", etc. In each case the appeal is that you will be better than you were based on advice you weren't able to find (or apply to your life) by looking in the bible.

7. The real warning bells in reading his book "Color Your World w/ NCD" would his attitude of superiority. It's understandable, as he fully believes after 2000 years of church history, he's found the answer to the church's problems by his surveys and philosophy. For example- he mentions doing a demonstration in a church that resulted in water damage to their floor. When he was asked to pay for the damage, (this is his side of the story!) he impresses you with his clever response to the church that it should be a reminder of their problems that could be solved with his program.

8. Is there anything obviously heretical in his church growth self help style? Not necessarily- but again, look closely to see what your church is actually paying for. If it's anything like my church- what the elders are stating is not what Mr. Schwarz is providing. And that, my friends, is a problem in itself. Don't be too harsh on the elders, they're simply looking at the end results that Mr. Schwarz has led them to believe will happen if they take his advice (because, as he insinuates- once you've heard it, you can't really reject it without rejecting the principles of who you are supposed to be as a christian).

9. An argument I've heard for this program is simply "Well, what if it works?" My answer is- then you'll have a perhaps vibrant church thanks to the advice of a man who has rediscovered how to fix Christianity- and hey, it's alot easier to use his measuring stick to "compare thy church to itself in order to be healthier" than to "Be holy as I am holy". The problem in this question is illustrated by the very question's underlying assumption- "Hey, if this God alone thing isn't working quite right for you, can we tweak it so it does?"

10. It reverses the order of scripture- "If we walk in the light, we have fellowship with one another" becomes in practice "If we have fellowship with one another, we will walk in the light!". This would make sense if the church wasn't full of wolves in sheep's clothing. We are to walk in the light- then the fellowship with other sheep. Nature will tell you that fellowshipping as a sheep with a wolf tends to close your eyes, not to open them. :)

Random

2008-08-14T03:00:00.002-06:00

Random Things About Me
My Lovely Wife tagged me, so here goes.

1. I work at one of the larger companies in Topeka.
2. I have 7 children, which averages out to about one for every 4 years of my life.
3. This means I live in one of the larger families of Topeka, so yes, my other car is a 15 passenger, not a corvette.
4. I have a very wonderful wife who loves me.
5. I am most proud of my Irish heritage, although I'm also a quarter English and two quarters German (or so I am told)
6. I managed to be one of the few men in the world that have two mother-in-laws. This just means the amount of people who know my wife is too good for me is pretty much double most other men's.

Where I rant on foolish Christians like me.

2008-08-14T02:38:00.005-06:00

If we walk in the Light, as He is in the Light; we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.

OR

If we have fellowship with one another, as they are in the Light, we walk with one another and the needs being met/happiness of our church causes it to grow?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Christian. A not very good christian most of the time, but I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. Too often I am as obedient as a balky mule, and a very bad investment choice for God to have made. As a christian though, I'd like to point out how foolish (as oft has been before) I and others can be.

We don't know what it means to be a Christian anymore. Oh sure, it used to mean you believed in God, spent your life running from persecution (whatever was left of your life) and frantically scrounging any information on the God you followed. Later it seemed to mean seclusion from the world while you devoted yourself to silence and study. For those of us in America, though, that time has passed. Today we have a whole new way of knowing God, and it's as close as the NY Times bestseller lists or the "christian" self help section in our local bookstore.

It's been shown the bible is just.. well. it's just the bible. Today we have so much more to learn from! Take for instance, a few years back, when christianity was rocked by an obscure verse referencing the life of an old saint. You may remember it as books and songs about the "Prayer of Jabez". Wasn't that wonderful? Why, I didn't know hardly any christians who didn't suddenly know about Jabez and how the Lord blessed him indeed. Unfortunately, Jabez didn't hold us, so we then got the "purpose driven" life, as well as the "intentional life".

In short, we as christians suck. This is not a reflection on our Savior- but on us. We will gladly trade in an hour of personal bible study for the latest fad that we have "books" about. Sometimes, we are even brilliant enough to recycle failed ideas of the past. The world sees us and rightly labels us hypocrites- we pay lip service to our bible and then can't wait to tell our friends how much the book written by a more up to date author than Paul has so totally changed our life and worldview. The best part is, if we just following the guidelines or principles of the new book, why, we will have such better lives!

Saying that, I'm as guilty as the next person. It's a blast to read C.S. Lewis or Tozier- but not so much to trudge through Acts or Jude. As christians go, so go our churches. One day we are reading the text in latin, the next we are adding get out of trib tickets to the middle part of revelation, the next we are poring over the newest way to regenerate our churches- because after all, it's in a book by a guy who has seen his church work based on an idea loosely ripped from a passage about christians being baptized after a long chariot ride reading Isaiah (hey, it could be the next bestseller!).

I can read books about being a servant all day long.. but I'm not reading the Servant's account of His relationship w/ humanity.It isn't as fun or interesting. Besides, I know that book. I can examine that book as a measuring stick for my spiritual life, but hey, it's there another measuring stick out there? Maybe a survey or checklist that can measure my health for me? I mean, if the thermometer shows me as lukewarm, can I get a second opinion from a mood ring?

Ever wonder why cults always thrive on literature that reinterprets the bible and the way churches should operate? It appears to be human nature- we want the extra book that gives us the extra wisdom that allows us to do things extra well. The bible? That's just.. too hard. To deny myself? Can't I just read about helping my fellow man with a new social in/out reach program at church? Can it kind of be preprogrammed for me, like say- go here and stand here and then do this and check it off my list? I mean, after all, I have books to read.

In fact, if I don't read the bible, can it just be spoonfed to me by the guy next to me? Surely his life experience reinterpreting the bible must come pretty close to what I'd get reading the bible, and man, it'd be alot easier.

So how do we as Christians grow? We all know how- spending time with God and matching our lives up to His- and letting Him live through us. We don't though. That's too hard, too radical, too.. scary. Instead of changing ourselves by exposure to Him one on one, we try to osmosis it through other believers as shallow as we are. Srsly, think about it. In my particular church I could name perhaps 5 men that I (in my foolishness) consider to be ultra-godly men, and many more that are surviving as I am day to day without that depth, and then many others perhaps below my level (I pray I am wrong). I don't fault them or consider them not to be christians- they are as I am, and we are as we shouldn't be, and thank God we are not who we will be when He is done with us. Due to the fact that we will not be accountable to ourselves, we try gimmicks like "being accountable" to another christian brother. If we cannot be accountable to our Heavenly Father, surely trying to be accountable to another brother will make us feel better and encouraged, right? I mean, I'd much rather know that my brother Joe struggles too than to be face to face any longer with the loving God and the remorse that comes from seeing things His way.

I had a long discussion w/ a friend about matters similar to this that as he well knows probably brought this discussion out. We as christians want to do something. I mean, aren't churches supposed to grow? I'd argue that they are not. The body of Christ, the church is to grow. Churches? Lord help us, the people in churches are what's wrong with the world. As my friend pointed out 1.5 hours in church a week isn't growing christians in the way they need to, so some suggest adding more time with the same people outside of church to make it happen.

He and I differ on whether that will work- so he asked me what I think will work. My answer at this time is that I cannot make anything work for another believer, nor should I set it up in a social program or worry about any one's spirituality levels unless my own house is in order. If I am as committed to Christ as I should be, then I can be an outreach to those in my circle- my family- my work, the people I cross paths with- I don't have to go out of the way for ministry in physical distance terms- I do have to go out of the way for my own life to be correct with Christ- and that starts- not at the bookstore, not in a church building, not in someone else's gathering, but in meeting my Lord face to face and letting Him lay me bare and operate on my heart- I am to be His puppet, His servant- and leave all the rest of the mumbo jumbo garbage of human improvement on His way of doing things behind.

The phrase Christ used in Matthew was "It is enough for a disciple to be like his Master." Enough? For me to be like Christ? But.. I want instead to be better than the other disciples! Mother, can't you ask the Master if I can sit at His right or left hand?

I can't judge my life by any Compass other than my obedience to God, no matter how much nicer and less guilty I would feel comparing my life's outreach areas to my fictional friend Joe's strengths and weaknesses.

Any social setting, no matter how real, any meeting of humans, no matter how sincere is still attended by humans who want to be viewed as positively as possible. I am not arguing for forsaking the fellowship of believers- rather that the fellowship of believers springs out of our personal relationships- that it is the blossom on the plant, not the plant itself- and definitely not the soil the plant gets it's nutrients from! Please don't take my word for it- my words are as useless as any other spirtual guidance outside of the book written by divine inspiration. In fact, in the very definition of hypocritical, here I sit typing this- when I could be being nourished in what I need to be.

May He do as He will with me, and may I not be so foolish as I have been. My pride has been my weakness- I'd rather be viewed as knowing truth than to actually spend time w/ Truth. I'd rather impress men w/ my spiritual knowledge than be humbled in the presence of the knowledgeable Spirit. I'd rather read a book on living godly than read the book of the living God. In short, I hope anyone reading this is wiser than I.

Dieting

2008-06-04T06:52:00.003-06:00

So, I recently decided to go on a sort of diet. Those of you who have seen me in various stages of undress may feel the urge to rejoice, prayerfully you are few in number; though the simple fact you are reading this stacks the odds against you.

However, food is not the merriment I have been refraining from. Instead, it is my daily companion for the last 9 years of my life- my wonderful friend in the finance world- my Visa debit card. In fact, she has been left out of my wallet for 3 days now.

How can I explain her absence? She reposes now on a shelf in my house- relegated to paying off online bills, but she is no longer where I found her so attractive- safe in my wallet as I walk down Walmart's aisles, or standing at attention as I near the glittering lights of Spangles on my lunch break from work...

We had to part, she and I; I used her too much, too often. Dear lady that she was- not a credit card, bless her, she had no interest charges to pile up, and yet, she was accepted as one at every beguiling merchant whose path I crossed- I reach again for my wallet and feel the crease left in the leather by her absence- the absess that reminds me of our parting.

I have given her up in an attempt to reallocate her resources into my current master Countrywide, that I may be rid of such master within the next ten years; for my slavery, my lady Debit card and I must see each other only twice a month when the bills are doled out, and between times, I and my stomach miss the pleasures she would bring me- the popcorn chicken at Walmart- the latest movie release, the quick burger and fries, all for the sake of my own good. So I tell her, and so I tell myself, as the hole in my wallet where she lay crosses my mind each time I pick it up.

poetry

2008-02-03T06:36:00.000-06:00

Behold ye our government, our pride, our shame
It morphs from eagle to harpy and back again
We guarded see it as both Abel and Cain
As Jacob to Esau, it abuses until next embrace
when we clutch it with grumbling and forebearance.

It is us, as we the populace have our leaders chosen
to spend to provide to protect our life and possession
so say half of us, and interally we strive
to reverse the order for the other political side

We the people have made the monster, the eagle
did not have talons sharp enough, her beak
was lacking in teeth, her wings too broad, her face
we made in image our own, reflecting in our souls Phineas

for those who like pain

2007-12-07T18:24:00.000-06:00

I find I feel when you
stop to visit, you bring
weight that overhangs
overshadows; reckoning-

I find I know when you
visit to stop; you stay
without saying; I wait
mute held in your sway

tyrant of necessity,
muse that brings the memory
without your pallor I forget
unwrit emotions slumber bereft

you are savage, cruel
I begging self-inflict
the words you whisper
lest I leave them unwrit

My wit not mine own
finds my mind; your desk
futility marks the pen scribe
devoid of your forebearance

As you heavy lay upon
my mind to pen surges
the words, the thoughts
the page spurs, urges

demanding release,
flowing unbidden until
they are spent and I
am left relapsed; silenced

___________________________________

I step slow, my pace
async with those who race
they stride abrupt past
furlongs ahead, I in last

Watch them; my thought
observes their distance renew
as a step further is lost
between them and I, I muse-

Of the moments where I
stepped quick past another
my harried, hurried stride
as my goal lost time devoured

The difference today I found
the destination calming sought
as weekend ending homeward bound
left me a moment just for thought

When

2007-12-07T16:34:00.001-06:00

your face used to crinkle
sparkles starting in the iris
rolling down the frizzy strands
framing, touching your rosen skin

your face used to crinkle
recognition alighting danced
it flickered, flew, flowed
gathered your lips in it's glow

your face used to crinkle
it beamed beyond control
I'd glimpse your gaze; then
your smile'd return my own

your face used to crinkle
I'll ever remember that the way
it was; and won't that the when
it changed into ashen gray.

bad poetry redux

2007-12-06T17:41:00.000-06:00

My soul doesn't wait
it alights, then flits away
foolish mortal heart my own
touches; flees the throne-

draw me, clasp me ere I go
wrap to overcome, ergo
I miss once more the tender touch
and flee again the molten love

Fool am I; vain I seek
just enough to whet and leave
and yet you wait, staying
a moment, a lifetime waiting

lest I forget the pathway's gate
beckoning your love does wait
for the foolish such as myself
to turn again into your wealth

KTR

2007-12-06T17:33:00.000-06:00

Forgotten; the word itself haunts
would it mean anything
opposite of remembering
if you knew what I'm
wishing could be
left imagining
frustrations
in my mind
clinging; fleeing
would you go
leaving me
outside

New post, yay.

2007-12-06T09:58:00.000-06:00

Dealing with the charge that I am a moral relativist (and apparently the christian answer to atheistic charges everywhere!) I decided to think out that charge and how it applies to me.

Do I believe in absolute morality? Yes, I do. If I believe that God is that absolute morality giver, then am I logically consistent? I sincerely hope so.

If I posit that no one lesser than God could enforce a morality upon God, then I do leave it up to God to determine that morality. Without someone(thing) to bind God to that morality, it would be impossible to deny Him, or even present a case against Him. Do I like the idea that God could change morality at His whim? No.

LM did a wonderful job showing the thoughtfulness and reasoning for how God handled the specific scenario EB mentioned. My argument was much more blunt, but I do find it to be a base truth- An allpowerful God is unable to be successfully argued against. He is by default imbued with the power to be as EB puts it- a bully or an asshole. There is no one to cause Him to be any thing else, to behave any differently.

The question then becomes whether God self regulates Himself, and this I think is the crux of EB's accusation. Does God hold Himself to a certain standard, even though there is no legal power or entity with the power to do so?

Does God self regulate Himself to be less than a cosmic asshole? EB and I differ on our answers to this one. EB would say no, and I would say yes- but my yes would be qualified that I cannot always understand His reasonings, or explain why He does what He chooses to. Others such as Spartacus and LM have a much better ability to understand and communicate those reasons.

I recognise God's authority based on His power, a situation rightly deemed by EB as "might makes right". I don't like the concept any more than I think EB does, but my likes and dislikes don't determine the facts of any matter.

EB arrives at the conclusion that a God whose actions cannot be justified in EB's mind is not worth serving. I arrive at the conclusion that an allpowerful God necessitates servitude whether moral or not. To EB, I assign a more noble, thoughtful reasoning, and yet at the same time a futile one. To myself I assign reasoning based on self preservation and necessity. I also happen to know how much said God loves both EB and I, and that He would sacrifice the same amount for both of us. I sincerely believe that EB will be pursued and sought after more than myself by God- such is the lot of the sheep out of the fold. I envy him and wait for his return. In my foolishness I often act more the belligerent brother of the prodigal and forget how much my Father's heart desires the one He is waiting for.

Revisiting the last post.

2007-12-04T08:53:00.000-06:00

"Hooray for moral relativism! You see, good is whatever God says it is."-EB

"As a christian, I accept God as all powerful. I cannot change His definitions, and thereby I may earn the scorn of those who wish to do so."- MW

Scorn of EB earned? Check.

"His argument can be summed up in a single sentence: If God is all powerful, He is able to define right and wrong." -EB

EB clearly understanding my main point? Check.

"So the question of God's goodness is really unanswerable unless two requirements are met: 1. a standard to hold God to and 2. A more powerful being able to enforce that standard on God."-MW

Again, I reiterate.. If God is powerful enough to define good, it is futile to say He or what He does is not good. The word simply loses any definitive meaning without an enforcement mechanism.

"It would say that Power is what determines morality, and that the powerful should be allowed to change the rules."-EB

Welcome to what happens every day in this world. What is good is determined by who rules. Is it really a surprise? Even EB's ideas of good are only those ideas that have survived due the might (political or militarily) of those who espoused the ideas before him. Far from my point being made invalid, might making right has indeed been the story of history. The ability to snuff out an opposing view leaves only the default view until someone with the power to express that snuffed view comes to light and is sheltered or fostered against the default view.

In my previous post, I necessitated the need of an advocate for an alternate good. To illustrate, when EB addresses my posting in a manner of right vs wrong, EB has absolute power over his blog and the ideas he expresses in them. I am not present in EB's blog to advocate for myself, indeed, my words are at the mercy of his selection and wrath. Therefore, EB's blog would contain the truth according to EB, the "good" according to EB. If EB is absolute, or merely more powerful than any advocate I could represent for myself within the world of his blog, his power would make him "good" by default in the world of his own creation. Any written statement of EB in the world of his account is by default good. Any comments of mine on his blog are rightly subject to his deletion, and I have no valid recourse.

In simple terms, whatever EB does with his blog is okay, because EB has the sayso unless there is a greater ruling authority over EB.

I make the same argument for God and His creation.

"You see, I think that things are good not because God says so, but that if God exists and is good, it must be because he adheres to the Good. That is, I don’t believe that mere omnipotence defines morality. Marshwiggle disagrees:"

Here EB basically presents my argument that we would need an advocate to harness an allpowerful god to a standard..... however, EB defines the advocate with power over God as "Good". Therefore good would be more powerful than god, and rather.... godlike.

If EB does the math that "good"=God, then he has to define the good to meet his definition of god. I do the math (so to speak) that God=good. There is a fascinating philosophical difference- hence the argument and opposing worldviews discussed between EB and I in these posts.

"Honestly, if I had written this, people would accuse me of responding to a strawman. Good, for Marshwiggle, is whatever God says it is. That means those children and those cattle totally had it coming. What sins a cow can commit, I’m not sure. But it doesn’t matter, because God says they have to go."-EB

I'd argue tongue in cheek that the cows are (as we now know!) a huge drain on society due to the methane gasses producing global warming... Wait a sec, that's truth in EB's blog..... In my blog, I'd be tempted to compare innocent cows to innocent parasites betraying the "good" of the mother... again, I am illustrating the different worldview EB has where "Good" is the all powerful authority.

Snarky? Yes. Illustrative that good is defined according to who is in power? I hope so. I can believe whatever I want about good, but it does not overturn Roe v. Wade unless political power intervenes. Roe v. Wade can be "good" according to EB, but is a measure passed due to political power and influence. Right now the argument over global warming being good or a hoax is circulating through power (ironically, G.W. Bush is closer to EB on this one than to me).... But again, I am just illustrating the way of the world...

"If God is all powerful, He is able to define right and wrong. If God is not all powerful, then there is a chance of Something more powerful than God to hold God accountable."-MW

"Marshwiggle has just claimed that Might Makes Right. I don’t know of any Christian theologian who would espouse this view, but I’ll give Marshwiggle this: at least it’s consistent."

Thank you. Again, we have the equation written differently- to EB- Right=Might... In this world unfortunately, "Might=Right"... It is only when an opposing view becomes powerful enough that it replaces the default view.

"No need to explain how murdering children is morally acceptable: just say that anything God says is acceptable because he’s tough, beg the question, and move on."-EB

"In the end, I suspect Marshwiggle and I will have to agree to disagree. He will define right as what an ancient text claims God says because God is powerful enough to enforce his will. I will continue to argue that “God is good” does not mean “that which is most powerful defines the good.”"-EB

Ouch. This is like if I said that murdering a child for the mother's good is acceptable.

Wait. The mother's right to her body mandates that this is morally good. And God's right to His created world mandates that He is... wait for it! morally bad. Again, we have the world according to the "Good" according to EB. No ancient text needed.. just the wisdom of the infallible "Good" as revealed to EB by his life experiences and multiple influences.

Wow.. I am getting snarky here.

"So in Marshwiggle’s world, morality is defined by those with the most strength. So after God, the greatest expert on the subject of morality is apparently Chuck Norris."

Wow. Actually, I think Jackie Chan could pulverize Norris.. but as a Christian I'd have to say there is not a greatest expert after God..

As I admitted- "It’s a hard bind to be in, because I would love for God to equal my idea of good. I know that EB would love God and Christians/pagans/the whole world in general to equal EB’s definition of good."

What EB and I are both left with is a God that has His own definiton of good separate and different from EB and mine.

"I’m honestly stunned. Marshwiggle is arguing that my claim that genocide is a moral good–at least in certain circumstances. Good is whatever the Strong Guy says."

Yes. Christians believe this. It is why we die, believing we are going to meet the "Strong Guy" and not fearing the apparent "strong guy" that appears to cause our death. We have to submit to an authority greater to ourselves or face His wrath.. It is the part of Christianity we'd prefer to avoid, the elephant in the room, the one that earns the most scorn. At the end of the day, an honest Christian knows that He is allowed to follow God because of Christ's love for us... but that we submit to God because it is literally His way or the proverbial highway...

This leads me to my previous reasoning- If I would fight to make my "good" superior to God's definition, I have to question my own motives-

"Is this a fight that can be won, or will I simply drag others along with me in futile resistance and ensure their doom? I cannot love others and damn them to face an allpowerful God because of my flight of fancy to impose my idea of Good upon an allpowerful God and demand that others accept my reasoning, unless I have the power to change that all powerfulness of God."-MW

"Logically, then, God is only better than the Devil because he won the War in Heaven. If he were to be bested, right and wrong would change."-EB

Logically, yes. I agree with EB on this point. If the Devil had won, the world would be

"I don’t seriously believe that many Christians would accept Marshwiggle’s argument, but perhaps I’m wrong. After all, it is not for us to question why, right? We sin if we challenge God’s assessments. We cannot put God to the test, cannot hold him to our limited understandings of morality."-EB

To be perfectly honest, yes. Sucks for us, doesn't it? The only recompense I have is that the same God desires a relationship with mankind and has provided a way to spend eternity with Him.

But the alternative? Yeah. No bones about it. Hell is the highway option.

"Interesting, that is precisely the religious worldview assigned to the Church in Pullman’s His Dark Materials. And here I thought his description of the Church risked being a caricature."-EB

I've often discussed my opinion w/ LM that there's sometimes a great deal of truth in a caricature. If it wasn't recognisable, what would the point of the mockery be?

"If the best argument Marshwiggle can come up with is “do what God says because he’s a bully who will send you to hell if you don’t,” then I have no choice to conclude that either a) god does not exist, b) he exists but his will has been grievously misinterpreted by humans and he has chosen not to correct our misapprehensions, or c) he exists but is nothing but a cosmic thug enforcing his will through threat of damnation. So he is absent, unwilling to intervene, or an asshole. No matter which it is, I see no reason to worship Marshwiggle’s god."-EB

Now, I cannot make EB see a reason to worship God, that's up to the aforementioned all powerful God who vows that "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord"- (from ancient text). As for the best argument? I find it to be the cold hard truth argument. Why use pretty words and sophistry if the truth is simple and understandable?

I don't see it as just a threat of damnation; I see a reality of damnation. I see in EB someone whom I do not want to face God's wrath. I would that I could face that wrath in EB's place, but Christ already did that for him.

"*I disagree with a lot of what Spartacus says in the comments on my post, but he’s making an honest attempt to understand the moral implications of his position. Christianity is much better served from his thoughtfulness than Marshwiggle’s morally reprehensible position."-EB

I have nothing to say against Spartacus, I consider him a dear and noble friend. If he could be credited with changing EB's mind, I would to be the first to rejoice and glory in it.

At the same time, Christianity does no one any favors to ignore the serious implications it presents. A life choice of heaven or hell for eternity cannot be wallpapered over or whitewashed. God is scary. Dealing with God on His terms is to be without recourse, unless there is an advocate to either cover our sins or to defeat God for us- the former being Christ, the latter would have to be the new God to serve.

My thoughts on EB's bible questions:

2007-11-23T11:37:00.001-06:00

EB was kind enough to point out 1 Samuel 15 as a case of God ordered genocide. As a christian, I have to deal with the idea that a loving God ordered the destruction of "innocent animals and children".

In order to do this I see this from the angle that God is all powerful and allwise. I know that few humans make the same claim. The jist of EB's argument however is that God does not equal good. If God does not equal good, then He is not worth serving- be He all powerful or not. In fact, if God is not good, it is therefore noble to strive against an injust God.

Assuming the nobility of striving against an unjust God, it would be either a worthy goal, a futile one or perhaps both. If God is not allpowerful, indeed, if God does not exist, then striving against said injust God is indeed noble, plausible and not futile. If God is all powerful, then such striving is futile, because the all powerful being can decide what is good and what is not good, and we are defenseless to claim otherwise.

It matters not if God is good if He is allpowerful- the definition of an all powerful God necessitates servitude or punishment. Good becomes a definition solely up to His whim or discretion. In order for there to be someone to hear and defend our accusations of injustice against God, we would have to appeal to an arbitrator independent of God, one who has the power to issue a ruling God has to abide by.

If not, our accusations against God are indeed futile.

So, how would God explain this divine ordered genocide? In human terms, His argument would be that He wanted the nation of Israel to remain separate; that by sparing the Amalekites Israel would be in turn corrupted by them. To keep His chosen people from the pain of disobeying Him, He ordered them to remove the temptation that this unchosen culture of His would bring. I say this full well knowing that due to my lack of jewish ancestry, I would by definition be one of the unchosen if I lived at that point of time in history.

How can one defend God on this matter? From EB's point of view- the animals and children are innocent. In order for God to be good, then they cannot be innocent. If God is not all powerful, EB has a chance to make the argument that his definition of "innocent" is superior or equal to God's definition. This is as futile as if I argued with EB any of the many topics upon which he knows more than I do. If God is all powerful, then the very discussion of the argument is a joke and a futile exercise subject to God's whim and length of interest in the discussion.

So the question of God's goodness is really unanswerable unless two requirements are met: 1. a standard to hold God to and 2. A more powerful being able to enforce that standard on God.

Without those two requirements, it's kind of like watching Nancy Pelosi versus Bush with a republican majority. A lot of hot air is expended and no real change is made, and the unjustGod/Bush can effectively say STFU.

If God is all powerful, or even powerful enough to control EB's eternal destiny- then EB is at best a noble being fighting an impossible fight. If God is all powerful, He is able to define right and wrong. If God is not all powerful, then there is a chance of Something more powerful than God to hold God accountable.

As a christian, I accept God as all powerful. I cannot change His definitions, and thereby I may earn the scorn of those who wish to do so. It's a hard bind to be in, because I would love for God to equal my idea of good. I know that EB would love God and Christians/pagans/the whole world in general to equal EB's definition of good. Ironically, you'd think God would want the world to equal His idea of good too. Without destroying everything that does not match EB's definition of good, the world will never meet that definition. Would it be good to do so? If I assign EB godlike powers, I could not say no to him- By doing so I would be disagreeing with his good and therefore be evil and hence deserving of destruction.

Would it be good of God to destroy anything that did not meet His definition of good? If He can, who could successfully prove otherwise?

If God's idea of me does not equal good (and it does not), how can I argue unless I have an advocate that is powerful enough to do anything about it? I can reason my way to this conclusion or I can blindly stumble into His wrath- either way I lose. Does my noble opposition to a perceived unjust God matter if He is able to obliterate it from memory?

Is this a fight that can be won, or will I simply drag others along with me in futile resistance and ensure their doom? I cannot love others and damn them to face an allpowerful God because of my flight of fancy to impose my idea of Good upon an allpowerful God and demand that others accept my reasoning, unless I have the power to change that all powerfulness of God. Can I do that by saying He doesn't exist? I cannot prove He doesn't. Can I do that by labelling Him a liar, murderer and fraud? Only if someone will punish God for that and recognise my heroism in doing so. Where is the advocate that will defend me before God? Is it EB who will take my case pro bono and win it for me? Or do I need to fear Him who can cast both body and soul into hell? Can I blindly hope that God is not all powerful? Or do I serve one who claims to be all powerful because I have no proof that He is not?

At this point I would suggest perhaps the flying spaghetti monster might be all powerful, but I have serious doubts about his track record- for example I really haven't heard him get any credit for destroying those he doesn't find good or rewarding those who do meet his criteria. I cannot fear him as I can the God of the old testament and the new. I would trust EB to argue my case before the FSM for I believe EB to be as all powerful as the FSM. I cannot say the same for a possibly all powerful God.

If I were.. I would express myself thus:

2007-11-07T06:23:00.000-06:00

If I were.. progressive today, this is how I would explain my beliefs:

Basic tenets:

1. Everyone is free to love as they choose.
2. We should all help the earth survive ourselves.
3. The government should stay out of regulating our lives.
4. The government should ensure a basic quality of life- including a living wage and health care for all who need it.
5. Our bodies are our own, unless we happen to be in our mother's body- then our rights belong to her.
6. Education must be free of religion that disagrees with or condemns the above listed tenets.
7. We have a moral obligation to fight for these above rights using our greatest weapons- speech and pacificism. We must not resort to violence that cheapens our noble cause. Voting works to an extent, but the laws must be changed or safeguarded to reflect these values in order for us to truly be free.

No sarcasm, just the simplest terms I can put the arguments into.. I think I can safely say that if you agree, then you are a progressive. But you already knew that. If you've read my blog, you probably know me, and that I am not one. So, what's my problem?

Thank God for Phelp's financial destruction.

2007-10-31T14:44:00.000-06:00

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SKEED02&show_article=1

written...

2007-10-29T15:41:00.000-06:00

Written about the photo of a friend.. A guy nonetheless. Eh, my muse should be fired.

black and white capture in relief
your chiseled face smooth marbling
as if Il Divino would my hearts desiring
carve. Then might your self portrait leave
my reminisce- I might forget the thought
this memory surfacing molten wrought
the ache of what, of who you were
captured in this photograph
as I glimpse your being e'er out of grasp.

Jena 6

2007-09-21T06:06:00.000-06:00

No posts in a while, but I wanted to share the following that I read...

From the KC Star by Jason Whitlock
Posted on Thu, Sep. 20, 2007 10:15
Lessons from Jena, La.
By JASON WHITLOCK
Now we love Mychal Bell, the star of the 2006 Jena (La.) High School football team, the teenage boy who has sat in jail since December for his role in a six-on-one beatdown of a fellow student.

Thursday, thousands of us, proud African-Americans, expressed our devotion to and desire to see justice for the “Jena Six,” the half-dozen black students who knocked unconscious, kicked and stomped a white classmate.

Jesse Jackson compared Thursday’s rallies in Jena to the protests and marches that used to take place in cities like Selma, Ala., in the 1960s. Al Sharpton claimed Thursday’s peaceful demonstrations were to highlight racial inequities in the criminal justice system.

Jesse and Al, as they’re prone to do, served a kernel of truth stacked on a mountain of lies.

There are undeniable racial and economic inequities in our criminal justice system, and from afar the “Jena Six” rallies certainly looked and felt like the righteous protests of the 1960s.

But the reality is Thursday’s protests are just another sign that we remain deeply locked in denial about the path we need to travel today for true American liberation, equality and power in the new millennium.

The fact that we waited to love Mychal Bell until after he’d thrown away a Division I football scholarship and nine months of his life is just as heinous as the grossly excessive attempted-murder charges that originally landed him in jail.

Reed Walters, the Jena district attorney, is being accused of racism because he didn’t show Bell compassion when the teenager was brought before the court for the third time on assault charges in a two-year span.

Where was our compassion long before Bell got into this kind of trouble?

That’s the question that needed to be asked in Jena and across the country on Thursday. But it wasn’t asked because everyone has been lied to about what really transpired in the small southern town.

There was no “schoolyard fight” as a result of nooses being hung on a whites-only tree.

Justin Barker, the white victim, was cold-cocked from behind, knocked unconscious and stomped by six black athletes. Barker, luckily, sustained no life-threatening injuries and was released from the hospital three hours after the attack.

A black U.S. attorney, Don Washington, investigated the “Jena Six” case and concluded that the attack on Barker had absolutely nothing to do with the noose-hanging incident three months before. The nooses and two off-campus incidents were tied to Barker’s assault by people wanting to gain sympathy for the “Jena Six” in reaction to Walters’ extreme charges of attempted murder.

Much has been written about Bell’s trial, the six-person all-white jury that convicted him of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and the clueless public defender who called no witnesses and offered no defense. It is rarely mentioned that no black people responded to the jury summonses and that Bell’s public defender was black.

It’s almost never mentioned that Bell’s absentee father returned from Dallas and re-entered his son’s life only after Bell faced attempted-murder charges. At a bond hearing in August, Bell’s father and a parade of local ministers promised a judge that they would supervise Bell if he was released from prison.

Where were the promises and supervision before any of this?

It’s rarely mentioned that Bell was already on probation for assault when he was accused of participating in Barker’s attack. And it’s never mentioned that white people in the “racist” town of Jena provided Bell support and protected his football career long before Jesse, Al, Bell’s father and all the others took a sincere interest in Mychal Bell.
You won’t hear about any of that because it doesn’t fit the picture we want to paint of Jena, this case, America and ourselves.

We don’t practice preventive medicine. Mychal Bell needed us long before he was cuffed and jailed. Here is another undeniable, statistical fact: The best way for a black (or white) father to ensure that his son doesn’t fall victim to a racist prosecutor is by participating in his son’s life on a daily basis.

That fact needed to be shared Thursday in Jena. The constant preaching of that message would short-circuit more potential “Jena Six” cases than attributing random acts of six-on-one violence to three-month-old nooses.

And I am in no way excusing the nooses. The responsible kids should’ve been expelled. A few years after I’d graduated, a similar incident happened at my high school involving our best football player, a future NFL tight end. He was expelled.

The Jena school board foolishly overruled its principal and suspended the kids for three days.

But the kids responsible for Barker’s beating deserve to be punished. The prosecutor needed to be challenged on his excessive charges. And we as black folks need to question ourselves about why too many of us can only get energized to help our young people once they’re in harm’s way.

I’ve been the spokesman for Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Kansas City for six years. Getting black men to volunteer to mentor for just two hours a week to the more than 100 black boys on a waiting list is a yearly crisis. It’s a nationwide crisis for the organization. In Kansas City, we’re lucky if we get 20 black Big Brothers a year.

You don’t want to see any more “Jena Six” cases? Love Mychal Bell before he violently breaks the law.

Politicians w/ teh religion!!!!

2007-07-19T05:57:00.001-06:00

"If we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice," "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square." - Presidential candidate Barak Obama

"The hand of God today is in every step of what happens with me and every human being that exists on this planet." -Presidential candidate John Edwards

"You know, sometimes I say, Oh, Lord, why can't you help me lose weight?" "Sometimes, you know, it's praying for discernment, for wisdom, for strength, for courage." -Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on her prayer life.

"We walked away from the single institution most Americans turned to when they try to be better than they are, it was a huge mistake." Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club on the 2004 election.

(Above quotes from Time magazine)

"I think the purpose of life is to glorify God. I turn to my faith as the bedrock of my approach to any important questions in my life." Al Gore, The New York Times, May 29, 1999

Field trip

2007-07-15T04:56:00.000-06:00

Great day yesterday, thought I would post about it. Woke up about 5:45 am, started scrambling eggs for breakfast sandwiches and making various bologna sandwiches. Ended up with 12 in all. Woke up three kids at 6:15, managed to get them all in the car by 6:43, which wasn't bad for my 6:30 intentions. Grabbed 8 water bottles, and a half box of capri suns. I checked for extra batteries for the camera, but they had not been recharged. We left Alma, but had not even cross I70 before getting into a bit of an accident with a small bird. This brought much chagrin from the backseat, which was followed by a discussion of whether I hit the bird, or whether the bird hit the car. I did not partake in the argument, but pitied the bird either way. We then stopped by my parent's house to pick up my youngest sister before heading out to the great unknown of Wichita. First stop after that was in Abilene where we drove two blocks past the first gas station on the interstate to the Philips 66 gas station where gas was 29 cents cheaper a gallon than the first station. Apparently the Alco across the street has managed to keep prices down for quite some time, as it was that way last year when I drove through with Brandy (our first foster experience).

Bathroom break was required, of course, and then we were on our way again. About 9 miles out of Salina, I'm pretty sure we spotted Magen's dad rebuilding the road. Martha was working on "Peter and the Star Catchers" by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson (I believe) and was enjoying that. Since I didn't hear any murmurings in the back, I made like Romney and skipped the rest area before McPherson. This threatened to catch up with me later in the trip, but we successfully reached the rest stop before Wichita without any unpleasant outbursts.

Finally, we arrived in Wichita about 10:15 or so. We drove in and were directed to park in lot J. Fortunately, that letter was easy for me to remember. We enjoyed a snack and applied sunblock before we boarded a bus, which took us to a large parking lot about the size of two football fields. We joined a rather large line that more or less made a U the length of the lot. Throught the line, people were handing out free bottled water. At the end of the line, military security walked us through metal detectors. We then walked a short way and boarded another bus. Finally, we were at our destination. We promptly joined the first line we saw. It turned out to be an hour long experience culminating in the cockpit of a huge refuelling plane. It was at this point that the batteries in my camera died. Wow. In the meantime I was able to get a few pictures of parachuters dropping out of the sky. Nearby a Hyundai tent was hawking it's vehicle wares and begging passerbys to ride/drive their test course. By begging, I mean there was a carny with a mic offering the chance to win an IPOD or a Santa Fe if you just would take the time to experience one of their automobiles!

Just a thought. When a car salesman tells you that the price of the vehicle you are in "really isn't too outrageous for an SUV..." I take that to mean that the car really is out of my price range... In addition, when the salesman says "Hyundai's new warranty really shows they've really upgraded their product and enhanced their reputation from the past few years..." I take that to mean I should stay away from used vehicles with that brand name. I'm just saying he maybe should've left me ignorant if he wanted to sell me on it.

At the end of the chance for me to win the vehicle and the IPOD, I was handed a bag with promotional literature, a few coloring books for the kids, and boxes of crayons to match. We wandered around looking at various exhibits, but my charges became restless and we went back to the car at about 12:30 to eat. Now, going back to car in this case meant catching the bus to the security checkpoint, walking across the parking lot, and then trying to catch another bus back to the lot where the car was parked. During this expedition, one of the hats adorning one of my kid's heads was lost. A futile retracing of our steps to the huge parkinglot caused a near mutinous crew, fortunately for me, they had nowhere to maroon me. We then boarded the bus and I was starting to get a little nervous, as I knew the buses would stop running from 2:30 to 4, and I really didn't want to walk all the way back.

We reached the car and opened the cooler. Food was passed out, and the children began to refuel. I placed the camera inside the car, and then placed the bag from Hyundai in the front seat. I then decided to take the freebies out of the bag and use the bag to carry our water bottles. We finished lunch and caught the bus with about 45 minutes to spare. The bus took us back to the parking lot, where the previous U that we had experienced was now a even bigger W. In the meantime, we were entertained by a single fixed wing stunt aircraft. The highlight of his show was when he flew straight up until his engine stalled out and began to drop slowly down. Slow being a relative matter of course. Once again clearing security, we boarded the second bus. We sat at the back of the bus and I was enjoying the air conditioned comfort when Martha pointed out to me that the missing hat was hanging from a window at the front of the bus. At the end of our ride, we confirmed that it was indeed our hat. As it was now about 2:18, so we walked to the end of the airfield to watch the main attractions! At 2:30 the Golden Knights began their arial displays of precision. Then, about 3:15, after clearing the airspace for 5 miles (up to 17k ft) around McConnell, the Blue Angels started their engines. What a sight! TopGun sprung to mind of course, helped by the soundtrack the PA was using. Their show was as expected, amazing.

Our trip back to our vehicle started about 4pm, and after a reapplication of sunblock, we walked back to where we hoped to catch the bus back to the parking lot. It quickly became apparent that the buses were now solely running people from the parking lot to their car lots, so we hoofed it over to the parking lot. As we waited to leave the parking lot in a non moving mass of people, a lady next to me related her previous sympathy for cattle being loaded for slaughter, at which some in the crowd suggested mooing. In spite of the fact that water had been made available in abundance (we had been given at least 5 bottles of water each, and had even turned down additional offers), emergency crews were assisting at least three people with heat related distresses. Finally, the bottle neck was cleared and we were on the bus and off to our car. As we opened the door of the furnace at about 5pm, it became apparent that the front seat where I'd left the crayons had acquired a new coat of colored wax. In my brilliance, I moved the mass over to the drivers side, applying a new coat to my pants and the seat between my legs. Leaving lot J, we drove down McArthur hoping to get quickly back on 135. This was not to be as our first chance was blocked off by two police motorcycles. Finally we reached Hydraulic and were able to get back on 135 at about 5:30. Martha had finished her first book and was now working on "Peter and the Shadowthieves". She would finish this one in due course as well. Driving up 135 we noted heavy rain on each side of the highway, but did not actually see any raindrops. In Abilene we stopped again for gas and dinner, eating at the "Taste of China" It was not a bad place, although our server was still in elementary school. His mother ran the counter, rang us up and then instructed her child in chinese that cheapskates had ordered water. A few minutes later he brought us our drinks as we began to peruse the small buffet. The real ice cream with several flavors to choose from instead of the softserve trio was a departure from most chinese buffets I've been to, and a pleasant touch. The bathrooms rather disgusted my oldest, who related to me that the stall door in the women's room was the old west saloon style with no lock. I found the same in the mens room. Having taken leave of our bilingual underage host, we headed to Manhattan where we dropped Martha off before taking 24 and 99 home. At 9:40, we were home again, and I took a shower only to find that the sunblock had worked... well, not as well as advertised.

So that was my day, hope you enjoyed it.

misc poetry II

2007-07-05T10:44:00.000-06:00

~Vulnerable Spiral

My image of you
stopped by last night;
caught my breath;
flittered across my mind
it's all you left me
and I do realize
it's not even you
only what I remember
as a parent sees the child
and not the adult so I view
you as you were
not as you were to be
cruel device of unguarded reminisce
haunting muse touching, troubling
kind approval of a phantom
teasing out my hearts desire
as if it's laugh was real
forgiveness complete
acceptance revealing
broken fantasy
if the shattered world I left
hadn't trojaned this sliver
dark spectre beckoning
past defenses with vain hope
that it could be restored
that hate could be erased
so much I despise that which
will not die, only dissipate
until in slumber it awakes
and Rzeznik sings of souvenirs
scars that throb in phantom pain
as bittersweet mockingly visits
I awake to remember what is
that neither you or I could accept
who the other has become.

misc poetry

2007-07-05T10:06:00.001-06:00

~Fool

what fool am I to suppose
jumbled words might ease pain,
shortened verses could heal
deep emotions when rhymed
or juxtaposed in childlike prose?
if I write; my thoughts on paper
will produce the fantasy they beckon?
what exactly my desires are
hinted at in unintelligible marks
words jumbled as with crayon
or typed mixed by simian hands
would cause you to understand
glimpse my heart and sigh
with admiration for my thoughts
or pity that it signals who I am.

Cause, you know, we're all about the women

2007-06-02T09:04:00.000-06:00

"Connecticut Abortion Facility Employee Pleads Guilty to Sexual Abuse"

http://lifenews.com/state2311.html

Because, you know, pro abortion people are all about the women.

Or underage girls. "The newspaper indicated that Britt sexually abuses teens aged 18, 17 and 14 in March and April 2005 after they signed papers to be models.

Britt lured the teenagers by telling them that they couldn't become models unless that had intercourse with him.

He took the 14 year-old to the Summit Women's Center abortion facility, where he worked and which was located in the same building as his agency. The 17 year-old indicated he took her to the abortion center as well.

The 14 year-old appeared to be pregnant prior to meeting Britt and an AP report indicates he applied a cream on the body of the 14 year-old at the abortion center, which was closed at the time, saying it would cause an abortion."

Which is where abortion is really useful.. In covering up pedophilic sins. Because, you know, otherwise we'd force the women to have the babies.. Instead, let's kill them because the baby is the problem. Not the pedophile. Not the rapist. Not the adults having sex.. No, the baby is the problem that will go away if killed.

If you support abortion, you support murder, no matter how you nuance it. Since EB puts it that I would force women to have children, I will own up to it. I would that you don't kill an innocent child to fix your problem. Now, I back it up and take care of kids that could have been aborted. I take care of kids who's mother considered getting rid of them. The world is a better place for having them in it.

Now, as to spontaneous abortion- It's a tragedy. It doesn't mean that we should achieve more tragedy through human means. Since inner city kids are exposed to a harder life than rich kids, should I drag the rich kids down or bring the inner city kids up? Buying the naturalistic spontaneous abortion argument, killing rich kids is okay, since inner city kids die at a high rate, too! Brilliantly stupid argument! Don't do anything to help the inner city kids not die, just encourage/approve of higher mortality rates for anyone else!

Back to the subject of Iraq....

2007-06-02T05:21:00.000-06:00

Now, I know this should've been a dead horse... but this latest story indicates WMDs are still being looked for in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18970426/

Now, suprisingly, the US is against the search, and according to the story, it's the Russians who are still wanting these weapons found and keeping the UN there. Why is Russia so worried about possible WMDs? Oh, that's right, they thought they were there in the first place, you know intelligence and all that. Apparently they still believe their original intelligence. Good/bad/indifferent? Dunno. Interesting, though.

In other news, Bush has really sold out the conservative base on the immigration issue. It used to just be the fiscal issues he sold us out on. Oh well. I feel like a used Cindy Shehan. Heh.

Book test from luaphacim

2007-05-29T09:16:00.000-06:00

What Kind of Reader Are You? Your Result: Dedicated Reader You are always trying to find the time to get back to your book. You are convinced that the world would be a much better place if only everyone read more.
Literate Good Citizen
Obsessive-Compulsive Bookworm
Book Snob
Fad Reader
Non-Reader
What Kind of Reader Are You? Create Your Own Quiz

Global Warming and Help, Help, I'm being Oppressed!

2007-05-19T05:29:00.000-06:00

Alright folks, if you haven't heard,
(http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P725PG0&show_article=1)

the WWF (no, not the wrestling one... and for those at SWTBC, not the feminine one) has predicted (with help from a KSU prof) that Kansas' beloved Sunflower may only have a few decades left in this state. Due to global warming, it will be packing up and moving north. Please check back with me in 50 years to see if we have averted this terrible tragedy. Remember folks, a plant that has survived (according to the article, "for eons") a long time is threatened according to nine years of one man's research. I needn't remind that the global warming religion believers that the earth (billions/millions of years of survival according to their subset evolutionary beliefs) is threatened by less than 50 years of their own research.. But you know, I'm just the nutjob that believes in a 6000 year old or so document. You guys keep your 50 and 9 year studies.

Now that I've offended all my readers, I'll offer an olive branch. For years, the poor, oppressed, riduculed and generally abused by every straight white religious male groups have been fighting for equal rights. As a straight white religious male, I've been fighting against them (obviously, it's my duty to oppress everyone not like me. It's either that or oppress myself and everyone like me in order to assuage guilt). I'm getting off track though. There is a new movement, and I hope you heard about it here first. Have you ever known of a group discriminated against because they were "born that way"? You know, people judged on their appearance or a stereotype that people "like them" were immoral or less that normal? Never fear, legislation is here to fix that!

(http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/05/17/legislation_would_expand_law_to_protect_short_fat_people/)

"People..... would get special protection under measure that would make Massachusetts just the second state to add "weight and height" to its anti-discrimination law. The law applies mainly to the workplace but also covers landlords and real estate interactions.

Most states have laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, age, gender, disability and other factors. A handful offer protection for gays and lesbians. But only Michigan includes weight and height in its anti-discrimination law. The District of Columbia also bans appearance discrimination and San Francisco and Santa Cruz in California prohibit weight and height discrimination."

Yep, if you are born short or born with a tendency to be overweight, you can now claim cover in the newest discriminated against minority. There are some who would fight against you, though!

"People can lose weight, as that line of argument goes, why receive special treatment? There is some of that attitude in the courts -- that this should not rise to the level of race and gender -- the rights of which are so important to protect."
David Yas, publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

Now, isn't this just the absurdest idea? This is like saying a gay man "can" have sex with a woman, and therefore not be gay. Everyone knows a sexual episode can occur in minutes, whereas a diet takes days, weeks, and years of deprivation. How can we argue for people to have freedom of their favored orgasm inducing practices and then demand another group modify their food intake and increase their physical discomfort? Bigots like Daivd Yas seem to advance the argument that if you can change, you should. However, if you can't change, well, because some people in your group can, then no special rights for you.

We haven't even touched on the height aspect. Aside from providing/forcing HGH on short people, there isn't a way for them to change.... They were definitely "born that way". You know how cruel genetics can be. So, let's celebrate this awesome advancement of human culture as we recognise a new group to be undiscrimnated against via legislation. C'mon folks, what's the next group on the horizon we can take up the gauntlet for?

Stem cells.

2007-04-13T05:12:00.000-06:00

My friend Luaphacim recently posted about stem cell research, and his comments bear examination here.

"The problem with old tissue is that it often is not nearly as flexible as new tissue. That's why relying solely on adult stem cells is somewhat problematic. Besides, to dismiss a readily available source for research -- particularly when the "murder," if it is one, has already been committed by perfectly legal fertility clinics -- seems a bit short-sighted to me."

"I'm not saying I want to abort as many fetuses as possible and then use their tissue for devious scientific experiments on raising the dead and so forth. I do, however, think we should give embryonic stem cell research much more open-minded consideration than we currently are."

Well, the call I keep hearing is that the current lines aren't good enough, we need more. Please take a look at the current black market for organs and the stories of forced/coerced organ donation. When you make it ethical, you help create a larger market.

Anyhow, let's look at some of his points.

"The problem with old tissue is that it often is not nearly as flexible as new tissue. That's why relying solely on adult stem cells is somewhat problematic."

I'll turn to Jean Peduzzi-Nelson, an associate professor in the department of anatomy and cell biology Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit. In an article dated 9/2/06 in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal
, she writes:

"The great potential moral controversies and political party alignments associated with stem cell issue makes the subject a hot topic.

Human stem cells can be obtained from human embryos, produced either by in vitro fertilization of human eggs or cloning via somatic cell nuclear transplant, or adults.

The often stated advantages of embryonic stem cells are 1) their great promise, 2) their potential to form every cell type, 3) their rapid proliferation, 4) their lack of rejection and finally, 5) their usefulness in drug testing and disease models.

However, from a scientific and medical point of view these advantages are less clear.

The "great promise" of embryonic cells is often stated by scientists that either hold key patents or are strongly supported by biotech companies pursuing embryonic cells commercially.

Every type of stem cell may be useful for injuries but are unlikely to cure most diseases, as underlying causes of uncured diseases are often not known. Stem cells may alleviate the symptoms for several years but not affect the disease process. Other areas of research are actively being studied on disease processes so stem cells are not the magic silver bullet in diseases.

The "potential of embryonic stem cells to possibly form every cell type" in the body is amazing but is of little clinical relevance. As long as a stem/progenitor cell is capable of forming the cell types needed for a particular injury or disease, the capability to form every cell type is a moot point.

Furthermore, there are numerous supporting studies that stem cells derived from adults have the same potential. Sources of adult stem cells include the skin, fat, bone marrow stromal cells, umbilical cord and many other sites in the body.

The "rapid proliferation of embryonic stem cells" is rather ironic claim in that the quality cited for the superiority of embryonic stem cells is actually responsible for causing serious problems. Rapid growth is not always a desirable quality, as clearly seen with weeds in a garden or cancer in the body.

In an animal model of Parkinson's disease, rats injected with embryonic stem cells showed a slight benefit in about 50% of the rats, but one-fifth of the rats died of brain tumors caused by the embryonic stem cells.

The "lack of rejection of embryonic stem cells" is a clever twist of words. It is true that embryonic cells are not rejected. However, to be useful as a therapy, the cell must mature into a particular cell type.

When the cell matures, it is recognized by the immune system as foreign and is rejected. However, it has also been argued that this is the reason for the great need for human cloning (somatic cell nuclear transplant) so the problem of rejection of embryonic stem cell can be avoided.

This field is in its infancy, and only a very few studies have been done to even demonstrate the feasibility of this in experimental animals. Pursuing this extreme measure when the human body is full of stem/progenitor cells that would not be rejected is one of the most absurd directions ever observed in the history of science that is supposedly being promoted to help people." In order to read the whole article, go here

As far as adult stem cell versatility, I'll quote another article that can be found at this link- (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/uop-uop082306.php)

"A certain type of adult stem cell can turn into bone, muscle, neurons or other types of tissue depending on the "feel" of its physical environment, according to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers discovered that mesenchymal stem cells, which regularly reside in the bone marrow as part of the body's natural regenerative mechanism, depend on physical clues from their local environment in order to transform into different types of tissue. The researchers were even able to manipulate stem cells by changing the firmness of the gel on which they were grown.

The researchers believe that their findings, which appear in the Aug. 25 issue of the journal Cell, could change the way in which people work with stem cells.

"Basically, mesenchymal stem cells feel where they're at and become what they feel," said Dennis Discher, a professor in Penn's School of Engineering and Applied Science. "The results begin to establish a physical basis for both stem-cell use against diseases and for stem-cell behavior in embryonic development,""

In the meantime, sources of possible embryonic stem cells include amniotic fluid and umbilical cords. Sources of adult stem cells include hair, bone marrow, and even.. well, I'll end by saying fear not.. If Luaphacim and EB still want embryonic stem cells, there may have been an endless source found without any outcry from religiously right folks like me- After all,
"Although it may take years for these adult stem cell treatments to be commonly available, the results with adult stem cells will eventually end a controversy that should never have existed in the first place. The controversy may end even sooner than that with last month's report of embryonic stem cells can be derived from sperm, as reported in the most recent edition of "Nature." -Jean Peduzzi-Nelson

For those still reading, I'll offer this article from the National Review
for your perusal.. I've held it to the last, since it's a far right view.. But what else were you expecting reading this post? :)

Column by Jason Whitlock KC Star

2007-04-11T06:17:00.001-06:00

Imus isn’t the real bad guy
Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.
By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist
Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.

While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.

Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.

It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.

But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.

Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.

But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.

In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?

I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.

No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

To reach Jason Whitlock, call (816) 234-4869 or send e-mail to jwhitlock@kcstar.com. For previous columns, go to KansasCity.com

Al Gore, you're going to find truth inconvienent.

2007-04-05T05:51:00.000-06:00

""Over half of all Nobel Prize winners are telling us we could have as little as 10 years to avoid a catastrophe and this is pronounced by our media as 'not newsworthy'." -Al Gore quoted 4/3/07. Of course, he also made a similar statement in January 06 at the Sundance film festival, so I'd guess we have 9 years left.

(http://media.www.brockpress.com/media/storage/paper384/news/2007/04/03/News/Al.Gore.Graduates.From.Concordia-2820594.shtml)

10 years buddy? Ok, I'll spot you 20. It's sad that sometimes it takes that much time to spot a liar. Or have we forgotten Ted Danson was saying 10 years back in 1988?

There's an old saying that if you won't believe in God, you will believe anything.

To believe that man has the power to destroy the earth would put him in elevation above the earth... contrary to those who believe that earth and animals are more important that human existence and prosperity. Look, I'm all for taking care of the earth and stopping wasteful practices. It's sad that humans invent things to be afraid of.

In the 60's, we were afraid that the world would end in a nuclear chain reaction. In the early 70's, it was global cooling. That's right folks, we were afraid that our warmth would head back to another ice age. Then as I was growing up it was all about the rainforests. If only we could save the rainforests, the world would be at peace. Mr. Danson warned us the oceans had ten years to be saved in 88, and now global warming isn't going to destroy the oceans, it's going to bring them over the shoreline of new york, california and any other coastal location you pick. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. My prediction? In 20 years, we'll have a new fear to replace global warming, and it'll take it's place in the hall of sham fears along with the countless other ways we were sure the world would end. Since I'm a betting man, I'll take the first ten noters that want to tell me global warming will destroy the earth in the next twenty years out to lunch if they are right. You have nothing on the line except my chance to show you as a mindless receipient of an convenient lie.

My thoughts

2007-03-22T06:08:00.000-06:00

Thoughts I have that will bring ridicule now, but will be proven by time.

Man made global warming is a myth. If you believe Al Gore, check back with me in twenty years, and see if we still don't have only ten or so years before disaster.

Abortion is murder, and the law needs to be changed so that abortionists can be tried and convicted as the serial murderers that they are.

Evolution is just as much a scam science as man made global warming.

This is not a post looking for responses, I am simply stating my position, so that when things are right again, you'll know I'm not simply on the bandwagon.

Black enough?

2007-03-12T19:18:00.000-06:00

Is anyone else sick of hearing the discussion of whether Sen Obama is black enough? I am tired of it, and yet fascinated by the implications of the debate. The argument being murmured by the Rev Al Sharpton and others in the civil rights movement is that Obama has no connection to the civil rights movement, as his father was not an african american, but rather just an african. Sociologically, this points out a divide between african immigrants who become americans, and african americans. This seems to point out more than anything the misnomer known as african americans. If Obama's father is African-american instead of the requisite african-American, then Obama cannot qualify as "black enough?"

Hence the importance of Obama's trip to Selma where he claimed his conception from the civil rights struggles. He did much better than Hillary at the pandering, although they are apparently both viewed as outsiders to the civil rights struggles. Reading my friend Luaphacim's blog, I noted his praise of Obama being better at being all things to all people than Hillary. I don't want to pick on Obama, but why do politicians do that? Is america so turned off by an honest candidate that we have no candidates that are just themselves, regardless of the audience set before them?

Speaking of the speeches by Obama in Selma, he appears to be picking up the torch from Bill Cosby as far as family values for the african american community. It is my hope that he will continue to do so, and to encourage families to raise their children, and encourage fathers to be fathers, for as he put it, fatherhood begins at conception, it doesn't end there.

Cheney out, Rice in?

2007-03-06T11:25:00.000-06:00

Interesting story.

Ms. Rice as VP? I can dig it.

In other news, I have thrown my meager political support behind Mike Huckabee for prez. I prefer him over the other candidates, but suspect Guiliani may get the nod in the primaries. Mike's not a perfect fit with my beliefs on every issue, but I find him to be the closest on the ones dearest to me. Now all my readers can go out and know who not to vote for. :)

Faith

2007-02-25T05:58:00.000-06:00

For several years now, I have considered myself a christian, and I have struggled with various sins that I could not seem to overcome. I tried, and I begged God to stop me from committing them, and yet, each time I chose them, or shortly in the aftermath, I felt the hypocrisy and shame of my choices. Ironically, God had been answering my prayers, and brought me back to a gift I had been given long ago by a caring christian couple. Reading the book brought me to think the following thoughts:

I knew what God had done for me, and I knew according to the bible I had done what I thought was necessary for salvation. I had accepted Christ/made the decision/come to the altar- however whichever church setting I was in brought forth the gospel.

I had/have a head knowledge of the bible that few of my peers contained. Lest I brag, if you consider yourself a peer of mine as you read this, then you are in the few that contained an equal or greater knowledge.

Why did/do I consider myself a Christian? I chose God because deep down, as much as I dislike the idea of a holy God, I cannot escape the Truth of Him. I cannot escape the knowledge within me that He is Who He claims to be. And I know that if He is who He claims to be, then I am also who He says I am. I can also work this problem in reverse- Self examination shows me that I am who He says I am, and therefore I know He is who He says He is. My logic may not make sense to you, and that's not my problem. :) My problem is that it makes convicting sense to me, and it is up to my conscience (not yours) to deal with it.

Saving faith had been a problem in my mind, and one I could not quite grasp. My mind was torn between disgust for the "mystics" of the current church, and a longing desire that hinted there was a "mystic" quality to Christianity that I sensed, but could not find. I knew faith was not a set of feelings, that reasoning is best on cold hard facts. The problem with reasoning and cold hard facts is that they are just that- cold and hard. They are the necessary framework for any structure- just as a building without the framework of logic will fail, so a christian based on feelings will be blown everywhich way, (inevitably straight out of orthodox christianity).

Faith is looking at God and then acting according to Who He is and What He wills you to do.

I did not save myself, for I could not see God for who He was until He began to work in my unregenerate state of mind. When given the opportunity to see God as He is, I chose either to accept Him for Who He is, or to reject Him. This is when I was removed from the kingdom of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of light. I had no more -faith- than the Israelites did who looked at the serpent Moses raised. I simply looked and accepted or denied the offer and did not look.

Have you ever sought to look at God? No man has seen Him at anytime... Even Moses did not "see" God, but was passed over by Him for a glimpse... If you look at God for who He is, you will either accept Him for who He says to be, or reject Him. Belief is taking Him for Who He says He is. Even the demons do that and tremble as James writes. Faith is then more than belief- It is belief and acceptance of the consequences that will make in your life. Faith is what you do with your belief, your reasonings based on the character of God. You can have eternal life by faith alone- the thief on the cross had little spare time for Christianity's emerging theologies- he saw Christ- recognised Christ for Who He was, and appealed to God for mercy based on Who God is.

John writes of the condemnation of the world as being two distinct camps- those who are condemned because they do not believe, and those who are not condemned because they do believe. Where some have gone wrong in christianity is that they focus on every other sin, except the hell determining one- the acceptance or rejection of Christ for Who He is. The other sins? They all have equal consequences- one is enough to marr you for Heaven, regardless of it's evilness in man's eyes. Only one choice changes or confirms your destiny, and that's what you do with Christ.

By faith, Abraham offered his son Isaac- Abraham looked at God, knew God's character, and then came to the only reasonable conclusion he could based on God's character- that God would raise Isaac from the dead.

By looking at God, I see God as all powerful, all good, immortal, as love itself. When I refocus from my current temptation or problem to the Immortal Father, my mindframe changes from what I would find acceptable to what He finds acceptable. When they don't line up, the fact that I am in His presence changes my choice. I find myself asking forgiveness more quickly, before I commit the sins I used to. I know longer look at myself as just me, but I see myself as I am, in the presence of Allmighty God. It is not pantheism- that I believe God is in every created thing, but an acceptance of the His ominiscience and omnipresence- that I cannot escape from His presence- though I flee the earth as David wrote, still there I will find Him, and He me. I had never realized... how much Christianity is not looking at what the Saviour did for me, but moving from that and looking at the Saviour Himself. I always thought of my afterlife as the time to do that.... But now, to look on Him who was pierced- to know His character from His word and the change in my life, I desire Him all the more. Would as another John spoke- that I decrease and He increase. In Him is beauty, and His beauty will be reflected in me when He is done with my soul on this earth. I am His creation, and His work is being perfected. It gets done so much faster when I return His gaze. As C.S. Lewis wrote: "We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like in ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far to easily pleased." and in reference to our seeking God more the more we know of Him- "Those who have attained everlasting life in the vision of God doubtless know very well that it is no mere bribe, but the very consumation of their earthly discipleship; but we who have not yet attained it cannot know this in the same way and cannot even begin to know it at all except by continuing to obey and finding the first reward of our obedience in our increasing power to desire the ultimate reward".

Is salvation through a prayer, an acceptance speech or request? No. I failed as I tried those methods, the only way that the churches I attended explained saving faith left it undefined in my mind as to what it practically was! Trust? But how? Only when I look at God for Who He is, then I know exactly what I can trust Him to do. It is not a leap on my part, for He does not change His love for me or His holiness or any other attribute. If I know Him, my faith/trust increases as I learn what He will and will not do. It is the same as Luaphacim- I may know him as a good man, and accept him as a friend- We are friends then, but my joy in knowing him comes from being in his presence and learning what he will and will not do. I will be able to trust him to do or not do those things and feel betrayed if he changes- Imagine how much easier it would be if a book was written about luaphacim that I might peruse, and also that to know he would not change and betray me? And yet that is the case with Christ. That is my case for Christ, my hope, my future and what should mostly affect how I live today.

Immortal

2007-02-18T06:19:00.000-06:00

My thoughts of late, largely influenced by C.S. Lewis and the first few chapters of "Mere Christianity" by the aforementioned.

Immortality. The acceptance of the fact that I am immortal amazes me, defies me, defines me. I cannot escape the fact that I will live forever. I cannot escape the fact that everyone I know, I see, I cross paths with, the whole human race will live forever. You, my dear reader, will live forever. There are some nihilists that believe that when we die here on earth, we simply cease to exist. Most people I have met do not believe that, have not been able to argue themselves into believing it. However, if you have been able to, then you may as well stop reading, for the rest of my argument follows the afterlife premise. It resonates within us that death on earth is not the end of us, nor our loved ones. We as humans know there is an afterlife, and though we may muddle what we believe it is, we do know it's there. Some choose ghosts, some choose an all inclusive heaven, some choose a place of utopia, some choose a land of female servitude, but we all seem to have an idea of where we'd like our soul to be the minute that we die.

So, I am immortal. We can wrestle with the religious aspects of it later, my mind at the moment is filled with the natural aspects. Have you read greco-roman mythology, or any collection of human tales of immortal beings? (For you skeptics out there who chirp in "yes, I've read the bible", your memories of that will do for now.) What is the common thread in the human experience with members of the immortals? As I read it, it is always that those (humans) who treated an immortal badly might have chosen otherwise if they had grasped the victim's immortality. We as humans do seem to be quick to forget the value of another human's life. What if we realized, truly incorporated into our mind and our actions, that the person standing before us would be living forever?

We can all agree that most of us have but a few years here in the present world. I have heard of only a few in the present time to live over 110 years at the long end. If I know that immortality will make miniscule my life here on earth, then how then should I live toward my fellow man? Will they not have eternity to remember how I treated them? Will I not have eternity to reflect on that? What will I regret most of how I treat others? The only regret I believe I will have are the times I have acted selfishly. The times I have taken simply for my own pleasure at the expense of others, the times I have chosen a harsh word simply to alleviate my own frustration, the times I was too busy doing something else to be with a loved one, the times I chose to continue past instead of stopping to help someone else in trouble. What will you regret? What would you do differently today to another fellow immortal than you did yesterday?

Old story I wrote

2007-01-31T11:27:00.001-06:00

This is a small story I wrote about 7 years ago. I dreamt most of it, then wrote it down the next morning. I hope you enjoy it, please feel free to ask/share any thoughts or questions with me.
________________________________________

They call it reckless endearment, the type where if there's a street and you rush across paying no mind to the carts, you're likely to be run over.
Only with my ma, it was usually because someone needed the attention.
Perhaps I'd be crying, with no comfort unless she'd rock me back to security, cooing nonsense and threats in the same breath.
If we were in mass, the short and plump archbishop would glance over and grimace from withing his green robes. I wondered why someone so fat would wear such heavy garments. People were funny that way, I thought.
It was the same with my dad. He wasn't a fool with drink, yet he didn't mind drinking as long as he had his senses.
Then when he approached that point of not having them, ma would have to stay up with him all night, to baby him through it.
It was me ma's way, I guess.
Someone was bound to be the production of such parents, goodnatured and clumsy though they were, with whimsical fears and fancies to shape a child's life; dusk meant the faerie were about, and with the faerie danced the elves, though elves were faery too.
I think sometimes dad tended to be an elf, and ma the faery, although the sizes on them were a bit mixed up.
The once I'd asked the archbishop about elves and faerie, he scowled.
Faery were a child's tale, and even if I was a child, so much the worse for the belief.
I think that was when I began to see my parents in a different light.

Superstitious, the archbishop called it, and it was clear I was ending up no better than my parents.

I wish I could explain how one can love and ridicule their parents at the same time, for it seems to me everyone feels that way at one point, that time when we find out someone who dislikes our parents has a real reason to, and for the first time, we feel a sense of shame regarding those who brought us into the world.

So it was when I sat on the archbishop's knee. Ma and dad sent me to his house for learning, for he was smart, as smart as a man could be. He showed me writings, and we worked for hours deciphering them, learning them, one hating them as much as the other loved them. It gradually became clearer to me as he taught, and then when the day would be done, he'd speak to me of heaven and God.
God, I knew about. Sure, he'd made me and dad, and ma, and all the faerie.

The archbishop would sigh and bellow from beneath his green robes- "No, He didn't."

"How's that?"

He'd roll his eyes and try once more to explain it to me. "He made me and you," was how he'd start, "but not the faerie, for man made the faerie as a fanciful dream makes one believe in earthly heavens."
But sure, dreams and heaven do exist, don't it? Only in heaven, and not on earth, it is a Mystery.

I come to think Faerie are a Mystery too, only when I told the archbishop that, he became a very deep shade of crimson purple, like the cloak lady Evelyn wore the night of the spider.

It was dark, deep in the faerie wood, when the elven princess descended from the top of her horse, who was deeply walnut stained in colour. She patted him down, and gave him rolled faerie oats, which he seemed to relish as much as he would human ones. Laying down her royal head upon a pillowing pile of dark black curls, she soon fell fast asleep by the silent companion, who stood near her feet, guarding her most carefully except every moment or so when he'd snatch a small bit the faerie grass.
An elf appeared to Evelyn in her dream, like faerie appear in ours.What he said, I cannot tell, for only Evelyn heard it, and she didn't tell me.
I think she told da, cos dad tells me the story from here, and ma goes back to her sewing. He says that Evelyn woke from her dream drenched with the morning dew, and lovelier than ever,although she was now all alone, for the elf had taken his leave again, and she was alone in the wood.

The archbishop, he listens without stopping me, only to cluck his tongue in a weird manner when I finish, he murmurs, Poor child. I am not poor, and tell him so. He tries to explain Carnality and Original Sin, but I don't seem to understand and instead ask if he wants to hear more of the story. He hesitates for a moment, yet he asks me to by all means continue.
Evelyn, me da says, she was scared, for humans weren't to come into faerie woods, and be talking to faerie royalty at night, in dreams or otherwise. She gathered up closer her knees to her chest and sat pondering her situation, when she with her faerie ears hears a slamming of the wind, as if the north wind met his sister on a southernly course through his house. She alighted onto her feet, moving quickly towards the sound. She stopped herself just short of a clearing, for she saw her horse, laying lifeless beneath the slobbering jaws of an Emerald spider. Evelyn shuddered quite harder than a princess should shudder, because she had never seen so large of a spider. She was quite sure it was half and again the size of her walnut bay, even though perhaps he was only half, and not again. She could do nothing for her beast, and in her eyes of violet, the faerie springs flowed.

The archbishop, he interrupts me rudely. Faerie don't cry, he says, they're happy always. He quickly amends himself. "If they did exist, they'd not cry. But they don't", he adds admantantly, slamming his fat red hand on the table.

No,says I, Evelyn cried, for faeries feel like we do. He scowls at me, and I am quick to agree that faerie don't cry, although in my mind, I know better. Mollified, the archbishop seems to relax, and I continued the story.
There she was, fairest of all faerie princesses, not crying, for she saw that the spider was no longer atop her dead horse, but was nearly atop her. The spider leapt, and Evelyn desperately tried to leave, but the spider sank it's tooth deep into her thigh. Evelyn screamed in terror, or perhaps more in pain-

Faerie don't feel pain, he says. I asks him to stop interrupting, as nicely as you can ask an archbishop.

The spider fangs retracted from her thigh, and the spider was to try to take another bite of her, but Evelyn was away and running.
She ran as well as one can run, though her faerie legs ached with the blood that pooled around inside of them.
Still, the spider followed, scurrying across the forest floor. The lady Evelyn, she sees a small wooden hut, and she races inside to and swings closed the door. Breathing much harder than faerie should, she collapses against the door, only to tense as she hears the spider scurry around the hut, seeking entrance.
It was without hope, she was, for sure, she could not stay forever, bruised and bitten. She pulled her purple cloak away, and placed it under her thighs, which had bled crimson. Her head was light yet dark and heavy in the same time.
As the fog began to roll through her mind, so did a whistled tune. She struggled awake, for she heard the song, and so did the spider. Someone else was coming, someone strong and hale and hearty who could so whistle. There was a great commotion outside, and she strained to hear it all, for she knew the Whistler and the spider had met.
The noise abated, and she gasped, for perhaps there was again no hope. Then, upon the door she leant against came a rap, then two. Let me in, said the voice, I've come home. Evelyn rolled away from the door, and in strode her Elven friend of the night, with a rather proud stance.
I've just beaten the spider, says he, delivered a mighty stroke with my axe and sent it hobbling away. Right down upon it's legs I chopp-
He stops, for she's passed into unconsciousness, and he notices the blood upon her cloak and body. With a murmured gasp, he lifts her into his bed, and covers her with his own quilt.
Evelyn awakes much later, and she looks at him how a faerie princess looks at one who saves her life.
Being an Elf, he can't help but fall in love with her. It sounds awfully romantic and exciting, doesn't it?
Together, they decide to live in their hut forever.
With that, I finish the story. There, I says to the archbishop, faerie do exist. The archbishop is looking at me funny.
He gets up and limps to the door. Schooling's done for the day, Arachnae, he says, so go home.

Poem

2007-01-31T11:27:00.000-06:00

Dry as Shallot's bed

my face scarlet red

watching for a gallant knight

or even peasant clothed in white

just to break the glassy spell

dip from my untouched well

drink with your lips, your eyes

utter promises under night skies

reach for me, lift up your hand

touch my face, my heart command

lead me away from my tears silent

to a house where love may triumph

remove these rags where loathing spilt

across my breast to set it's chill

against my heart; warm by your touch

the frozen glass which hurts so much

every time I watch you unseeing pass

beneath my mirrored window glass.

Consequences of a pro abortion world

2007-01-23T06:32:00.000-06:00

Referring to a law requiring extra medical attention for children who were born alive post an abortion attempt-

"It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute," Barak Obama, (state) Senate debate in March 2001."

There you have it folks. A child born. As in, out of the womb, cannot be given extra medical attention in order to survive, because... (gasp) it might give the illusion that the child just inside the womb was human too.

In other words, Sen Obama (and many other pro choicers) prefer infanticide to ending abortion.

I am not pro abortion, for these simple reasons. I believe children are blessings, not something to be killed in order to be avoided. I believe I should take responsibility for my own sexual activity, and bear the consequences there of instead of another human being.

I understand that the child is human, just as I understand that jews, gays, and others put to death in Hitler's camps were human. They were "declared" inhuman by Goebbels, but that did not make them less so, even though the leading thinkers of the time thought so. Africans were not -less human- than caucasians, which is what made our country's history shameful. We allowed ourselves to believe a class of people weren't human, and so we granted slave owners the choice to do with them what they wished. Beatings, lynchings and other illegalaties resulted. The law turned a blind eye to such murders because the slaves were someone else's property.

I understand that a woman is not less than a man, and is never a man's property. It used to be thought so by the leading minds of the day. I extend the same rights to all humans. We are not property to be owned, disposed of, or discarded on someone's whim.

Ironically, the pro abortion crowd is made up of some who fought for those same rights for everyone else. Then they chose an inconvienent portion of society for themselves to oppress and kill.

Then they put forth arguments like EB did in his Blogging for Choice post. Let's examine those arguments once again.

Today is Blog for Choice day, and I’d like to add my humble contribution to the effort. I am pro-choice for two simple reasons

1) Morally, it is the only acceptable stance.

I've already addressed the morality of denying a group of people rights merely for your own convenience. It worked well for the Nazis, slave owners, wife abusers, and apparently became moral for pro abortion folks as well.

2) Practically, societies which violate this basic morality suffer. Moral lapses have real-world consequences, as we shall see.

Moral lapses do have consequences. Over 47,282,923 total abortions since 1973. By contrast, it was only about 6,000,000 people killed by Hitler. 47 million inconveniences. 47 million beating hearts. This does have consequences. I've posted before on how we've lost the a sustainable birthrate while muslims and catholic hispanics laugh at us on their way to take over our society and our way of life. Why shouldn't they? They just have to wait us out. Maybe they'll be that nice.

The morality of the pro-choice position is summed up very nicely by Bluey the Bodily Rights Thingamabob. Quite simply, when you require someone to use their body to keep another organism alive, you have violated one of their most fundamental rights. In the same way that it would be wrong to force someone to give, say, a Kidney to save another, it is wrong to require a woman to surrender her control over her own body in order to give preference to the fetus developing within her.

This would be the same as expecting a woman to breastfeed her baby to keep it alive. If she doesn't care for it (using her body) and the child dies, we call it infanticide. However, if you believe EB, then logically she's simply exercising that right and infanticide is ok. I use my body at work to provide for my family.. And yet there are these pesky laws that would require me to continue that support in the form of child support payments if I chose to leave. Where's Bluey to help me there?

When we give up bodily rights, we give up personal freedom. If people don’t have the freedom to make choices about their own body, to decide when they will–and will not–sacrifice their body for another, then they do not truly have freedom at all.

Freedom without responsibility is anarchy. We are responsible for what we do in and to our own bodies. If I smoke, do I -not- know I am killing myself? If I drink and get behind the wheel of a car, do I have the freedom to avoid the consequences of killing someone else? If I have sex and pregnancy results, am I not responsible for the child growing in the womb? Nope. By EB's logic, my freedom is to have it killed. Wish I could do the same with tobacco cigarettes and drunk driving victims. Maybe I could do the same with the welfare system that takes my money to support adults who choose not to work?!? Are they not living off my body, my livelihood, my work?

None of us have the right to demand the use of another’s body for our own gain, or even to keep ourselves alive. Nor should we–each person’s body is their own property, no one else’s, and certainly not the State’s. If we recognize this implicitly when it comes to those outside the womb, why would we privilege a fetus?

We don't? Why is my body then demanded by a welfare society? Why is my money taxed by the government? Why do I keep others alive by my work? Why do I have the right to CPR from a rescue worker?

Now.. EB wants to know why a child should be able to demand a right to life? An unborn child should have the same rights as a 1 week old child. Last I checked, we grant 1 week old children the right to demand to be fed and taken care of, and we prosecute those who don't for child abuse and infanticide. Do we not? Why the dichotomy between inside the womb and outside it?

It is reprehensible to believe that a fetus should have a right to a woman’s body, to use it (a fetus is, by any technical definition, a parasite). If you disagree, imagine that we would force those who caused car wrecks to donate their bodies to those who might be harmed. No one would find that acceptable. And yet we tell women to do that for months, sometimes at great personal risk, because the fetus is somehow worth more than the fully-formed human carrying it.

Strange how quickly EB labels a child a parasite. Makes the child seem, I dunno.. less human? Kinda like calling a hispanic a spic or a beaner. Kinda like calling a caucausian a honky or whitey. Kinda like calling an african a nigger. It insulates us from what we do to them, from what we see and allow to happen to them. After all, a parasite is less human than EB or myself. Except.. by EB, we're both just parasites who survived. I support EB's right to survive and grow up to argue about this. Sadly, EB doesn't support that same right for future debaters. However, I ask EB to stand behind his stance and support infanticide for any child that needs parental support to survive. After all... it's just a parasite. Will EB grant me to let my children go unfed if they demand too much of me? Is EB for infanticide or against it? Or is just okay if others have the right, although he -personally- wouldn't starve a child?

Interestingly enough, do you know of any animal that attaches a parasite to itself? I mean, seriously, all parasites have the ability to transfer to another host. Do unborn children pick and choose their host body? Or are they the innocent consequences of a sexual act between (hopefully) adults?

You may say–as some have said to me before–that this is purely theoretical, that in practice forced child-bearing is not damaging and does not privilege the fetus over humans, but there is clear evidence of what happens in anti-choice society, and that evidence makes it clear that this is not some meaningless, speculative debate, but is in fact a high-stakes controversy, where we must fight to defend basic human rights.

So. I argue for basic human rights- not to kill someone based on a subjective idea of their humanity or lack thereof. Basic human right, no? Or is your basic human right infanticide?

In America, we have a long history of clinic-bombings, resistance to birth control, and harassment of doctors that demonstrates the true motives of many anti-choicers. But if they ever really got their way, we know what they would want, and it would look like the proposed laws in the Dakotas, or worse:

Really? How many clinic bombings in our -long history-? Five? Ten? What's the death toll? 47 million?

The bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. James Kerzman, D-Mott, said his proposed ban would make abortion a crime in all cases except to save the mother’s life.

It would establish the ban as law in North Dakota, but only if the 1973 Roe V. Wade Supreme Court decision ever gets overturned.
In seeking a strict ban that does not allow for exceptions for rape or incest, the measure mimics last year’s abortion ban in South Dakota, which passed that state’s Legislature but was overturned by voters there last fall.

How many abortions of that 47 million were for the life of the mother? The rape/incest situation? Or have we made the mistake of judging by the extreme situations and not the normal ones? How many children are dead because of it? What's your allowance of acceptable deaths? 1 million? 5 million? 10 million? We'll abandon wars before we reach a casualty toll that high in armed conflict, but we have no problem if we're killing our own children in the name of freedom without responsibility.

And indeed, where anti-choicers have already won the day, the effects are horrifying indeed. Simply put, where fetus-worship has become the law of the land, nothing matters except forcing women to have babies. In countries that take the rhetoric of anti-choice seriously, even abortion to save the life of the mother is not allowed because, hey, the mother’s nothing but the vessel carrying the all-important fetus, right?

The mother is a human, carrying a fellow human being. Both are equally human in my mind.

If you believe that government should not have the power to demand we sacrifice our bodies for others without our consent, if you think that personal liberties are important, then I hope you’ll join me in speaking out to make sure we keep abortion legal.

I can think of 47 million reasons we shouldn't. What other type of murder do we ask a government to condone? We expect prosecution of war criminals who kill innocents. We expect investigations into police shootings. We expect jury trials and execution or imprisonment for the taking of a life that's not in self defense. Why should we not extend the same rights to a child an hour out of the womb that we won't extend to a child an hour from coming out of the womb?

In the words of Senator Obama- "It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute" That's right folks. If a child survives an abortion, we don't want that. If it was a child. Yep. If that born human out of the womb was recognised as a child then..

We might realize the child is -gasp- human and deserving of life. This is the result of a pro abortion mentality. Freedom to kill. At any cost. Consequences be damned along with our children. So, for the good of all, I ask those prochoicers in the closet to be consistent with your belief system and voice your support for infanticide. Let no child unborn or not be a parasite on your body. It's your right to preven that through their death. Be morally consistent. Be honest. That's all I'm asking.

On the subject of sin

2007-01-20T07:20:00.000-06:00

I woke up this morning thinking about sin. Why is sin bad? Why does everyone accept the concept of bad things done by bad people and yet some reject the notion of sin?

The theologically correct answer is that sin is anything done against God's laws. Since there are many that reject God's laws, and some that attempt to follow His laws, why are both guilty in His eyes?

To answer this question in my own mind, I see it this way- God created man with the intention of us dwelling with Him for eternity. I believe that every law God created has a consequence. I believe that the majority of these consequences are not merely God's whim, but the natural result of sin. I believe that God truly knows best how man operates, and that if mankind was able to keep all of God's commandments and not sin, then mankind would truly be it's happiest. Paul writes that as much as is within us, we should be at peace with all men. I don't believe we can do that if we sin, and here's why:

I believe every one of God's rules is intended to prevent us from hurting ourselves and others. I believe He gave us the free will to choose whether or not to obey Him, and the direct result of our disobedience causes the pain we see in the world.
I believe that every time we sin, it affects us and or someone else. I cannot be greedy without attempting to cheat my neighbor. This affects my neighbor whom I cheat, it affects my mental state, and it creates a disharmony. By acting on my greed, I become someone who a normal community would despise, thereby thrusting me out of a peaceful world and leaving me to find understanding only among people who are greedy like me.

I cannot lie without hurting myself and someone else. My lie is a challenge to the person telling the truth. If my lie is believed then someone else is falsely branded a liar. If my lie is shown false, then I have been revealed as a liar, and again, I cannot peacefully coexist with my fellow man.

I cannot act immorally without hurting myself and others around me. Even if I could set up a scenario where I did not see any visible consequences to myself, it still would hold unseen consequences- I would have to choose either to be a hypocrite and condemn others for the same actions, or I would have to tolerate and approve the same actions by others. Any person that I influenced to think that immorality is okay, who then acted on that and ended up hurt by it, I would bear some of the blame for their actions.

I cannot curse without it affecting my mental state and warping me from the person I want to be. Do I want to be an angry and vindictive person? If not, why do I express myself in that way?

God is very clear that He cannot accept us in our sinful state. The presence of sin in our lives warps us away from the perfection of His creation, from who we could be if we followed His rules. God knows what is best for us, but we deviate from that, we hurt ourselves and screw up the world and then turn in anger to God and demand to know why He lets the world get so messed up. Or, in a fit of insanity, we scream that God just doesn't want us to have -any fun- while we wallow in our miserable personal world. Sounds fun, huh?

God's love to allow us to be free from our sins when we confess and ask Him to do so is amazing. There are still consequences to our previous actions, but His forgiveness should drive us to do our best to set those things as right as possible. What could the world do with a bunch of forgiving Christians who set their hearts on avoiding sin and reducing the damage done to the world?

I am not speaking of legalism, but of being sensitive to the Spirit of Christ and avoiding sin, and dealing with failure to do so quickly. Sins are actions that spring from us (even our thoughts are actions of our will...) and then change our lives and the lives of others around us. The longer we let these beasts run wild the great damage is done to our lives. Hasn't your life been affected enough by the sins of others? Why add more of your own to the list?

To me, this God who wants to prevent sin and atone for it has His existence proven by the fact of sin in the world. Think about the problems we have facing humanity as a whole. Could one person hold the answer? Could sixty six books be written dealing with the issue and solve the world's problem if they were followed? The odds are definitely against it, unless there was one common Author who knew us inside and out. The only way He could know us so well would be the fact that He created us. The only reason He would care to change us from our destructive course would be that He loved us. The only way to show us He loves us would be to for Him to give sacrificially of Himself. To do that He would have to endure great pain, even death for us. To be able to still fellowship with us, He would have to rise again. In order for us to see Him, He could either all take us to be with Him at once, or He could remind us that He's waiting for us to come see Him at the end of our life's journey. The state at which we arrive depends on how much like Him we are. How much like Him we are depends on how deviant from His will we have been. How deviant is based on our free choice to reject His best for us. When I reject God's way, I hurt more than just myself. I hurt the world He has created, I hurt those that He loves, and I disappoint God Himself. No wonder He hates my sin. How amazing that He still loves me. How astonishing that I can still view disobedience as a viable option. I can only do that when I ignore what sin does to my fellowman and my God and see it only as a short term benefit to me.

5am and awake leads to posts like this..

2007-01-17T05:24:00.000-06:00

"My point is that if EB wishes to impose his morality on us, it is something fundamentalists cannot tolerate, and vice versa."

Evi Bender said...
Actually, my argument is that a rational, democratic society cannot allow itself to be held hostage to religious beliefs which are, by definition, outside the realm of proof and so of debate.

And my previous post argued that EB is a secular fundamentalist, with views outside the realm of his own proving, and so deserves the same rules he suggests that apply to religious fundamentalists. Since my point seems to be missed, I will reiterate it. EB is a secular fundamentalist, and his beliefs are religious because they take faith on his part to accept them.

This is why- First, he does not claim absolute knowledge, therefore there is no certainty that his beliefs are based in absolute truth. Without absolute truth, his views are only personal opinions. If he appeals that he only believes what the majority believes, then he has contradicted himself, for he believes that the most good for the most people is not a moral way to live, and therefore, most assuredly his morals and his reasoning would not jive. I.E. his reasoning would defy his morality, and vice versa.

And you repeatedly conflate "not letting fundamentalists force their moral code on us through the law" with "not letting them participate in the public discourse," while I specifically argue FOR the latter.

Unfortunately, either this statement is misleading, or the previous statement "and that we too often overlook when debating the merits of secularism, which is that there should be a divide between what we tolerate and what we allow to control the public discourse." is.

EB appears to state there should be a divide between what we tolerate and what we allow to control public discourse. The word divide suggests that we tolerate some things that we do not allow to control public discourse. I then attempted to point out that the only way you can stop something from controlling public discourse is to kick it out of the arena or else it still has a chance to do just that. EB's argument was not pro fundamentalist participation in the public discourse.

You should also note that luaphacim identifies himself as a "secular Christian." I don't think it's that his belief system is fundamentally different from yours that causes him to make this argument. Rather, it is that he sees the value in not forcing his beliefs on others.

First, this is irrelevant since I was not discussing LM's belief system, but EB's. This is the sort of argument that EB hates when presented to him by an opponent, but he is willing to use it here. But since it was brought up, I will take notice of it. EB now appeals to a belief system that is different from his own to bolster his own belief systems and opinions. It seems safe to say that EB would allow LM into public discourse since he agrees (EB's claim, not mine) enough that a different opinion than EB's would not be trying to "control public discourse" which EB does not want fundamentalists to do. Since EB has not identified LM as a fundamentalist, LM would definitely fit into EB's idea of who can participate in legislating morality.

Should I have to change my belief systems to match LM's before I can participate? Remember that I am a loud mouthed fundamentalist perfectly willing to attempt to control public discourse. :)

If all I'm being accused of is arguing that faith is not a sufficient reason for passing laws, then I will happily own to that charge. The characterization of my beliefs above, however, forces me to object in the strongest terms.

Methinks he does protest too much. EB is by his own admission a secularist who values tolerance equally applicable to everyone who is not a fundamentalist. He wants to make sure that fundamentalists do not control public discourse. I argued in order to prevent that, they must be kept out of public discourse. I argued that EB's belief that fundamentalists not control public discourse is due to his own personal beliefs which are not based in provable reason (by his standards that he is uncapable of knowing absolute truth, and therefore cannot appeal to it), and therefore are based in a faith that his own ideas are the best ones to live life by and argue by. Due to his faith in his imperfect logic and reasoning, I labelled him a secular fundamentalist. To this he objects. I don't know why he does. EB has every right to his belief system and to expound on them. He should be proud of what he believes in, for I'm sure it has taken him much soul searching and deep thought to arrive at it.

However, EB then argues that faith should not be a sufficient reason for passing laws. Should then be a sufficient reason for not passing laws? And should EB's personal faith in his reasoning be a sufficient faith for passing laws? I believe in a God who knows what I should do, EB believes in his own moral code to tell him what to do. We each look to something to live and guide our lives.

My opinion is that fundamentalists should be allowed the same chance to control public discourse that secularists have, without litmus tests on religion or personal beliefs. Because this is only a chance, it is quite possible that they will be voted out of this right. This country is set up for voters to decide that. They will decide in part by the influence of bloggers like EB. I object to EB denying their right to do that if his reasoning doesn't match up with their reasoning. EB's desire to keep religion out of politics can only be done by legislation, while other religious in nature (like EB's) views sneak in under the label "secularism". If LM has the right to participate in public discourse but does not feel obligated to do so, I prefer that to a system where he does not have that right.

In which I call EB a fundamentalist.

2007-01-16T11:59:00.000-06:00

EB invited a discussion, and as he seems perfectly capable of finding idiotic fundamentalists to quote, I thought I would try to yield perhaps even more for him to dive into. In the following, EB's lines are in bold.

I hope you’ll bear with me for this post. In it, I will attempt to work out how we can, as decent, thoughtful human beings, promote democracy and rationality, while both valuing tolerance and refusing to give ground to fundamentalists of all stripes. It is my goal here not to find an ultimate answer to these problems, but rather to foster further discussion on this important topic. If you care about the roles of reason and faith in contemporary society, please read after the fold and leave a note letting me know what you think.

The goal appears to be that EB will explain his "belief system". He is a self described decent, thoughtful human being who wishes to promote democracy and rationality, while valuing tolerance and refusing to accept(or as he puts it, give ground to) fundamentalists of all stripes.

Today I read Sam Harris’ book Letter to a Christian Nation, which makes some very good points while also being occasionally over-simplistic, sometimes chilling, and often patronizing. Much of what Harris says I agree with, particularly with his assertion that society should not be controlled by those who believe in the absolute rightness of their faith–and as a corollary the absolute wrongness of everyone else’s. As I’ve repeatedly argued here, fundamentalism is incredibly dangerous, especially when adopted by those who hold political power.

But Harris is the classic example of some good arguments coming from a man who, frankly, seems unworthy of respect. AlterNet reports that he is a mystic, an advocate of torture, and a man who believes that it might be ethical to kill someone for their sufficiently dangerous beliefs. In other words, he is what the religious right often–and almost always erroneously–claims atheists to be: a fundamentalist atheist. But that’s not exactly right either, for he’s not even consistent. He claims to believe in reason and the scientific method. But science doesn’t work by shouting down other views, no matter how stupid, and the proper response to growing Muslim fundamentalism isn’t to bomb believers. That’s morally abhorrent in addition to being terrible policy.

If the argument is good, why does the respect of the man matter? If logic and rationality is the key, why put a disqualification based on the debator's lifestyle?

Here EB argues that we shouldn't bomb believers because he feels it is morally abhorrent. Why? I as a fundamentalist can argue with God as my reference point. EB can argue by appealing to what? Reason? What makes his reason better than mine? What is his solution to fundamentalists?

He’s also engaged in the dangerous “most happiness for the most people” morality which, taken to extremes, argues that it’s okay to say, take a life in order to make the lives of many others better. It assumes it knows all outcomes, in other words, which makes it as dangerous as any other “absolute knowledge.”

Ok.. so assuming absolute knowledge is dangerous. The most happiness for the most people morality is also wrong according to EB. So, we know he's not basing his reasonings on absolute knowledge, for he cannot absolutely know he is right. He is also not basing his assumptions on the idea that popularity (or the best for the most) is right.

And that’s at the heart, I think, of a fundamental distinction that Harris doesn’t see, and that we too often overlook when debating the merits of secularism, which is that there should be a divide between what we tolerate and what we allow to control the public discourse.

A divide between what we tolerate and what we allow to control the public discourse. In starker terms, a divide between what EB allows me to believe, and how often EB would allow me to say and do it in public. In other words, if I am pushing my belief systems on others, I reach the limit of EB's tolerance and he then begins to impose his belief system on others (namely me!), i.e. his belief that I shouldn't mix politics and religion. All the while, he continues to fly the tolerance flag.

I am, unlike Harris, all for tolerance: I completely support your right to believe whatever you want. That doesn’t mean I’m going to give you a pass on your beliefs. If you believe that the Universe is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark, that’s your call, but I’m going to make fun of you for it. I’ll support your right to believe it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to encourage you to do so, or give you special treatment because you believe in whatever.

Ok, here EB backs off and simply threatens mockery instead of not allowing my beliefs to control the public discourse. (Please note, his beliefs would control the public discourse by prohibiting my belief to do the same thing... unless he is foolish enough to believe public discourse would be silent)

Tolerance can be dangerous, though, if we take it to mean that we must accept what others do rather than what they believe. You have a perfect right to think that what your God tells you overrides all other moral concerns, but you do not have a right to try to push that belief on me through legislation, government power or other forms of strong-arming. Why?

Ok, then I will take my perfect right, and act on it. I do have that right to push that belief, just as you have the right (in this country) to push your belief that I shouldn't.

Simply put, because you would not tolerate it in reverse.

News flash.... I guess fundamentalists are never persecuted. We do tolerate the deaths of christians all over the world in places like Sudan and China.. We tolerate it because we don't attempt to control public discourse enough to do anything about it.

Christians, think of what you would do if forced to live in a country where Muslim faith was the law of the land. If you were forced to live by the rules of the religious convictions of others, you would be justifiably angry.

Strangely, anger isn't what you see among persecuted Christians. Historically, we tend to become much more devoted and choose death over living apart from those views. Muslim fundamentalists seem to be the same way. Our beliefs are what we choose to live by, and we accept the consequences for our actions or flee the country.

If you’re religious and you care about acting morally, you must support secular society, because you would want people of other religions to respect your beliefs if the situation were reversed. If you don’t care whether others would respect you, then you can’t claim to act morally, because morality implies that its rules apply to everyone: anything else is personal opinion at best.

So, we have an absolute morality.. that apparently is apart from absolute knowledge. Is EB's personal belief most deeply rooted in the idea that rules apply to everyone? Which rules? EB points out that anything else is personal opinion. Without the benefit of absolute knowledge, is that statement a personal opinion? Is the idea that morality implies equal application of the law a personal opinion, or is it absolute? What is it that backs up these claims of EB's? His own unabsolute reasoning? The fact that others agree with him? Please remember that EB has already pointed out the danger of doing things according to the good of the majority.

So what does secularism demand? Essentially, it demands that no religion should have the power to dictate the rule of law. Religion is based upon faith, and a democratic–hell, any reasonable society–needs to make decisions based upon debate and rationality. Nothing is more destructive to real morality, or indeed to society as a whole, than theocracy, which is present whenever religious beliefs based upon faith are forced upon those who do not believe.

Ah, so now EB is hinting at being a secularist. A secularist society (like religion!) has certain demands which it morally (according to EB's equal morality application rule bans -any- religion the power to dictate rule of law. In essence, secularism has the power to dictate the rule of law that no religion can do so. Wow, this almost sounds fundamentalist.

He disqualifies religion because it is based on faith. He exalts secularism because it is based on his perceived view of science and reason.. Now remember, Absolute knowledge eludes EB, so he just... believes?!?! that his version of science and reason are correct enough to be better than any religion out there. He takes offense at religion imposing it's faith... but has no qualms about demanding secularism rule the day.

As I said during the Danish Cartoon outrage, the publishers of those cartoons had a perfect right to publish them, because we cannot be held hostage to religious demands that we curtail free speech. That is a necessity of secular society. But at the same time, the newspaper seems to have published the cartoons deliberately to inflame and infuriate muslims, which means that, rather than being a helpful addition to a rational discourse, it appears to be intolerant. It should not be banned (laws banning defamation of religion are antithetical to debate and democracy) but we should also recoginze that the right to say something does not make saying that thing appropriate. I defend David Duke’s right to say racist things, but of course rail loudly against what he says.

Necessity of a secular society is that it cannot be held hostage to religious demands.. however, the secular society in question he believes was inappropriate and intolerant. Again, this is not absolute knowledge. This is the secularist worldview that EB lives his life and reasons according to. If EB was to be consistent here, he would choose- either he has the right to mock or he has the right to deny public discourse to. He has to deny public discourse, because if he turns it into a shouting match in order to prevent control, then madness ensues, and reason (which is dear to EB's heart,) is lost in the noise.. If EB's hope (and I tend to believe it is.. is that through simply expound his worldview, he will have the populace see his reason as correct and utopia will ensue..... I need not expound that although perhaps noble, that will never be accomplished by humanity without legislating it as right and punishing those who disobey it.. thereby defeating EB's whole purpose.

I cannot speak well for the course of action that Europe should persue in dealing with waves of Muslim immegration, as I am not qualified to do so. But I can speak for how Americans should and must deal with fundamentalism, no matter who is pushing it: we must tolerate one’s right to believe it, but absolutely refuse to let those fundamentalist push their faith-based “reality” and faith-based “morality” upon us through our governments.

Here again we meet the crux of the matter... Would EB allow or encourage the goverment to push a secularist morality upon us? If he is not willing to legislate it, why is he advocating it? If he demands that someone else can't do it, there must be a penalty (which we hope would be lawful.. which means it would be done through legislation)

I don’t intend this to be an all-inclusive statement on the subject, but I do hope that it sparks further discussion. This is one of the defining issues of our time, as I see it, and if we are going to defeat the demon of fundamentalist doctrine as state policy those who are atheist and religious–all of us–must work together to insure our mutual religious freedom. Any other course dooms democracy and freedom, and risks enslaving all of us to the religious ideals of others.

Well, here was further discussion. A defining issue of our time, yes.. My point is that if EB wishes to impose his morality on us, it is something fundamentalists cannot tolerate, and vice versa. I really don't have a problem with EB expounding or even trying to legislate his beliefs onto me, if he respects my right to oppose him through the same methods. However, I find it disingenuous for EB to claim to be promoting tolerance for all (which if tolerance is moral, and morality applies equally to everyone....) while trying to deny fundamentalists the right he believes belong solely to secularists- the mandate (apart from absolute knowledge) to control public discourse. I reiterate- If EB does not believe secularism should control public discourse, than he has no problem allowing public discourse to be filled with various religious and secular voices. Human nature being what it is, the public discourse (without legislation) will inevitably end up with a controlling force. To rule religion out of it because EB finds it something to be mocked (remember, EB does not have absolute knowledge that this belief is correct...) while promoting secularism to rule the day sounds deliciously fundamentalist. To which I say, welcome to the Dark side. I also note that by labelling EB a fundamentalist I would have to deny him the right to control public discourse if I believed as he did. Fortunately, I (the fundamentalist) can tolerate his attempts to push his belief system on me... at least I hope I can, for such is the nature of humanity.

Refocusing

2007-01-07T07:04:00.000-06:00

Last night was a very good night. Last night, one of my children shared with me that they think they are on the beginning of the most important journey of their life.

As a father, I am overjoyed, and yet my joy is tempered by those I have seen fall away. It is my job to disciple, and one that I have not done as well as I should. I will do better by God's grace. If my daughter chooses to leave Christ later in life, then may it not be because I failed to show her God's love. I cannot make her love Christ, and I do not want to. Such forced love only leads to abandonment of God as they get older. I will do my best to minimize those mistakes, and I must do it as God instructs me to do it.

Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nuture and admonition of the Lord.

How many children do we lose because we parent out of anger and frustration without the end goal in sight? If Voddie Baughman is correct, about 75%.

I hope to spend less time on here, and more with my children. They are who I am now. I am a husband first, a father second. Each moment I steal and squander is a moment I will regret.

With that, I sign off for now, it's time for my kids to get up.

-Marshwiggle

It's been awhile...

2007-01-06T06:15:00.000-06:00

It's been a while since I posted, so here I am typing, although I'm not sure I really have much to say. As far as the political scene- well, not much you can say there. I looked over on EB's blog for a trademark "goodbye ahole" for Saddam.. I figured if he handed it out to corrupt politicians, surely he would extend the title to murdering ones.

The whole scene with saddam's death is ironic. Noone, as in, noone disputes that he killed countless people in his country. No one argues for his innocence, and yet he has supporters who don't think he deserved to be hung, and who complain that he was taunted as he was put to death. Taunted. What kind of screwed up world do we live in that a dictator being taunted is cause for concern? Now there have been arrests related to the taunting. I guess Iraq doesn't have freedom of speech in effect yet. The biggest story out of saddam's execution is that the guy was made fun of as he died and how uncouth that was.

In other news, Minnesota's airport is having problems with Muslim cabbies refusing to carry passengers who have dogs or are transporting alcohol. A few observations about this- 1. Minnesota has an active muslim/pro muslim population- see their choice of representative. 2. This should be a business opportunity for all non muslim cabbies (free market). 3. Not picking up passengers with service dogs violates the ADA. This is the most interesting of the three. Does religion trump ADA requirements? Here's the point many (including Virgil Goode) have been trying to make- The muslim culture will not assimilate into the US as past immigrants have done. (See french riots).

Jesse Jackson Jr cast his vote (on the house floor) for Ms. Pelosi in the name of Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, and Jesus Christ. Wow. I guess I was wrong about Democrats opposing Christ in politics. Now that Ms. Pelosi is "in the name of Christ" voted for, I can breath easier. I'm not sure how that affects people who want separation of church and state. Now that we can nominate and vote for politicians in Christ's name, the religious right can feel much better. In other positive religion and politics news, we have the following-

"At age 89, Sen. Robert Byrd’s gait may have been slowed, but his enthusiasm was positively boyish when he was sworn in Thursday as the Senate’s president pro tempore, the official who presides over the Senate in the vice president’s absence and is third in line for the presidency.

“Yeah, man! Yeah, man! Hallelujah, hallelujah!” Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, shouted after being sworn in."

"Rep. James Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, was giddy over his new position as House Democratic whip, the third-ranking leader.

“Let’s go to church, let’s go to church!” crowed a beaming Clyburn as he left the Capitol for a pre-swearing-in religious service." -KC Star 1/5/07

My bold prediction- The next two years won't bring the changes the voters hoped for from the party they desperately want to bring them. Liberal bloggers will be sorely disappointed with the democrats, but they will console themselves that they -aren't- republicans.. at least until 08.

We are barely a week into power, and so far the democrats big news stories have been a 1k a plate dinner, the fact that Ms. Pelosi likes the Grateful Dead, and that Keith Ellison borrowed Thomas Jefferson's Koran. There sure seems to be alot of religion that these Dems are bringing to Washington. If the liberal bloggers hate the religious aspect, they are sure to tear these politicians apart.. However.. I would wager it has more to do with party than religion, i.e. the left will hush about dem religion married to the state, because power trumps principles. :) Or it might be that the left thinks dem religion is all ceremonial.. perhaps, but ceremonial or not, is religion allowed in the state based on who is in power? Because, as we all know from our leftist friends, religion and American government never should be mixed. The religious right forced it down our throats and voters wanted a change.

Counting blessings

2006-12-12T11:38:00.000-06:00

Sometimes I swim in the sea of apathy that surrounds me when I have so much to be thankful for.

Last night I was woken by one of my baby girls. She was hungry, and as I fed her, I realized just how precious she is. Would that I be forgiven for the times I forget that.

I am the epitome of antisocial, and yet 15 children have wandered through my small home(s) and spent time relying on my wife and I. Right now, 6 of those children are what I come home to each night, and each one has taught me and blessed me. My wife loves me and continually amazes me with her kindness and her love for me. My babies smiles are jewels of unmatched value, and my one year old will run to me the minute he sees me. What more could a father ask for? My eleven year old just finished the 2nd of C.S. Lewis' narnian chronicles, and her interest in Jack's tale of God's wonderful love for us made me so thankful for his life and writings.

I am happy. Amazingly, deliriously happy. My God loves me and holds my future in His hands. My past has been forgiven, and my future intertwines with the lives of so many. I don't have to live in bitterness or anger or frustration.

I am supremely confident in the knowledge that I am not all knowing, but that the God who created me is. I rejoice in the love and mercy that He continually shows me, and the friends that He brings in and out of my life.

I would like to thank two old friends that have gone separate ways than I have. EB and LHO both were in my life for a period of time when we tended to agree more than disagree. It's quite the opposite now, but I thank God for them and pray for the day when we might once again agree on more than we disagree on.

I would like to thank LM for being a sounding block for me. I've always had the privelege of knowing that if I can convince LM it's right, it's usually worth thinking. :)

I would like to thank my work for being more of a job than I deserve, with benefits that go beyond what many places hand out.

I would like to thank my children for being themselves and for letting me guide them for however long I have with them.

I love being what EB might call a religious nut. I love it! I love being one of those people who thinks they know what is best for everyone else... I love not having to try and tell you how to live your life while pretending I am not doing just that. I love that people that disagree with my views can label me a fanatic, and act as if I should be ignored or I should supress my beliefs and how I live them out. I love the bluntness and honesty of being expected to be a jerk, because it always surprises people who know me. I love the freedom that comes in trying to live according to God's rules, because they are so much better than mine would be.

I love that by God's grace I can be less of the man I was, and more of the man I want to be. I love that I can be a man, that I can be a father, and that I don't have to live by society's rules on masculinity. I am happy that this imperfect life of mine can have some value to the world as a whole.

I am happy being the me God wants me to be... And if you're reading this, I guess I just am happy that you took the time to do so.

May God bless you and bring you closer to Himself.

Double notes, BONUS!

2006-11-21T12:03:00.000-06:00

To set up my point for this post, I will reiterate what I previously typed-

You and I are not so different, you know. We both appeal to a higher ideal. Our problem is that our worldviews cannot tolerate each other's behavior without destroying who we feel we are inside.
Our problem is when these higher ideals conflict. We begin accusing each other of shoving these ideals down each other's throats.

I submit to you that we do not (have any other choice). We cannot live our life without pushing our belief system, be it religious or personal. If we are convinced we are right, then the other systems are wrong. People have long tried to find common middle ground, but that middle ground is never reached without one or both sides giving up something they previously found "right" and moving towards the other.... But it would be wrong for their believers to not advance an agenda they believe in. We all believe in something.

I thank luaphacim for his thoughtful reply to EB's note, and as I could not express it better, I will simply reply to Luaphacim's note-

"But then the problem comes when his conviction says he DOES need to try that... if you deny him the chance to try, then you deny him the full practice of his convictions (in much the same way as the abolition of sati in India prevented Hindus from practicing their convictions, one could argue).

I wonder if we can establish some useful definition or boundary regarding when practice becomes unacceptable. I know that for EB, that point is where it comes into conflict with someone else's life choices. For marsh, I bet the point is where it causes physical harm. Am I close? "

I would submit that EB uses both criteria (for all womb survivors, at least).

My point regarding practices is that it is hypocrisy for me to push my point and then for EB to complain about it if he is pushing his own separate set of beliefs that contradicts mine, and vice-versa. We each have no other choice (if we believe our beliefs). Resorting to mockery, derogatory language, and protests against the "evil" other side for oppression is laughable, because oppression seems to be whichever side of the coin our beliefs are not on. Beliefs are more than just religion. Beliefs, religious or not, become our way of life.

Ironically, then our beliefs are judged by who we become. Hypocrites are our favorite topic in regards to different belief systems.

When you only have one comment, you have time to address it.

2006-11-19T06:53:00.000-06:00

"And unlike much of religious history, my worldview does not advocate forcing people to give up their views. As long as you're not using your views to opress, I fully support your right to practice them."

That's just the point. If my view says homosexuality is wrong, and I say so, then I am following my belief system. I have also crossed the line into intolerance, and you can no longer fully support my right to practice said belief if it affects how I live around you.

If you believe that homosexuality is normal, and you say so, then you are following your belief system, which is at odds with mine.

If I believe your eternal soul is in danger, then I must not condone you without betraying my belief system. If you believe the world is a worse place because of bigots like me, then you cannot condone me without betraying yours.

If I believe that my views belong in the school where my children attend, it is oppression to me if you keep them out.

However, you find it oppression if I try to remove those views that you support and replace them with my own.

If the government we live in takes a side on the abortion issue, then one of our belief systems is opposed. As long as you agree with the government, then it's not oppression. If you disagree, then it is.

Our beliefs are deeply personal, and if not lived out in our lives, are not worth having. That's why we live it out, and why you have no tolerance for the intolerant.

The problem is, your worldview does advocate forcing me to give up mine. It simply doesn't attach a visible religion to it. If you believe abortion to be legal, and the government agrees with you, it does force that reality upon me. Any action I take against the government to change that falls under anarchy. Yes, at this moment, I am granted the right to free speech, but my words will be ridiculed as soon as I speak them, lest someone hear me. If I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, either the governing bodies agree or they disagree. Either way, they oppress someone's personal beliefs!
You cannot allow the words to go unchallenged, you cannot tolerate the ideas behind them. You can ignore them, but only after quelling them in your own mind.

My ideas, and your ideas, have logical consequences. We may not always be able to predict them, but an idea that does not affect your life is usually not an idea that can become part of your belief system.

In a way, I think you're only proving my point. "Interestingly, my worldview allows me to tolerate behavior as long as that behavior doesn't result in intolerance." Your belief system then, promotes intolerance to the ideal you care most about. Anything goes for you, except behavior resulting in intolerance. In your own admission, you cannot tolerate such behavior.

Can you tolerate yourself? For your mind and your belief system promote an intolerant behavior towards intolerant behavior. You are hung by your own words.

I do not think to change your mind by wordplay (and I cannot call my wordplay clever). You will only insist I set up a straw man and then burned it in my infantile way so common to bigotry. :)

-Marshwiggle out.

Letter to a friend of mine.

2006-11-18T06:03:00.000-06:00

It is not my goal to run your life. However, I do think I know best how you should live your life. I think I know how you and I can best get along. Before you dismiss me as arrogant, I ask you to be as honest with me as I am being with you. You and I are not so different, you know. We both appeal to a higher ideal. Our problem is that our worldviews cannot tolerate each other's behavior without destroying who we feel we are inside.

So, what do we do? We attempt to suppress and ridicule each other's worldviews. We claim hate and bigotry... Unfortunately, we're all bigots that way. The best of us keep our bigotry confined to hatred of the behavior, not the person. I applaud you for doing that.

Because there is more than one of you, there is more than one higher ideal. It might be religious- i.e. your God tells you what to do in order to please Him/Her. It might be political- i.e. your party is salvation from the other party. It might be lifestyle- i.e. you want to be free to live your life and love the people you want how you want to.

Our problem is when these higher ideals conflict. We begin accusing each other of shoving these ideals down each other's throats. We bring out the barrage of words, the names and adjectives that each mother tries to keep her children from using. My question to you is, do we have any other choice?

I submit to you that we do not. We cannot live our life without pushing our belief system, be it religious or personal. If we are convinced we are right, then the other systems are wrong. People have long tried to find common middle ground, but that middle ground is never reached without one or both sides giving up something they previously found "right" and moving towards the other. For example, christianity either finds adultery wrong or it finds it acceptable. There is no middle ground there. Homosexual rights are either granted or they are denied- Again, no middle ground. Either Allah is right, or Jehovah is right. They can both be wrong... But it would be wrong for their believers to not advance an agenda they believe in. We all believe in something.

To call for others to repress their views or mock them for their views finds us at the lowest common denominator. To mock each other is easy. To live out our belief in such a way that it draws others to it, that is hard. What if we all gave up the name calling and hatred towards each other, and just worked on drawing each other towards our belief? Although this has long been a theoretical ideal, it again ignores the fact of how different our belief systems are. In the end, some of us will be proven right, and some will be proven wrong. The comeback to that phrase is often that it's possible for all of us to be wrong, and I will admit that point's hypothetical validity. However.... The consequences for one side being right are pretty frightening to all other sides. For example, nothing is more frightening to a christian fundamentalist than to die and find out that there is no god, and all his/her time spent serving said god was a mix of emotional delirium. In the same regard, nothing would be more frightening to a republican idealist to find out at the end of life that his/her votes stood in the way of true progress and salvation for the masses. What does the afterlife think of you? Or what will your life efforts be in the nothingness after death? Afterlife or not, all of us wish to advance and bring a sense of pride and accomplishment to our belief system. To suggest otherwise, or to keep our mouths shut and our hands tied in regards to opposing belief systems is hypocrisy on the level of Aesop's bat. We believe in something, or we believe in nothing. If that something or that nothing contradicts our neighbors view, it is ludicrous to think we can tolerate each other's belief based behaviour without giving up our own ideals.

-Marshwiggle out.

Most ETHICAL congress EVAR!!!!!!!!

2006-11-13T15:23:00.000-06:00

Breaking news folks!

Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi is supporting the bid of Jack Murtha for the position of Majority leader.

CREW (a Soros funded organisation) has this to say about Murtha's qualifications-

"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) questioned soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) commitment to eradicating corruption with her endorsement of one of the most unethical members in Congress, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), to be Majority Leader of the House of Representatives.

Rep. Murtha was listed in CREW’ report Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch). As reported in the study and by the news media, Rep, Murtha has been involved in a number of pay-to play schemes involving former staffers and his brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha."

(http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/campaign.php?view=172)

Yes sirreee bob. We are well on our way to an ethical congress. Any defense? I'd love to see/hear/read it.

And moderation loses.

2006-11-10T07:28:00.000-06:00

Thoughts from the election-

Time to roll up our sleeves and get back to work. The conservatives swallowed too much moderation and became the party of big government. This is exactly the opposite of the 94 promises. Don't believe me? Ask Nancy Boyda, who ran her campaign on the idea that Jim Ryun supported big government and was beholden to special interests. Ask Heath Shuler, a democrat elected on what he called "mountain values"- anti gun control, anti-abortion, and pro-environment. (That's a democrat I could vote for!) When the republican party becomes indistinguishable from the democratic on all issues except the iraq war, and democrats start running conservative candidates against liberal RINOs, elections like this happen. As of right now Bush appears to be acting the coward. I don't know how he thinks this will work out, but he seems to be doing the Clinton post election triangulation of 94. My prediction is that he sells his "conservatism" to try and get along and ends up being used and discarded. Let's see how raising the mininum wage to $7.25 helps small businesses. Oh, that's right, only rich people own and work for small businesses. Walmart should thank the democrats for every mom and pop store that closes due to budget problems. Raising the minimum wage raises the cost of the production. Production costs increase the retail price. The items then bought at the higher price erase the "raise". Again, simple economics. However, point out another spoke in this vicious cycle. Right now, the "living wage" is over $9.00 an hour. I can guarantee that raising the minimum wage will similarly increase the "living wage".

Laughably, an organisation known as The moderate Republican Main Street Partnership had a news release titled "Far Right Solely Responsible for Democratic Gains." Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, the partnership's director, complained that GOP leaders had rejected popular causes such as the minimum wage, embryonic stem cell research and lobbying reforms while ignoring health-care issues that did not involve Terri Schiavo. The result, she said, was that moderate suburban voters saw Republicans as extremists. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15628775/)

Ironically, it was the moderate republicans suffering severe election night losses, as nearly half the "moderate" republicans lost their seats. In the meantime, for more proof that conservatism wins elections, take a look at who John McCain is trying to be. Look at who Hillary Clinton is trying to be.. If conservatism is the problem, why do the "moderate" politicians who are looking at presidential bids want to be known as conservatives?

Most americans want smaller government, (even EB wants government that is small enough to have no time to waste on possibly invasive programs) and want more money in their own pockets. When politicians forget that and start porking and following money, power and fame, they deserve to be voted out. If you don't think scandals handed the election to the democrats, look no further than Nancy Pelosi's promise to run the "most ethical congress" in history. Good luck, Nancy. Remember though.. In 2 years, the conservatives will be back to remind you of those promises. Hopefully the republican party will be listening.

And the law can be followed.

2006-11-03T06:10:00.000-06:00

ATTORNEY GENERAL PHILL KLINE TAKES POSSESSION OF MEDICAL RECORDS

Attorney General Phill Kline has confirmed that his office is in possession of the 90 medical records subpoenaed from two abortion clinics as part of his investigation into alleged cases of child rape, failure to report child rape and violations of state's late-term abortion statue.

"Those medical records are being reviewed by criminal prosecutors and investigators in my office," said Attorney General Kline. "I want to remind Kansans that women and children are not and never will be under investigation - only abortion doctors, confirming doctors, and rapists are under investigation. Also, I have never sought the women's identities. I do not need their identities. Their privacy is protected by a protocol my office established with the district court judge to removing the identifying information of the women from the very beginning."

The Shawnee County District Court received the subpoenaed records from the abortion clinics on August 5th. The court updated the Attorney General Kline's office several times until the records were handed over to the attorney general on October 24th.

In addition to alleged cases of child rape, failure to report child rape and performing illegal late-term abortions, the Attorney General confirmed the potential crimes under investigation also include: rape by force or fear; failure to report suspicion of child sexual abuse (child rape & rape by force or fear); incest; making false information; and violations of our state's late-term abortion statue. This investigation does not and never has involved crimes of "age-mate" sexual relationships.

"If there was not a reason for this investigation to continue, it would cease. The investigation is continuing," said Kline.

The attorney general's full investigation includes more than 175 cases of live-birth records, abortions records, and DNA samples obtained through the Child Rape Protection Act. -http://www.accesskansas.org/ksag/Press/2006/1101_medicalrecords.htm

So... what was the big deal to prevent an AG from getting medical records to prove/disprove alleged crimes? Was it the women's safety? Funny.. because the women's identities are marked out.. So.. Who would end up getting prosecuted for this? Easy. The people that did -not- report the crime. If they had reported the crime, we would now be talking about the prosecution of the perpetrator. In that case... we might just have taken a child rapist off the streets.

Eh, rather make the money killing the baby and let the rapist go free. Women's rights forever! (As long as the men still get off. Pun intended.) End Sarcastic Marshwiggle.

movie watching

2006-11-02T06:55:00.000-06:00

So.. I watched V for Vendetta the other day. With that opening sentence, you know that the following post will be my thoughts on the movie.

Apparently the in the mind of the filmmaker/graphic novel writer, religious people hate dissent and gays. That's the message I got at least. The movie had the Adolph Hitler wannabe.. although I have to admit, he was a piker... and the Goebbels wanna-be... The movie had pretty much every -evil religous- cliche in the books.. The pedophile priest, the love child of fred phelps/rush limbaugh television host, and a quasi religous dictator that hates and persecutes gays.

In essence... this was pretty much a liberal horror flick. Fortunately, at the end of the movie, a good part of the people who had died were in the crowd wearing V masks. I would guess that that was symbolic.. but if it was, why wasn't V's "spirit" standing there as well? Was death keeping him when it couldn't keep others? eh.. enough overanalyzing.. If however, you'd like to see a liberal's nightmare world, V would pretty much be the film to see.

I actually found Finch to be the most interesting character of the movie. Apparently you can be a party member for 27 years and a police chief for several.. and not have any clue how your party came to Hitler like ascencion.. I mean, what was it with this guy, that every one else in his party seemed to become rich.. and he ended up living in a sparsely decorated apartment? How can the only guy with any brains (figuring out that the subway system would be the attack method) stroll around the subways for weeks (as mentioned in the film before he finds Evey) and not notice "hey, the sealed off tunnel leading to Parliament is no longer sealed off!"?

The whole interrogation scenes with Evey also defy belief unless V had accomplices. The man who grabs Evey at Gordon's house does not appear to have a mask on, and neither do the shadowy faces that interrogate Evey. We see elsewhere when V wears the Rookwood disguise that it would not look natural under direct lighting, so how can V pull off more natural masks now?

Anyhow, I'm done for now.

Mercy

2006-10-20T19:32:00.000-06:00

And as at first touch I
marveled at the clenched eyes tight
lips unmoving and glanced the spectre white
of clenched fist and fear unbidden rise
until succumbing gravity released by slide
your body into my arms, your breath into flight
and I blessed your name to your mother, my wife
who clasped you close, released a sob, a sigh
and clenched your blood stained body to her side.

Pensive tonight

2006-09-23T20:51:00.000-06:00

I glimpsed the past in photograph
Memory unearthed then lingering flew
Unquenched the demons of the past
And beckoned to what I once knew
The faerie called for me to play
just down the hills of yesterday
in meadows sweet I saw her sashay
From her lips my mind replayed
All her words once spoken then
heart meets mind and present when
this hallowed hollow resembles not
present darkness by history's blot
reality changed the past unsought
Logic trumped once more o'er want
If my heart by hers would repose
I'd grasp but air- I love a ghost.
_____________________________________________________________

Call to me again my faerie sweet
Anoint the child next my heart beat
Bestow the love that I once knew
upon the one chosen after you
The feeble mind by fate unclasped
as the Almighty did Jacob's grasp
flesh by divine ever overruled
mercy triumphing over the fool
desires mortal crumble within
the Author's pages writ in pen
the story of our life unfolds
searching out all our unknowns
and pleading for knowledge above
our capabilities; He denies by love.

Thoughts from last night/poems

2006-09-22T05:14:00.000-06:00

And a man stood there, as still as moss,
A lichen form that stared;
With an old blind hound that, at a loss,
Forever around him fared,
With a snarling fang half bared.

I looked at the man; I saw him plain;
Like a dead weed, gray and wan,
Or a breath of dust. I looked again--
And man and dog were gone,
Like wisps of the graying dawn...

--Madison Cawein

Interesting Criminal Minds episode the other day... I must admit I appreciated the whole medieval theme.. I appreciated the references to the Fisher King mythology... which came to mind when I came across a poem tonight I'd long forgotten.
-edit-
The author of the poem clearly expresses a love for the forgotten romance of the middle ages. I chuckled as I thought of the mysticism and romance that springs to mind.... The darkest hours of man's existence still glows today in the remants and memories of dragons, pilgrims, princesses and knights. Often growing up I wished to live in a world where a few brave deeds could change the history of a nation- a fairytale of many dreams, desires and hopes.. where nobility was never more than a breath, a single act away.... at least if you read the literature that we write today about it.

Last night a vision without sleep
entered my thoughts, enthralling me
awaking and reviewing bits of the past
echoes of myth and memories attached

if I only in the past might have been
life's lot dictates more serf than king
nobility breeds few by necessity
peace flees the land with many kings.

So when alloted the peasant's tent
yet grant me a pen, my sacrament
let knowledge impart me literate
and parchment provide to my content

for a pen's stroke captures thought
holds fast lest in time memory be lost
then with a glance to find again
and scribe the present with aforesaid pen.

and would I then to pilgramage, the destiny,
the shrine an after thought, I would the journey
be recalled by you and I though only slight
our paths did cross, our destinies to unwind

When in later years I recall the times
our paths digressed into yours and mine
will our hopes, unlike our chosen lot
live on, or wil all have been forgot?

So unto pilgrims still sojourneying
my pen and I send words greeting
you with our hopes and histories
time fits the end to all our stories.

-
Fisherman
four on a path to find
life offer each advice
until their paths split
changing all in a splice
two paired awhile,
two did not
one chased a flower
one chased pain
two chased logic
then taught the same
one grew distant
three strengthened brains
where once walked four
now no more than three
or two at once can be
the past loosely the tie
that binds four in memory
the present reveals yet
that changed lives the wedge
separating with calloused regret.

Lest we forget

2006-09-14T19:25:00.000-06:00

Place: Lebanon
Date: 10/1983
Result: 243 Americans killed and 80 injured.

Place: Scotland
Date: 12/1988
Result: Pan Am 103
270 killed

Place: USA- NYC
WTC
Date: 2/1993
Result: 6 dead, 100 injured

Place: Saudi Arabia
Khobar Towers
Date: 6/1996
Result:19 dead, hundreds injured

Place(s): Kenya and Tanzania
Embassy attacks
Date: 12/1998
Result: 224 dead

Place: Yemen
Date: 10/2000
USS Cole
Result: 17 dead

Place: Indonesia
Date: 10/2002
Result: 187 dead, over 300 wounded

Place: Saudi Arabia
Date: 5/2003
Result: 35 dead

Place: Indonesia
Date: 9/2004
Result: 9 dead, 160 injured.

Place: Spain
Date: 3/2004
Result: over 200 dead, thousands wounded, change in government

Place: England
Date: 7/2005
Result: 56 dead

It's easy to remember 9/11/01. It's easy to pretend noone hated America before G.W. Bush took office. It's easy to pretend we're doing enough to stop terrorist attacks, or that we've done such a good job since it hasn't happened here again.

It's easy to pretend that terrorists deserve Geneva convention rights. It's easy to be scared that we'll slide into a land without freedoms. It's easy to feel good about having moral high ground. It's easy to pretend we're dealing with an enemy that will just respect us if we act morally enough. It's easy to pretend that the enemy doesn't boil it down to religion. We keep pretending that it doesn't, to keep our own baser instincts in check.

It's also easy to forget the above times, dates and results. And forgetting is what makes it all possible.

In case you're interested in the ones I left out, here's a good link to more.

Humorous headlines/quotes

2006-09-14T10:11:00.000-06:00

Well. Headlines today just make me smile.

Men are more intelligent than women?

That would be brought into question by the idiocy of the next commentator-

“I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,” he declares. “I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.”- John Kerry on the Swift Boat Vets

John, John.. Threating to kick old war vets across the country won't help. You're supposed to seek out the senior citizen vote, not kick their butts.

"We do know that there have been cash-flow problems. I haven't been paid in a while. Like, there's no cash flowing to me." Al Franken on Air America

Al, Al... I hear the EIB network is wildly successful and Rush's checks don't seem to be bouncing.. Maybe too few people want to listen to you. Stick to writing books, my friend. Or in other words, it's still a consumerist society. People pay for what they want to hear.

An open letter to Reverend Phelps

2006-09-09T06:58:00.000-06:00

Dear Reverend Phelps,

Thanks to the powers of YouTube, I caught one of your messages last night. I admit, I never had taken the time to see past your signs and protests, and I welcomed the chance to hear you speak. Your knowledge of biblical verses is impressive, and indeed, I agree with each verse that you quoted. You and I believe in the same text, and I am happy to have that in common with you. However, if you and I agree that the bible is the authoritative text, I would like to address some issues with you.

First, you declared that it was "too late" for America, and that your fellowship has ceased praying for it. I would to remind you that we are instructed in 1st Thessalonians 5:14-19

"Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. Rejoice evermore.Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.Quench not the Spirit.

Paul reminds us to pray without ceasing, and to be patient toward all men, and not to quench the Spirit. I would suggest to you, sir, that your patience seems to have run out, your prayers for America have ceased, and that indeed you may be quenching the Spirit by your actions.

Indeed, Christ's words as recorded in Matthew chapter 5 reveal more problems with your decision to cease praying, and also with your legal battling in the courts.

Verses 39-41 state: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."

Verses 43-45 continue- "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

Sir, Christ's words are clear. It is obligatory for you to pray for your enemies, and to do good to those who hate you. Your status as a child of the Father depends on it. If you have ceased those prayers, then you have been guilty of the same indifference to Christ as if you had chosen the homosexual lifestyle yourself, and yet you sir are without excuse, for clearly you know the scriptures.

Sir, your anger at sinful behavior is admirable, and it may well be that God's judgement on America is partially because of homosexuality. However, a review of the old testament shows that America deserves judgement on many more matters than homosexuality. God's wrath is always expressed on nations that reject and abandon him. This turning away from God happened long before homosexuality became part of pop culture. If you examine the entire old testament, you will find that God punished sodom and gomorrah once, and yet repeatedly brought the Israelites into captivity for their unbelief. God's punishment record would indicate that He has a higher priority on backsliding children than on any one particular sin. Where is your anger towards the other evils in America?

This brings me to my next point. Sir, I agree with you that homosexual behavior is a sin. However, as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 points out-

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Sir, look at the list of unrighteous behaviors! Fornication, idolatry, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of self with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners- Sir, I do believe you and I could agree America is full of all the above, and yet I have not seen a single sign condemning the adulters, drunkards or extortioners of America. Perhaps you have forgotten about this part of the bible?

Yet, in case you have, I have another issue with your signs. They have no mention of what verse 11 makes clear, that some christians came from those very groups! Can you believe that? I hope so, because it is from the same Bible that you quote, even the same version! This means that some revilers (even some that slander you!), adulters, and yes, even the effeminate and homosexuals have been washed and sanctified into the family of God. I wonder, Sir, how many have joined Westboro? Have you addressed the needs of those who do repent, or have you left it up to every other church in Topeka? Christ died for the very people you urge to repent, and His salvation is clearly open to them. Please consider making that message clear in your next batch of signs.

Respectfully,
Marshwiggle.

To address the singular commentator.

2006-09-01T15:52:00.000-06:00

There is a difference between things achieved while a certain race was in power and the achivements of that race.

Until you can see that the difference between the success of the civil rights movement and the policies of white America aren't equivallent, you're not going to see that the race of people involved is not the factor you should be concerned about.

The global struggles you discuss, while definitely important, are not struggles of race. To claim otherwise is, I'm sorry to say, racist.

The civil rights movement happened in a democratic manner, no? Did not -shock- white lawmakers vote the legislation through? Or were the majority of those legislators minorities? The same could be said for the right of women to vote. Not a single woman cast a legal vote to allow women to vote. If the legislators had chosen to stay with the status quo in either case, the world would be vastly different. To deny them "achievement" because of the color of their skin would be quite wrong, no? "White America" voted to change. This brings me to my next rebuttal of your comment. The global struggles I mentioned seem to fall along a demarcation line of race. I asked to be proven wrong. I asked which non white run countries supported those global struggles in a manner you approve of. Instead, I simply got a reiterated claim that my claims are racist. If my claim is not true, I will correct. If it is both true and racist, then the simple claim of racism does not invalidate it.

-end comment rebuttal-

To pacify those who feel I am racist to claim that "white run countries" have done better than minority countries, I will take the time to mention other achievements of "white run" countries.

the holocaust.
american slavery
the inquisition
the subjugation of all indigenous tribes

The "white run" countries have produced achievements every bit as evil as the good they have done. However, I am awaiting to hear which groups have done better. Let's get their ideas' out and in practice. Until then, let's not trash the status quo if there is no legitimate better alternative available.

EB should have trusted his better judgement

2006-08-28T10:17:00.000-06:00

Let’s assume that it’s true that whites will no longer be a majority by 2056. It doesn’t follow that we’ll be speaking Spanish. In fact, almost all immigrant populations speak English exclusively or primarily by the 3rd Generation. In other words, the Spanish-speakers coming to this country now will have grand and great-grandchildren speaking English, and since English is the official language, they’ll likely be thrilled about it. After all, don’t we all hope our children have more opportunities than we did?

"And besides this, what will be the real problem with any of it? Where’s the harm in Spanish-speaking? As a white man, I’m looking forward to whites losing majority status. We’ve done little with it but cause harm, and it seems unlikely that things would get worse once other racial groups have more political power. If nothing else, we could use the varying voices."

Here we see what drives a lot of liberal thinking- self guilt. EB feels that because the "white man" has done little but cause harm, we deserve (i.e. his "looking forward") to the loss of majority status. EB is also convinced that that it is unlikely things could get worse with other groups in power. Now, so EB can call me racist, let's look at those other "political groups" and find out which one EB feels is doing a better job in their current country. Is it Mexico? Venezuela? Iran? the Muslim population in France? How are those economies doing? How is the freedom of the press doing? How are racial minorities in those countries treated? Do they have affirmative action? Do they have vocal critics of the administration who are not under threat of death?

I personally believe the spanish language to be a fine language, and really don't have a problem with it being the official language of the USA if it came to that. While EB is correct that most 3rd generation immigrants now speak English, he misses the fact that the recent immigration moves have not continued that trend. If assimiliation occurs, then he will be right. If however, the immigrants do not assimilate, then we will have problems such as the recent French riots.

Now, America has and is screwed up. But I put it to EB, which groups have a better track record? The rights of women to vote happened in a -shock- white run country. The civil rights movement happened in a -shock- white run country. The gay pride movement happened in a -shock- white run country. Abortion rights happened in a -shock- white run country. I do believe EB was complaining a few months ago about a hispanic run country and it's outlawing of abortion.

Now, I again ask EB who he wants running this country? The americans already here with their track record, or an influx of immigrants? That is, if he can get past his "white man guilt" and realize that the liberal agenda has more success with the white run countries than anywhere else, perhaps because only the white controlled countries have a strange desire to feel guilty and then try to atone for it.

But then we see what Marshwiggle’s really concerned about:

Where will Europe be? Predominately arabic and muslim.

This is shakier. The immegration patterns in Europe are more complex, and it’s not at all clear that such patterns will continue regardless of what is happening in the Middle-East. But even if it’s true, one could ask, so what? Why should Europe continue to be a white-dominated area forever?

Actually, Europe does not have the birthrate necessary to sustain it's population, and the current Muslims moving into the countries are tending to form ghettos and resist the assimilation necessary for EB's hopes of education to change their beliefs and allow for EB's ideas to have a chance to win. The same could be said for many hispanics that are moving into the United States.

These aren’t theories: overpopulation is a huge problem, and likely to get worse. Marshwiggle is right that not everyone is on board with population control, but guess what? That doesn’t change the facts. We shouldn’t respond to a refusal to use birth control in the developing world by trying to out-race them. We should expand our push for education so that as many people as possible can make informed decisions about family planning. What we should not do is try to outbreed those we don’t like.

This kind of argument is getting repeated often on the right these days, and it’s consistently fuzzy. This is the intellectual equivalent of saying “I only hit you once a week; that other guy would hit you every night. Be grateful!” I agree that there are a lot of people in the world who do no better than Fundamentalist Christians on subjects of equal rights. But attitudes change, and it is not on racial–or even religious–lines that they do so. They change because people can be persuaded. Ga Marriage, while still unpopular, has gained much support over the last twenty years. In twenty more years, it will be majority-supported. This isn’t because we’re white, but because ideas have power.

Actually, my argument would be more along the lines of- "if you're having trouble with the guy hitting you once a week, what makes you think you can handle the guy hitting you every night?" A little more seriously, if that evil christian majority is giving you fits now, how will you stand against the other fundamentalists? I'm in effect arguing that liberals are facing a greater threat from what's coming than from what they are dealing with now. It's usually not a good idea to move into greater trouble if you can't handle the lesser evil.

I love the last half of the last line. "ideas have power" and the idea that communication with the masses can effect social change. It sounds strangely.... Limbaughesque.

Again, to sound racist, where have people been persuaded for lasting change to the extent they have been in "white run" countries? Liberal success stories exist in Europe and North America. They don't seem to happen as often in other places... Why? It's easy to say my comment is "racist"... Wouldn't it be better to disprove it?

We’re going from “intolerance” to non existent. The masses always end up running the show, and liberals have bred and aborted themselves into minority status while dragging the caucasian and african american communities with them.

"How dare we not have as many kids as we can before our women hit menopause or die? We’re so evil! We’ve doomed ourselves by moderately curtailing our already massively over-consumptive society. And by being “dragged down,” of course, Marshwiggle means we won’t be a majority. But remember, folks, this isn’t a racist thing. It’s just that we handle things better than those Muslims."

Sarcastic. Caustic. And yet, no denial of the truth, just an angry attack that reiterates what I pointed out was happening is their right. Fair enough. I just pointed out the natural consequence. Almost evolutionary, if I do say so myself.
Alright, EB, where do we -not- handle things better than "those Muslims"? Is it freedom of speech/press/gay rights/abortion rights/ or religious freedom that they have the upper hand? Your sarcasm would be appropriate if you wouldn't mind pointing out which area "those Muslims" handle better.

"If Marshwiggle doesn’t want to be called racist, why is he lamenting normal patterns of population change? If he’s so concerned, perhaps he should be working wtih us evil non-reproducing liberals to actually uphold republican ideals, rather than continue our pattern of oppressing anyone we can to help ourselves out. There’s lots of reason to believe that people will chose democracy when truly give the choice, and even if they don’t, it’s the height of hypocrisy to try to uphold democracy by forcing others to be democratic."

"Normal patterns of population change." Well, if abortion is a normal factor (Don't liberals want it "safe, legal and -rare-?) then we have the choice of making it normal for the third world countries that aren't holding to that "norm", or accepting the fact that abortion/birth control to the extent we have used it isn't a -normal- pattern of population change. Unless EB can point out where it is? I digress, because EB hopes that through "education" to change those normal patterns. Then again, EB doesn't argue for "normal patterns of population change", because "overpopulation is a huge problem" and we are a "massively overconsumptive society". Since EB has been kind enough to point out those flaws, is he not joining me in "lamenting normal patterns of population change"?

We will have to see then if any other group of people is idiotic enough to breed itself out of the majority in order to save the world as they know it. We did, only the world changed on us. How unfair is that? About par for life. :)

This, I’m sorry to say, is staggeringly racist. No one has been “bread out of the majority” and even if they had, the only way that could be considered a problem is if we assume that the preferred state is that white people be a majority.

Racist? I called white people idiotic, and so I am racist? Man alive. As my old joke goes, I used to be a racist, but I was too slow.

As far as being bread out of the majority, would that a result of the preference of white over wheat?

I'd like to think that the preferred state would be one where all are represented. I simply observe that throughout history, comparing "white" run countries to "other race" run countries seems to tip in the favor of white run countries as far as liberal policies and human rights are concerned. I welcome EB's examples of other countries that have done better.

Unlike Marshwiggle, I have hope for the future. There are many reasons to be discourged with the course of contemporary politics, but I am certain that if we hope to find the future brighter than the present, we must move past the racist politics that assume that the best world is the one where we are in charge. The world we must work to create is a world where people can work together despite their differences and find that life does not have to a about us-versus-them, but rather about what we all must do to preserve the world for future generations.

As long as we buy into adversarial, binary politics, there is no hope that the world will ever be a place where we can do any better than try to one-up people who are different from us. It is this political process that Marshwiggle sees and implicitly reinforces.

Well, there may not be hope EB... Because the people taking over seem to be purchasing those adversarial, binary politics that you aren't.

Let me sum my argument up- If the status quo is threatened by something worse than the status quo, I'd like to think it'd be best to address the threat, and then go back to changing the status quo, rather than seeing all efforts wasted and diminished when the status quo disappears.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to aborting babies and telling people not to have kids.

EB, EB... your throwaway comment is not worthy of your intelligence, as I was recently reminded.

Welcome to the Minority

2006-08-27T05:59:00.000-06:00

If Pat Buchananon's facts are right....

Shoot, if the census facts are right...

Then I may live to find myself in the minority based on skin color and religion. I can't worry too much about the religious aspect, as that's happened in history many times. But, let's look at the world of 2050. In the next 50 years, I feel confident that we will have a Hispanic president. In all likelihood, we may never have an african american president. The african american status as a minority will remain, and with the caucasian population slipping into the minority as well, logic would dictate that the hispanic majority will elect one of their own first.

What was viewed as social progress in 1985, i.e. when most people were sure we would have a woman or an african american president in our lifetimes (at that point, few even considered a hispanic president) may never come to pass.

Let's see if we can agree on what America is now- Predominantly white, english speaking, predominately christian/roman catholic w/ a 40/40 split republican democrat, with politicians from both parties invoking God when convenient.

Where will America be 50 years from now? Predominately Hispanic, spanish speaking and roman catholic. Where will Europe be? Predominately arabic and muslim.

Here's the bad news, folks. Liberals, the world doesn't care about your overpopulation theories. Third world Roman catholics and Muslims don't give a whit about your theories like the spineless politicians in america have. There's no sitting on the fence or being converted to less children. Check out the attitudes of islam and the majority of hispanics on treasured liberal ideals such as gay marriage and abortion. Check out the attitudes on women's rights. Then let me know how evil the current "christians" that you are dealing with are. We're going from "intolerance" to non existent. The masses always end up running the show, and liberals have bred and aborted themselves into minority status while dragging the caucasian and african american communities with them. Can I get a big huzzah? While the "intelligent" mostly caucasoid thinkers worried about overpopulation and everything else they were doing wrong, the rest of the world blithely ignored them and kept up basic human behaviour.

You know what? I accept where the world will be in fifty years. If I wanted to fight it, I'd be called racist or worse. I'm just trying to give another blogosphere heads up to the fact that we are busy fighting battles that the new people taking over will rewrite. It kind of puts things into perspective, and I feel sorry for us all. The new world will be different than the one we grew up in, and if you were born in the majority, we've noone to blame but ourselves. We've been so careful to go to extremes to correct past sins against the african americans we abused, ironically, we may pay yet again for those sins when the angst of the third world takes it out on us. We will see then how much appeasement and other liberal policies worked. Shoot, we may even argue that it was only the nasty USA bringing it upon itself. Either way, neither argument will change the world as it becomes what it will be. We will have to see then if any other group of people is idiotic enough to breed itself out of the majority in order to save the world as they know it. We did, only the world changed on us. How unfair is that? About par for life. :)

2006-08-26T20:29:00.000-06:00

Recently, I made a sarcastic comment and was chastised for it. However, I maintain my comment was not only valid, but very insightful.

Let me start by asking my reader(s) how many stories they have heard in the past year on Guantanamo Bay? Then, consider how many stories you have heard on the Louisiana prisoners. In one case, we have an entire american left wing screaming about the mistreatment of non-US citizens by the republican controlled USA. On the other, we have american citizens being denied their rights to a fair trial, and being jailed longer than they deserve. Louisiana is run mostly by democrat politicians. Although I appreciate EB's outrage at their treatment one year later, I can't help but notice the difference in how the media and the left treat the two cases. While the American left is busy complaining about non-US citizens being treated poorly and worrying about the evil Bush taking away rights, the non-evil (mostly democrat) government of louisiana are allowing actual americans to languish in jail. Anyone else see a problem here?

Let's be fair. The excuse Louisiana gives is "natural disaster". The excuse given by President Bush is "war". Either way, when american's civil liberties are being violated, it's nice to know where the american left's sympathies lie- somewhere in Cuba.

See, I told you so!

2006-08-23T05:49:00.000-06:00

Every now and then, an article comes along that validates one of my previously stated theories. While this and 2 dollars might buy me a cup of coffee at a non starbucks chain, it still feels rather nice.

The child gap

In praise of Al Sharpton

2006-08-18T07:36:00.000-06:00

Now, I am not inclined to often praise the Reverend, or even to find myself agreeing with him. However, when he speaks the truth, he deserves to be commended for it.

"We have got to get out of this gangster mentality, acting as if gangsterism and blackness are synonymous," he said. "I think that challenge has to be given to Hollywood and the record industry. I think we've allowed a whole generation of young people to feel that if they're focused, they're not black enough. If they speak well and act well, they're acting white, and there's nothing more racist than that."

I would only comment that it is not only african american youth affected by the "Gangster=Cool" category. Way too many youthful lives are squandered by this notion.

somewhere in kooksville

2006-08-12T14:39:00.000-06:00

The phone rings-

"Mr. President G.W. speaking"

"Good morning, Mr. President, I'm sorry for calling you on that direct line you had the NSA set up for us, but I'm in dire straights!"

"My dear Libertyman, what's the matter?"

"Err, see, I just lost a primary to this cable millionaire, and he beat me for supporting your war".

"C'mon L'man, don't worry about it. Y'see Joe, I knew that this might happen, and my evil henchman K-Rove has already taken care of it. Flip on the news, JoeLib, my good man!"

"A terror threat! From Britian to the US? The day after I lost the election? By George, I love you Mr. President!"

"Hey now, cut down on the love there, Joey boy.. Unless it means you'll support me on more than the war."

"I can't do that Mr. President, I am a democrat- wait, I am an independent now. I guess I could swing a few votes your way."

"Good job there J-man.. Remember, I take care of my own. Let's see Lamont beat you now that we reminded the good folks of conneticutical that the war still exists."

"Yessir Master President sir. I's your goodhouself, I is."

"Hey Joe, want to run as VP with Condi in two years? I could use an experienced VP candidate."

"Yes suh."

"Ok, Joe, I gotta go now. God bless America!"

-click-

2006-08-09T19:27:00.000-06:00

"I’m not inclined to listen to anyone who would equate those who attack him personally for his own actions with a man who’s bigoted remarks rightly offended millions."

Well, there goes half the readership.. :) Guess I'll have to do something to get those numbers up.. Perhaps I can find 14000 non marshwiggle readers and get them signed up... :) Quick, let me find something nasty to say about Joe Lieberman.

While we're waiting for that, let's look at this response to what apparently was a sacred issue to EB.

"Marshwiggle seems to think that Keith Olbermann’s mocking of Bill O’Reilly with a Nazi-style salute is on a level with Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic tirade."

I simply granted EB's allegation that Mel was a right winger who apologize for his attrocious actions and called them despicable.... and made the observation that KO (as EB lovingly refers to him) was a left winger. The ADL did the rest. However, it was unfair of me to call Gibson a rightwinger, as his views on the Iraq war are suprisingly closer to EB's than to mine. Could the left have both KO and Gibson? Ask Michael Moore.

"Let me make this very clear, for those who don’t get it: Mel Gibson is an anti-Semitic bigot, a misogynistic, self-righteous bastard. K.O., by contrast, is FUNNY."

We got it.. drunk idiots spewing hate- not funny. Nazi jokes- "FUNNY"

"Some Jews might have been offended by his comments: I do not presume to speak for them."

No, that's what the ADL does. Hence the offensive letter.

"But as a Jew, I can say I found it hilarious. And by the way, the day we can’t jokingly call men Nazis who threaten those who disagree with them, bully anyone they can, act like a fool, distort the truth in order to make themselves look better, and accuses US Soldiers of atrocities committed by Nazis will be a sad day indeed."

Well. The day we can't jokingly call men Nazis.. oh, I forget- Nazi name calling = Funny. er, make that "FUNNY". Gotta get that capital emphasis.

"Bill O’Reilly deserves worse than a joking Nazi reference. He has repeatedly denigrated everything of value in Democracy and our country, and I’m not inclined to listen to anyone who would equate those who attack him personally for his own actions with a man who’s bigoted remarks rightly offended millions."

Well, other than being a debater defending personal attacks, EB apparently either listens to Bill O'Reilly enough to decide he is a horrible person, or listens to KO describe O'Reilly as a horrible person. Either way, I think O'Reilly has way too much influence on EB's life.. Perhaps a respite from that evil Nazi is just what EB needs.. If EB is correct, the previous sentence is "FUNNY".. C'mon, it has to be, what with O'Reilly being referred to as an evil Nazi.

EB, when you'd like rejoin the readership at the risk of my woodshed, let me know :) Until then, laugh often and enjoy life. Praying for you always.

-Marshwiggle.

More on a previous issue.

2006-08-09T05:51:00.000-06:00

I first posted information about this when it predicted it might cut transmission by 1/3rd. There was a critic then.. I can't say critics, because when only one or two people read your often defunct blog, you sometimes can't get more than one to complain. :) Now, as a disclaimer, I don't understand how this scientifically makes sense, but if the results remain accurate, I'm happy to argue for this as a way to cut down on a terrible disease. The following article is from The Independent Online. The article also addresses some concerns voiced about this unpopular and expensive procedure. Enjoy.

Male circumcision 'lowers risk of HIV infection by 60%'
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 09 August 2006
It used to be called the unkindest cut. But now the head of the one of the world's largest Aids charities believes we are on the brink of a revolution in attitudes to circumcision.

Richard Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, said research revealing the protective effect of circumcision against HIV was set to change parental expectations and medical practice across the world. Instead of viewing the operation as an assault on the male sex, it was increasingly being seen as a lifesaving procedure which every parent would want for their sons.

Removing the foreskin is thought to harden the glans (head) of the penis, making it less permeable to viruses. Research conducted in 2005 showed the transmission of HIV from women to men during sex was reduced by 60 per cent if the men were circumcised.

A study published last month calculated that if all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised, it would prevent almost six million new cases of HIV infection and save three million lives over the next 20 years.

Dr Feachem said the finding was one of the most significant in the battle against Aids and offered real hope of slowing the spread of the virus. The issue is to be debated at the World Aids Congress, which opens in Toronto next week.

Dr Feachem said: "We know the factors that cause HIV to spread rapidly in a country - the number of concurrent sexual partners, the use of condoms, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases and male circumcision. Other things being equal, in a circumcised population you have a low and slowly developing epidemic and in an uncircumcised population you have a high and fast developing epidemic."

He added: "Circumcision is growing strongly in popularity in South Africa and in North America. We see males seeking circumcision very commonly in South Africa. The news of its protective effect caused a substantial increase in demand for adult male circumcision.

"Circumcision fell out of favour in North America and the UK as an unnecessary operation. Following this research, I think it extremely probable that parental demand for infant male circumcision will grow as a consequence."

More than one in three boys were estimated to be circumcised in the 1930s, but it fell out of favour from the 1940s onwards. By 1998, it was estimated that 12,000 circumcisions were being performed each year in Britain, suggesting fewer than one in 25 boys was having the surgery. There are big differences between racial and religious groups.

The rate of HIV infection in west Africa is less than 10 per cent, compared with more than 20 per cent in South Africa, which has mystified researchers.

Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAids, and a co-author of the study of the impact of circumcision on Aids in sub-Saharan Africa, published in the online journal PloS Medicine, said: "In west and central Africa there are high circumcision rates and lower HIV rates. Southern and eastern Africa have lower circumcision rates and higher HIV rates."

Deborah Jack, chief executive of the UK-based National Aids Trust, said the research findings were encouraging.

"It is clear the promotion of voluntary circumcision can play an important role in reducing the risk of HIV transmission," she said. But she warned: "People who are circumcised can still be infected with HIV and any awareness campaign would have to be extremely careful not to suggest that it protects against HIV or is an alternative to using condoms."

We all have anti-semetic heroes, apparently.

2006-08-09T05:42:00.000-06:00

Apparently, the right has the apologetic and rehabbing Mel Gibson, and the left? Well, I'll just leave the ADL to define yours. If we must have Mel Gibson, you've at least granted us someone who takes his shame seriously. The link is from here

"Dear Mr. Olbermann,

We are deeply dismayed by your ongoing use of the Nazi "Sieg Heil" salute, both on your program and in public appearances -- including the recent Television Critics Association press tour -- while holding up a mask of Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly.

While we understand that your aim is to entertain your audience by taking pot shots at Mr. O'Reilly, your repeated use of the Nazi salute has resulted in many complaints from our constituents, including Holocaust survivors and their families who find the use of this gesture offensive and repugnant in any context.

The Nazi salute is more than just a remnant of history, but serves as a calling card for modern-day neo-Nazis and white supremacists. We believe that the use of gestures and imagery associated with the Nazis – even in jest – only serves to trivialize the Holocaust and denigrate the memory of the six million Jews and others who died as a result of Hitler's Final Solution.

As a respected and well-known media personality, your actions have consequences and can set a standard for others to emulate. We are especially concerned that young people viewing your program might take their cues from your free use of the "Sieg Heil" salute.

In light of these concerns, we hope that you will reconsider your use of the Nazi salute in the future.

Sincerely,

The Anti-Defamation League"

Eating your own

2006-08-08T21:38:00.000-06:00

A moment of silence for Joe Lieberman. From VP canidate to primary loser in less than six years. As the democrats eat their own, the republican hold on both houses will remain. God bless you Lieberman, you were liberal on everything but the war, and your former party had no tolerance for that. Here's hoping you find a warm welcome in the ranks of the independents. Here's to not marching the party line on one issue. Here's hoping that your next campaign won't see doctored pictures of you in blackface or your website hacked. If you were a republican and prochoice you'd be a hero (See Jim Schwarz of Michigan's endorsements from Bush and McCain... (not that it always helps :) ). Guess some parties aren't as tolerant of different viewpoints as others. Here's to not sitting on the sidelines with McKinney. So.. bottoms up old chap.. and good luck. According to Dick Morris, you may not need it.

Responding to EB's comments... (deja vu?)

2006-07-11T18:03:00.000-06:00

EB comments:

These examples aren't equivallent for several reasons.

1) The HPV Vaccine is 100% effective against many strains of the virus, while the best case here is that circumcision may reduce the risk.

Fact check. Gardasil is effective against HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18, or 4 of the over 30 strains. While equating 4 strains with many is acceptable to some, it could be seen as a misleading statement.

2) Getting a vaccine is not the same as having part of your body removed. Aren't you the same person who's against organ donation? But manditory circumcision is fine? Or are you advocating this simply to make a political point?

Clarification- Organ donation that requires the end of your life is what I am against. I have no qualms with kidney or other organ donations that do not end in the life of an individual. However, the comparison between the removal of foreskin and a vital/necessary organ seems to be quite the stretch here. Apparently EB sees the reduction of the AIDs virus as a political point. Strangely, nothing stopped EB from charging religious politics as a the reason some were against the HPV vaccine.

3) In an area where unprotected sex, poor sex education, and (in many places) rampant rape are the causes of the AIDS epidemic, do you really think your expensive and unpopular policy will significantly slow the spread of the disease? I know HPV will be greatly reduced by the vaccine.

The article I linked to indicated that it could reduce the spread of AIDs by 37%. I am curious as to what value EB places on a 1/3 reduction on AIDs. Is there a price tag that he finds too expensive? Is 1/3 not significant enough? Circumcision would be effective -because- of the reasons EB mentions. The rampant uncontrolled rape, the poor sex education, the unprotected sex are all reasons that circumcisions reduction of the virus spread would be more an excellent boost to the sex education programs that have failed to overcome these problems.

According to this

"In 2006, it is estimated that there will be 9,710 new cases of cervical cancer and 3,700 deaths attributed to it in the United States. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women; and it is estimated to cause over 470,000 new cases and 233,000 deaths per year."

According to this it is estimated that in 2005, there were 4.1 million new infected with HIV in 2005 with 2.8 million deaths attributed to AIDS in 2005. If those numbers were cut by 1/3 to 2.7 million new infections, what value does EB place on the "unpopularity" of the method? I am struggling to see the cost of AIDs medication and care for 1.4 million people being cheaper than the cost of circumcision. If EB wishes to compare the 233,000 hpv deaths to the 2.8 million aids deaths and then argue the HPV vaccine would do more good, I await his argument. If not, I would ask that EB stop assuming political bents and support a life saving method.

Progress against AIDS

2006-07-11T05:42:00.000-06:00

A new way discovered to reduce AIDs infection rates... And Marshwiggle is still waiting for it to be pushed as hard for as the HPV vaccine. Will this be made mandatory for men the way some believe the HPV vaccine should be for girls? Or is there a sexist double standard?

Who will -not- be racist?

2006-07-08T07:56:00.000-06:00

"In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." Sen. Joseph Biden

Many thanks to little hoot owl

2006-07-04T05:44:00.000-06:00

I was reading littlehootowl's most recent post about Prairie Muffins, and I couldn't help but think how if Christians minded their own business as much as the manifesto suggested, how much less of a bother they would seem to littlehootowl and others. :)

However, what I am truly thankful for was a link inside the Prairie Manifesto page, as God used it to point out some of my flaws that I have been struggling with for quite a while at work.

I will not copy the article in it's entirety, rather I will sum up it's application to my life-

I have a co-worker at my job, and to say we try each other's patience would be a under-exaggeration. I trust him to point out every flaw of mine, and I hate how many flaws he continually seems to find. In the beginning, I tended to point out the (what felt to me rare compared to my own pointed out transgressions) mistakes he made, which would then be quickly dismissed as minor by him. Frustrated by what I felt was a double standard, I began simply letting his mistakes slip past me, to be caught at a later date by him or others. Ironically, he would at times catch the mistake, ask me how I could have made it, and then realize it was in his own handwriting. This would give me perverse pleasure. I at the same time, would take advantage of the fact that I was not the only one who found his mannerisms offensive, and quietly agree with those who did. In between all this drama, I keep falling further behind in work, which aggravates the situation immensely, as I know I work as hard as he does, and yet since he delegates down, my workload simply never seems to be accomplished as often as his does. He then points out my inability to keep up in the manner he feels I should, and my heart's attitude has chafed and become rotten.

The writer (a puritan!) of the article quickly focuses my attention on where it should be, and what my God would have me to do. It's so easy for me to focus on myself, and not to work for God as I should. If you feel an obligation to obey God's will for your life, I would encourage you to read the article. If you have a distate for those things, I would ask you to review the article and point Christians to it. I feel that you'd probably agree that most Christians who follow it's advice would benefit the world greatly, and there's less time for them to bother you. :)

Marshwiggle out.

Weekend

2006-07-03T10:11:00.002-06:00

This weekend had it's goodpoints and low points. High points of the weekend included seeing EB again (it had been about 7 months) and spending lots of time home with the wife and kids. Low points included a nasty sore throat.

The speaker at church was interesting, and as I listened, I suspected EB might comment on it.. You can visit his blog to read his views. Luaphacim also had some interesting comments, which you can see on his blog.

Now that I've read those posts myself, now I'd like to throw out my 1 cent's worth (face value, not how much it costs to make one).

To do so, I'd throw out some quotes. I cannot speak for the founders as well as their own words can-

October 18, 1780, the Continental Congress issued a Proclamation for a Day of Public Thanksgiving and Prayer:

"Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, amidst the vicissitudes and calamities of war, to bestow blessings on the people of these states, which call for their devout and thankful acknowledgments, more especially in the late remarkable interposition of his watchful providence, in the rescuing of the person of our Commander-in-Chief and the army from imminent dangers, at the moment when treason was ripened for execution...
"It is therefore recommended to the several states ... a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, that all the people may assemble on that day to celebrate the praises of our Divine Benefactor; to confess our unworthiness of the least of his favours, and to offer our fervent supplications to the God of all grace ... to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all the earth.

Now, an astute observer will point out that the freedom of religion clause in the constitution was not passed until September 25, 1789 which was also the day that Congress sent the following unanimously passed resolution to President Washington-

"That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President to request that he recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness."

EB is right in saying that many of the founding fathers were more deist or theist than christian. Luaphacim may be right in his view that the revolution happened without God's blessing. However, I would point out that America was not founded as a secular country. Those very same deists and theists that EB mentions had no problem forcing public acknowledgement of an almighty God.

Finally, to look at some of Jefferson's actions post Danbury letter-

"One of the nation's best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, "contrary to all former practice," Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists "a wall of separation between church and state"; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services "constantly."

Jefferson's participation in House church services and his granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held, cannot be discussed here; these activities are fully illustrated in the forthcoming exhibition. What can be said is that going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would be reported in newspapers throughout the country. A Philadelphia newspaper, for example, informed its readers on Jan. 23, 1802, that "Mr. Jefferson has been seen at church, and has assisted in singing the hundredth psalm." In presenting Jefferson to the nation as a churchgoer, this publicity offset whatever negative impressions might be created by his refusal to proclaim thanksgiving and fasts and prevented the erosion of his political base in God-fearing areas like New England.

Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government."

The above is quoted from the Library of Congress website, with the link here

So my readers, unless these quotes are shown to be faulty, misleading or revisionist, I would posit that the original government leaders who (as Jefferson post his famous "separation of church and state" letter (which sat unused until the Supreme Court of 1878 decided to legislate it as original intent)) had no problem using government facilities for religious services, who quoted from Washington to point out that religion was indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people, were much closer to the "religious right" of today than EB or luaphacim would care to admit.

Now my readers, have I been dishonest with you? Please point out if I have been. Your thoughtful insights are alway appreciated.

More on Evolution

2006-06-26T10:39:00.000-06:00

More thoughts on evolution, but this is not meant as a debate with EB, rather just another collection of my thoughts on the subject.

Evolution and belief in the judeo-Christian God cannot logically coexist, because they make claims that are logically inconsistent and mutually exclusive.

Evolution claims that we have a common ancestor, and that man evolved (most recently) from apes.
Christianity claims that God created man from the dust of the ground, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

Evolution claims that billions of years took place and Christianity claims that God created the world in six days, with the progression of creation being- light on day one, then sky on day two, land on day three, plants and stars on day four, sea animals and birds on day five, and then man and animals on day 6. If the evolutionary mindset provided for man and animals to show up in the same time frame, then we might have more of a common ground here, but we still have to deal with the fact that Genesis denies that man came from animals.

I'm looking for intellectual honesty here. If you believe evolution to be true and the bible teaches differently, then the bible is a dishonest document and unworthy of your belief. You can't have two contradictory origins co-existing. One or the other is wrong, or perhaps they both are. However, they -cannot- both be correct. Evolution explains the origins of this world and inhabitants in a naturalistic form without any necessity for a supernatural God. Theistic evolutionists have sold their intellectual honesty in order to create a false compromise that denies both the naturalistic progression of evolution and the honesty of their God. The -either or- brand of logic belongs here. Take your side, but don't pretend that they can co-exist factually.

If evolution is true and man evolved from lower life forms, then God's record of forming man from the dust of the ground is incorrect, and vice versa. If you want to say God used evolution, and man misrecorded it, again you have a weak and ineffective God known about only through the misguided, inaccurate and untrustworthy misquotations of fallible men. You also have a world view in which this already worthless God is unnecessary, as evolution has done His job quite well without His possible existence.

Debating definitions.

2006-06-24T06:01:00.000-06:00

1.A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Repeatedly tested or widely accepted. Well, EB is right, evolution is widely accepted and has been for approximately 1 tenth of history since the days of the greeks and romans. As far as evolution being repeatedly tested, science has yet to find a way to make anything out of nothing. In addition to this problem, science has no way of replicating the billions of years it claims was necessary for evolution to occur. If EB debates this, he will probably give examples of microevolution. I am arguing macroevolutions implausibility. Micro is lab provable, macro is not.

2.The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

This definition would say that evolutionary theory would consist of explanatory statements. It does. Evolution attempts to explain how the world came into being and how it continues today.

3.A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4.Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

Ah. This definition sounds rather close to EB's definitions of religious thinking.

5.A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

Again, a definition based on belief.

6.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

An assumption..

Having defined evolution for EB, I will use his blog's definition:"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors."

Evolution is a fact. Organisms change over time, and share a common ancestor. Where and how that ancestor arose is a matter of much debate still among evolutionists."

Here is EB's logic. "Organisms change over time." This is micro evolution and -is- provable in a lab setting. However, the following statement "and share a common ancestor" is where macroevolution enters the picture. Evolutionist dishonestly argue that because microevolution is true, macro evolution is also true.

However, EB states that where and how that ancestor arose is a matter of much debate. That would be putting it mildly. This is the achilles heel of evolution, because evolution cannot explain where that ancestor came from. Either there once was a world with -something- in it, and the ancestor came from that, or there was -nothing- and the ancestor came from -nothing- a fact that flies in the face of all scientific principles. The irony is how unscientific the evolutionary theory of origins is. It takes just as much faith to believe the God created the world out of nothing and left scientific order for mankind to discover, as it does to believe that there was nothing one moment, and the next there were the building blocks for what billions of years later would be the world we know today. Evolutionists are just as religous as the rest of us, folks.. They just take their leap of faith right at the beginning.

Lies and Spin

2006-06-23T11:21:00.000-06:00

So, for quite some time, I've heard that Bush lied and that there were -"No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq"-. A report comes out that points out there were still wmds in Iraq that the US has been rounding up. Now, the honest anti-war people point out that these weapons are believed to be from 1991 or before, and that they were not the WMDs that the US, Russia and England believed Saddam had. The dishonest anti-war crowd denies that WMDs were found and accuse Santorum of playing politics. Did Santorum write the now declassified report? Just how many WMDs was Saddam supposed to still have under the UN sanctions imposed since the gulf war? So.. a decade after the gulf war, those "effective" UN sanctions had apparently rid Iraq of the same chemical weapons we have apparently been cleaning up. Which side is lying now?

And now, because to comment on an EB post.

He responds to a noter by saying- "This is a favorite position of those who are both religious and convinced they're always right: they make illogical statements, never understand the position of the opposing side, and ignore obvious evidence to the contrary."

This is an amusing accusation when quoted next to his statement-

"That "shared creation" bullshit the poster uses is illogical for two reasons: first, it is false. Evolution is a fact, and so basing your philosophy of a literal reading of an alegorical story is both illogical and morally irresponsible. Second, we might be children of God, but that doesn't stop this brand of Christian from feeling morally superior to all those wicked sinners out there."

In the above argument, EB states that since "Evolution is a fact", "basing your philosphy of a literal reading of an allegorical story is both illogical and morally irresponsible". EB believes evolution is a fact, and then proceeds to make a moral judgement from this "fact". This flies in the face a previous arguments from EB that evolution is amoral. EB apparently knows that Evolution is true. Strangely enough, evolution last I checked was taught as a theory. However, EB makes the same assumptions that he finds illogical in other debaters- because he and enough other "qualified" people believe evolution is true, he can call it a fact.

If EB would "understand the position of the opposing side" he would realize that while God is morally superior to the wicked sinners out their, His followers are not. Therefore if God's followers are going beyond Christ's words, then they are beyond their "moral" authority. EB also makes the argument that evolution is fact, however he admits we could all be "children of God". Where does EB find God in the evolutionary process? Maybe I could ask those other evolution believers where God is. Could I get a simple unified answer? Perhaps ask that question like EB asks of Judeo Christians on the Iraq war?

EB then argues against the "shared morality" by noting it produced both the Inquisition and MLK Jr. So, the system produced good and bad. Since EB gives it credit for MLK Jr, does that diminish the civil rights movement?

EB's logic says that it is wrong for people to impose their morality on others. By assigning a "wrong", he makes an absolute moral judgement that I am wrong to express that it is in your best interests to have my beliefs should as your beliefs. Ironically, his logic would mean that it is in my best interests to share his belief that I should not "impose" my belief on anyone else. So... at least I can be honest about the fact that I would love everyone to have a saving relationship with Christ. I can freely admit that if I could impose that, I would. However, I can't. EB however, has no problems trying to impose his view that no religious views should be imposed on everyone else.

EB argues that since God says something is right, I don't need to think further about it. He's right. I don't. I can put my blind trust in God. EB abhors this. I do not think it makes me better than EB. I try to serve my Creator, and EB will try to serve a "Logic" that only leaves unanswered question after unanswered question. My sincere hope is that someday EB will see the One who created "logic", who gave EB the brain and burning desire to know, and that all EB's questions will be answered fully by the only One who can answer them.

EB argues-

"I don't need God to tell me what is right and wrong, and neither does anyone else. If there is a loving, all-knowing God, surely he has equipped us to make the moral decisions we need; if not, then we must still rely on reasoning to reach those decisions. Either way we can arrive at a morally and logically consistent ethical system that does not rely on a "tradition.""

Where is this morally and logically consistent ethical system? EB states that either way you believe, surely it exists. If you accept the theory of evolution, millions of years of human development has failed to produce it. EB then makes the comment that the system would not rely on "tradition". If the system was produced, how does EB think it would be passed down? Without tradition? Tradition would inevitably become a part of it.

I do need God to tell me what is right and what is wrong. If this makes me a weakling compared to EB, so be it. I not only need God to tell me what is right and what is wrong, I need His discipline when I err, lest I decide He is not serious. I do err. I am not perfect. I have a desperate need for this God who loves each of us enough to die for us.

How do people that are part of that "Judeo-Christian tradition" agree to act morally in the (described by EB as "narrow" area) the Iraq war? I could make the throwaway argument that they voted to continue it by re-electing the president fighting it. That would indicate some form of agreement. However, what is moral about war? The only morality that can be assigned to war is that of standing up for what you believe in. If you believe that "shared humanity" has a worth simply because of Who created it, abd you believe that torture and past and potential use of chemical weapons on innocent humanity is wrong, then you would agree to stop it. I would argue that there is agreement on that. We disagree over whether war or sanctions work better. We disagree over how to do it, but agree that doing nothing is wrong.

And here we diverge as well. EB has a guilt complex about what he might call "white history". To simplify it, you could argue that the history of man is filled with abuses of every sort, and often those abuses were ascribed to religion. We could then make the blanket assumption that those religions are evil and worthless. Because of this, the progressive thought usually argues that we must make up for the abuses. They seek to visit the sins of the fathers upon the heads of the children. Am I racist for simply being a white person? There are many who would say so. However, when they judge me on the color of my skin, is racism not involved? If I am bigoted because of my religion, is not discrimination involved? Where is the tolerance that the progressives preach? Is it not hypocrisy to to be intolerant of the intolerant?

Now, to defend from a "Judeo Christian tradition" the idea of taking pleasure in the suffering of others. Since Judeo Christian tradition proclaims "Bless those who persecute you, pray for those who despitefully use you" and has as it's God a being who endured immense suffering, I fail to see where we are pleased by suffering. Any Christian who takes pleasure in suffering has forgotten the suffering s/he has been spared. It is immoral per Christianity to take pleasure in the suffering of others.

What do godlessness, moral relativisim and secular humanism have in common? They are all looking to man as the final authority. EB appeals to his logic to tell him what is right and wrong. I appeal to my Creator. There is the difference. EB must question why everyone does not agree with his logic, I must question why everyone does not believe in my God. My answer is that many would rather serve their own minds than a God that is foreign to them.. Ironically, that is similar to the answer EB might give. It could be said I would rather serve a God greater than myself, rather than wrestle endlessly with my insignificance. Sooner or later logic can only point us to how insignificant we really are. In the meantime however, it will serve us to point out how hypocritical everyone who disagrees with our views is.

Poetry

2006-06-15T11:24:00.000-06:00

Time
to view your face
escapes
desperate
my screams
over the
chasm bridging
your
recoiling steps
taking
dimming
my last
glimpse
yet hopefully
watching I see
blindly reaching
I remember
how it is
to be you
now, my heart is
anchored
held by the master
listening to His voice
nestled in His hand
I scream your name
as He walks
disquieted as He calls
your name,
His hand unfilled
and
fearing the answer
would you come
if you could?
-C. Nighthawk

Political muses (short)

2006-06-14T11:33:00.000-06:00

Marshwiggle notes the Rove indictment, and salutes the democrats on successful prosecutions of Limbaugh and now Rove. Marshwiggle waits to hear from the same crowd that called the whole Clinton impeachment a waste of taxpayer money to pipe up on the Rove indictment costs to our wallets.

It's a great day to be a conservative, or rather, yesterday was. Iraq is looking better, with diplomacy between the groups progressing, and Bush's visit to Iraq. The democrat party is reinventing itself again, and the house and senate look to be picking up seats for the republicans. House Speaker Pelosi seems to have been a little premature. Kerry and Clinton are at odds about withdrawing from Iraq, and the culture of corruption campaign has been flushed by Rep Jefferson. Too bad nobody found Delay with $90,000 in his freezer or misappropriating military resources. In other news, apparently FEMA threw out too much money towards Katrina and was badly scammed (shock!). Now the democrats are rumored to be running on cheaper student loans and the iraq war is conspicously absent from their agenda. Yep, the get out the youth vote worked well last time around too. The immigration issue has apparently died out, the flavor of the month now being hurricanes again.

This weekend will hold a 50th reunion for Marshwiggle to attend which promises to be quite fun for marshwiggle. Here's hoping all my readers have a wonderful weekend as well.

Conceding the argument

2006-06-14T06:50:00.000-06:00

Editor’s note (due to length and laziness, the author of this post switches between first and third person recklessly and irrationally throughout this piece. He apologizes for any confusion this causes).

Marshwiggle has a new reader, or at least, a commenter!

To lizard queen- I do not know you, and therefore am less likely to be as much of a jerk as I can be with people I know. My apologies for sparing you my brutishness. Your wish for a reproductive utopia would be grand, where every child is wanted and no child would be aborted. I would that this world could be also.

My wife was a child left for adoption by her mother. If her mother had chosen to abort her, my life would be vastly different. If you wish to accuse me of selfishness for my gratitude that her mother did not, you are free to do so. I love my wife and deeply love and appreciate her and our life together. Regardless of how wanted she was in the beginning, she is very wanted now. I would gladly fight alongside you against rape and incest, and search for cures to prevent horrors of this world such as fatal birth defects.

Where do conservatives differ with you on the access to contraceptive options? I do not differ with you morally in regards to non- abortive methods, but rather in the cost and feasibility of distribution. Many times birth control methods such as iud’s have caused great amounts of pain and suffering, and lack of further medical care for those women has been appalling. We cannot fix the problem by just throwing more condoms at it. We need more medical clinics in impoverished areas, with more capable medical staff. A clinic without adequate staffing is quickly overwhelmed. Will the rich forever have better medical options than the poor? Yes, they will. If you created the perfect socialistic utopia, then there would be no rich, and yes, everyone would have equal access. All attempts at this have failed, as inevitably, some members of the group are unable to avoid their greed and rise to the top, becoming wealthy and destroying the system. Ironically, capitalist greed destroys socialist intentions every time. Throwing more money at the problems does not seem to solve the problem, as the money inevitably is siphoned off by greed and abused.

Now, to respond to a specific comment, most clauses such as health of the mother are determined by her physician. In this day and age, it is not hard to “doctor shop” if necessary to find one that will recommend the abortion for you. Do I feel that exceptions such as the health of the mother and rape or incest may be necessary? I see a greater good in preventing every abortion that does not happen for those reasons, therefore I would vote for such a measure.

And now, onto EB-

“Potentially human is not the same as currently human.”

Hmm. This is interesting, since.. Well, let me just put it in EB's own words- "I'm not sure when human life begins, and neither is anyone else." So. EB, I assume would agree that somewhere between conception and birth, "the potentially human" becomes “currently human”. However, EB says he does not know when this is. He also claims that because he does not know, no-one else knows either. This argument is amusing to me, because I do know, and have stated my knowledge. At this point, EB would argue again that I cannot know, because he doesn't believe it possible for me to know. Now we have left arguing the point, and started arguing over whether EB's belief that I cannot know trumps the knowledge that I have. Again, I repeat my invitation for EB to leave the agnostic platform on this debate and then argue.

However, since EB isn't sure when it becomes human, it logically follows that he isn't sure when an abortion kills a human. The post that started this debate was intended to point out a simple fact. In order to support abortion and maintain a sense of morality, you must decide that the child growing in the womb is not human. EB has done this, despite his uncertainty over when the child becomes human. This allows him to be pro-choice. He has made the necessary decision to do so. Having done this, he can, as he points out, then frame the argument as government versus women's rights to their own bodies. I would (shockingly) agree with EB that if the growing child is not human, then the government should have no business in this arena. However, as I know the child is human, I cannot move on to EB's argument.

"No consensus on that point, so asking for alternative beginning points is merely a way to avoid debate." No, actually, it is a way of asking for a definition of a position so that it can be debated. No one can debate if the other side's position is one of uncertainty.

“I am not certain which post Marshwiggle is responding to, but I know why I object most strongly to anti-choicers arguments is that so many of them seem to not only be against abortion, but opposed to birth control, STD prevention, sex for any purpose but procreation, etc. Too many of these people want to control how other people live their lives, and not just by stopping abortion, but by severely restricting reproductive choice.”

This is not only a blanket statement of the sort EB detests (i.e. other prolifers want to limit birth control, so this somehow diminishes Marshwiggle's arguments) but is rather indicative of what drive's EB's logic. EB really doesn't want those theophiles running his life. Again, a safe, obvious statement. This is why EB's theophilic phobia drives his arguments. It's a belief that those people will ruin his life. Is this a cheap shot? Yes, it is. Why did I make it? Well, option 1 is that I'm a sarcastic mean nasty person. Option 2 is to illustrate EB's logic in the following quote- "
Aha! Now we have it! Marshwiggle believes that human life begins at conception, and that God should get to decide who lives and who dies, and therefore abortion is wrong. All of this is fine, but it also illustrates the problem. Marshwiggle has his assumptions which, to him, mean abortion should be illegal."

Saying that Marshwiggle's beliefs in God drive him to be anti-abortion is the same as saying that EB's fear of government authority drive him to support abortion. However, Marshwiggle needs to clarify.

Marshwiggle could, without any direction from his God, believe that killing innocent people is wrong. There are many secular laws and cultural taboos already in place to establish this. To say that Marshwiggle's anti-abortion stance is solely attributable to God is a stretch. However, I believe that saying that EB's government-phobia is the main reason behind his abortion stance is probably correct, and if not, I am confident EB will say so.

Now, back to the plan B issue. I quoted in my previous post from Plan B’s website, and EB had the following comment.

“I'm glad that you favor non-abortive choice options, but that "may" on plan b means there is no evidence that it is abortive:”

Well. Now EB delves into the English language realm. Although I usually expect this in Luaphacim’s company, I do enjoy this diversion. I will leave it to you, reader. If something “may” cause a certain effect, then it hasn’t been shown not to cause that effect. For a cheap shot, the surgeon general says that smoking “may” be hazardous to your health. Applying EB’s logic means that “there is no evidence that it is”. Does EB work for big Tobacco? Apologies for the cheap shot, EB.
However, since I am not aware of EB being a pharmacist, in this case, I will give greater weight to the makers of the drug. Since they assure me that it possibly causes post conception abortions, I will trust their more intimate knowledge of the subject.

“If you oppose abortion and support pre-conception reproductive choice, we can at least have a real discussion.”

I do, and so, I hope that we are able to discuss.

In my previous post, I asked- “Is it a child with potential for good and bad, or is it -a something- that will ruin your life?”

EB responded-

"Blanket assumptions are the best way to make an argument sound good without dealing with its complexity. If a woman wants an abortion, it must be because she doesn't want an inconvenience, right? It couldn't be because she is concerned about birth defects, or that an abortion would risk her own life or health, or any other reason."

Sounds like a bunch of reasons that could ruin a woman's life to me. Isn't that what I called them? Apparently, because the issue is complex, EB’s solution of unlimited abortions is preferable to letting those unwanted/birth defect ridden/matricidal fetuses have a chance at life. Would EB support legislation limiting abortions to those instances? EB would not, because it would still be government interference. Although EB expresses distaste for abortion as a necessary evil, he would not ban any abortions and be consistent with his anti government regulations stance.

Now, let me get to the crux of my argument for this post. I would like to, through EB, point out the pro-choice movement for what it is for the many people I know who think similarly to EB.

EB stands against government regulation of any abortion. To wit, in his own words:

“I would never seek to ban abortions because I believe that a woman, not her government, should have control over her body.”

This means that regardless of past statements used to salve the conscience, EB would not object to a single abortion and be consistent with his above stated view. Regardless of the child’s humanity, EB believes the mother has the right to terminate it as long as it is inside her body.

Let’s look at what this means. At any point in an unborn child’s life, EB clearly states he would be in favor of a mother’s right to kill.

At this point, I concede the argument I made in my first post to EB, and declare him the winner. Having fleshed out his argument to it’s logical extent, I have finally come to realize that even viability outside the womb is not an issue to EB. A baby developed enough to survive outside the womb, although clearly recognizable to most as human, still does not deserve the same government protection that EB had the day he took his first breath. Any arguments made with EB over the humanity of the unborn child are useless, because the baby’s humanity does -not- affect EB’s view of whether it should be allowed to live. EB’s previously stated philosophy “your right to throw a punch ends at my nose” apparently is not extended to even viable unborn children.

Therefore, EB will not allow what morals he has to interfere with another human’s life. EB will support any abortion, at any time. This is what the pro-choice movement tries to hide with meaningless comments about how they would like fewer abortions. If you want to allow all abortions, all the time, be as refreshingly honest as EB and just say so. I fear public perception prevents more people from being as open as EB is.

EB’s honesty has shown that the child’s humanity does not matter, therefore my original question is irrelevant for EB. Human or not, EB supports the mother’s right to kill it as long as it is in her body.

Now, I will wait for EB to decry my attack as slander. (Technically, as libel). But is it? I simply point out that his absolute statement is indeed an absolute acknowledgement that he supports any abortion. I suspect the harsh language I used will cause EB to say that I have twisted his words or misrepresented his position. Have I? Or have I simply pointed out that he must mean what he said he means?

If you want to be pro-choice, that is your option. I just hope that you will be as honest with yourself as EB has been with us.

Revealing questions.

2006-06-12T15:51:00.000-06:00

"To determine where you fall in the abortion debate, you have to decide the answer to this question- What does that child represent to you?"

I disagree. To detirmine where you fall on this debate, you have to ask who has the right to make decisions about the implications and results of a pregancy--a woman or her government?"-EB"

EB commented, and so Marshwiggle will dutifully reply.

Marshwiggle explained that the question that must be answered is "what does that child represent to you?".

EB's question, although a well framed one, is one that only can be asked after he has answered Marshwiggle's question in his own mind. To illustrate this, look and see that the very wording of his question shows that he has already made his mind up about Marshwiggle's question. This is clearly shown when EB uses the phrasing "the implications and results of a pregnancy." To EB, that child is an implication or possible result. In the second half of his question, he clarifies that he views those "implications or results as a "decision to be made by the woman or her government"

EB's question has answered Marshwiggle's question, and from the platform of his decision, has determined which side he chooses to be on. Therefore, Marshwiggle would submit that the previous post stands unblemished.

Now, to address the second part of his comment.

""This may shock you, but most prochoicers do not want to see lots of abortions. We would LOVE it if abortion was completely unnecessary. What we don't think is right is laws which tell a woman what she must do with her body. To attempt to reduce this issue to "that thing in your womb is a human because I say it is, therefore you must keep it.""

What would make abortion completely unnecessary to EB? If a woman could choose with 100% accuracy whether or not she was or ever would be pregnant? Right now there are thousands of women who wish they could become pregnant, and many others who wish they weren't. Abortion solves the problem for one group.

However, Marshwiggle must call EB on this line of thinking. If he doesn't want to see lots of abortions, what restrictions on abortion does he favor? Why is he not working with pro-life groups for those restrictions? Marshwiggle would guess that EB does not wish to seem as bigoted as people like Marshwiggle.

However, EB expresses a desire to see fewer abortions, and that gladdens Marshwiggle's heart.

Marshwiggle appreciates EB's ending argument, but finds it to be useless. Why? Because if he rephrases the question "that thing in your womb isn't human because I say it isn't, therefore you can kill it.", then he has reduced EB's argument correctly to the same proportions, and has cancelled out the argument by reducing it to a matter of either EB's or his judgement. How can a prochoice assertion that it "isn't human" have more weight than a prolifer's assertion that "it is human".?

Marshwiggle would wager that in most other instances, EB would agree that in a case of uncertainty, it is wiser to err on the side of life. However, EB and others are certain of the child's non humanity as clearly as the prolifer's are certain that the child is human. You cannot justify abortion if you believe taking innocent human life is wrong unless you decide that an abortion does not kill your definition of a human. Every time a pro-choice person refers to the unborn child as something less than fully human, they have made the choice necessary to quiet their conscience.

For the record, Marshwiggle has no moral qualms with condoms and spermicides. Pre fertilization techniques are not viewed as abortive by Marshwiggle. However, Marshwiggle doubts that Marshwiggle's approval/disapproval means squat.

To continue quoting EB-

"Also of note, Plan B, unlike the "morning after pill" is not abortive. Since you say life begins at fertilization, wouldn't you agree that a pill that does not terminate a pregnancy should be encouraged as an alternative to needing an abortion?"

Now to quote from Plan B's website, "Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy."

As EB correctly points out, Marshwiggle does believe life begins at conception/fertilization. Marshwiggle cannot support Plan B because of the one and half lines in the above paragraph. Marshwiggle is sure that EB understands that he views post fertilization as abortive, and therefore is not sure why EB would ask him to endorse Plan B unless EB did not fully understand how Plan B works.

To clarify, the bigoted Marshwiggle has no problem with Plan B's prevention of the egg releasing from the ovary or the prevention of fertilization. He cannot however, endorse a pill that takes post fertilization action.

Your comments are always welcome.

Choices

2006-06-09T11:46:00.000-06:00

I was re-reading a post today, one that I had been mulling over in my head for a while. The basic jist of the post was that the christian rejection of birth control is an effort on their part to keep women sexuality oppressed via fear. It stated that this was the basis for why prolifers would not support making birth control more available. Instead of valuing fetuses, the argument went, christians/prolifers want sex tied to reproduction to keep women in subjugation. The article went on to make the point that to prevent abortions, prolifers should be giving away birth control and emergency contraception.

This last point is what I want to address today. It's my blog, my rules, and your choice whether to read or not.

Where does life begin? A baby does not start growing when it reaches viability. A child grows in the womb from the moment the egg and sperm combine. This is nothing more than simple science. A sperm by itself does not grow into a human, and an egg by itself does not grow into a human. However, a human sperm combined with a human egg cannot produce anything else besides a human. There is no other clear beginning to human life. If you wish to argue that conception is not the beginning of life, there is a comment section below for you to tell me when life -does- begin. If you do not have certainty about when it does, please make up your mind as to when it does begin, and then argue.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then you would be morally wrong to hand out drugs that destroy that life post conception. This is the real reason pro-lifers -don't- support those drugs. A post conception abortion is an abortion of a child, whether it occurs via a surgeon or a pill. This is a consistent application of logic in the prolife mind. If life begins at conception, ending a pregnancy post conception (interestingly enough, can't be pregnant pre-conception) whether via pill or surgery is an abortion. What is not consistent about this logic? Not supporting abortion means not supporting abortion.

Now, if we could be painfully honest here, let's use harsh, realistic language. What does an abortion accomplish? We can all agree that it prevents a baby from being born. An abortion cleans up that sperm/egg combination that would produce a child, and removes it from the mother's womb.

To determine where you fall in the abortion debate, you have to decide the answer to this question- What does that child represent to you?

Is it a child with potential for good and bad, or is it -a something- that will ruin your life? Listen closely to the pro-choice arguments for aborting that child. "It's the product of rape/incest and will be a sick reminder to the mother for the rest of her life" or maybe "If this -thing- is born, it will keep the mother from completing school and being successful with her life" Do you have any idea how much child abuse we could prevent if we simply ended that -unwanted- child's life in the womb?

Let's be honest folks, a baby can ruin your life whether you want it or not. It changes the dynamic of your life forever. Isn't this a great country where we can end a child's life so that our own won't be worse off? Because when you boil it down, it's all about whether or not we want that child to ruin our lives. It's those evil pro-lifers forcing unwanted children on us because they have some crazy idea that human life matters to their God. Too bad their mother's didn't spare us the inconvenience of those children. So, at this point, I apologize for being one of those inconveniences that was allowed to be born, because if my mother hadn't been inconvenienced, I would never have written the above piece and stood in opposition to abortion.

As shocking as EB's results.

2006-06-07T07:48:00.000-06:00

You are a
Social Conservative
(33% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(63% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Republican

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Responding to a dare.

2006-05-28T05:36:00.000-06:00

"Arguing that the HPV vaccine will encourage girls to be more promiscuous is like arguing that a grocery store sale on matches and lighter fluid will encourage people to commit arson. (I dare you, Marshwiggle. :) )"

Why, oh why did she dare me? My competitive nature salivates at the chance to defend this straw man, at the expense of my common sense. Now, just to be clear, I'm supposed to defend the arguement about matches and lighter fluid? heh.

Now, here is where I see some validity in the arguement. Say person # 1 is considering arson. For this have any parallels, person # 2 has to be considering sex. We will assume that person # 1 knows that in order to cause flame, it's best to have a fuel source and an ignition source. Safe assumption? I hope you will be kind enough to agree. We then assume that person # 2 knows that sex requires a partner. (You can throw in masterbation if you want, but the arsonist could be setting fires in his own house, and no one (other than his insurance company) would care either. Therefore, please allow me the analogy. ) Now, on person # 1 we will place the limit of finances. This is a logical limit, unless you have an extremely well funded professional arsonist. Since this is a grocery store shopper, I'm assuming it's your common everday middle class arsonist, just as I'm assuming person # 2 is a regular person, not a porn star. Many assumptions, but so far, defendable ones. Now we get controversial. To make this fair, person #2 has to have a limit. The question becomes what limit? We will use knowledge as person # 2's limit. For this example, we will assume that person # 2 knows that stds exist. For all those worried that person #2 might have gone through abstinence only education and been somehow ignorant, let me assure you that even then, person #2 knows that stds are not something they want to have. Now back to person # 1. Person #1 has thought about committing arson, and perhaps committed it before. Perhaps s/he has other needs like food or drink that have brought him/her to the grocery store. Person #1 notes the sale on the matches and lighter fluid, and was going to buy 1 of each anyway, for his/her barbeque. Due to the sale, Person # 1 buys two of each item, having been able to afford it due to the sale. Now person # 1 goes home.

Now we return to person # 2. There are several situations that could apply to person # 2, but let's say person # 2 has been sexually active before. (This is the same, for sake of arguement, as saying that person #1 has started a fire using matches and lighter fluid before, is it not?) We placed a limit called knowledge on person # 2. They know that sex can transmit STD's, and they'd rather not have any stds. They've been with their current partner long enough to have talked openly about it and are pretty sure they are both clean. Since we don't live in the fantasy moral world of christian nationalism, let's say that person # 2 is considering having sex with another partner. (This would be equivalent to person # 1's consideration of arson previously mentioned). With the hpv vaccine person # 2 now has one less std to worry about (assuming the hpv vaccine works better than the mumps vaccine in Douglas county, KS). This opens up person #'2 sexual partner possibilities to now include people with the hpv virus, just as the extra set of matches and fluid allow more fires to be started by person # 1 if they so choose.

Does this mean that person #1 will start fires, and person # 2 will have sex with an hpv partner? Not necessarily at the one person level. However, take 100 person # 1's and you will see a statistical increase in fire starting, and arson. Human behavour, folks. Don't believe me? Ask your local fireman. My logic follows for person # 2. More opportunities, more chances to take.

Anytime you remove a restriction (be it financial, moral, or otherwise) you will see an increase in the # of people no longer staying within those lines. The arguement can be made over whether the increase is due to "openness", but that is not the arguement I've been asked to make here. However, since I brought it up, we will use a favored anti-restriction arguement (the prohibition) and I will argue that it does prove my point mentioned in the opening line of this paragraph. X amount of people drank alcohol pre prohibition. Prohibition legislation passed and the number of people drinking alcohol had to have dropped slightly. Yes, I realize that it created a black market for booze, but a logical person would agree that there were some people who obeyed the law. At this point you had X minus law abiding citizens (and yes, I can imagine the snide remarks about statistical insignificance just made) Prohibition ended, those law abiding non drinkers could once again be law abiding drinkers, so X should be restored to it's previous value. A little simplistic? Perhaps. Your mockery is welcome and expected.

Now to be fair, I made the above arguements without apparent gender discrimination, and I was specifically asked to argue about girls having more sex. Since it was implied that person # 2 had paid attention during sex ed classes past the part about intercourse, it would be statistically likely that person # 2 would be female. At this point I will revert back to my sexist roots. If I am wrong, please react out of thoughtful intelligence and not just the mantra that any thought hinting of sexism must be without merit.

Beginning from a safe vantage point, there used to be a severe double standard. Men could sleep around without being looked down upon as much as the women who slept with them. This applied to basically the whole male population, which we will label Y. (Y? because it's my blog, and I can have all the pun I want to with it). Now to clarify, we have Y representing the whole male population enjoying the double standard. Inclusion in the group Y does not mean you are sexually active, just that the double standard is in your favor. Any arguements that Y should not include the whole male population? Didn't really think so.

Now, what possible limits are there on Y? Under this double standard, we have the shame and disgrace placed on the women who sleep with them. We will call this group XX. Group XX is sub group under group X which we will (obviously) label as the entire female population. With me so far? So, at this point, the only limit on group Y is the availability of partners in group XX. At this point neither group X minus XX or group XX by itself equals group Y. We realize that this double standard is unfair. So, how did we go about changing this inequality? Have you ever stopped to consider how sexist it was? There were two options on the table. Option 1 was to impose the same societal disapproval on group Y that was dividing group X into X and XX. Instead, society with it's guilt phobias chose option 2. We took group Y and said "you're never going to change, and we won't make you, so we're going to increase group XX by removing the double standard". At this point, group Y said- "More XX equals more partners for us, we like it." So, we lowered the standard for X instead of raising the standard for Y. The statistics are on my side of the arguement on whether or not more sex with more partners resulted. However, the double standard didn't go away completely, because group Y didn't change abit.

So, to sum up my arguement, why should women control the amount of sex? Because men won't and aren't demanded by society to do so. Should men be as responsible and accountable as women are? Yes. Why aren't we working to bring men up to the level of responsibility and reproach we place on women? Because it's easier for men if we just drag women down to our level with empty promises of equality. How we convince them that equality in the gutter is better than standing above us on the sidewalk, I'll never know. It used to be that a man had to climb out of the gutter to find the woman of his dreams. Now, the women in the gutter are looking for a good man and shocked that they can't find one, the women on the sidewalk are wondering why all the men are staying in the gutter, and the whole world wonders why sexually transmitted diseases are here to stay. It's because the group Y is perfectly happy to stay in the gutter and never grow up as long as there are enough XX down there to please them. The world will not be able to reduce stds to a nuisance until responsible sex is sought after by both sexes. Currently, it's still group X carrying the torch, folks. Decades of sex ed hasn't changed that. Now, our definitions of responsible sex may be different. We would probably agree that having an std and having sex with someone who doesn't, spreads the std. You might argue that a vaccine would have the negate that effect. See reference to Douglas county mumps. Any questions?

I'd argue not to share your stds by not having sex with multiple partners who then pass it on themselves. Monogamous sex means thatif you find you have an std, it dies with you and your partner. Harsh? Yes. But love sometimes means protecting people you want to have sex with, instead of screwing with them and their life, and the lives of people they might love in the future.

If this conservative male can agree with the feminist (and wifely) notion that men left to themselves are pigs (at least group Y has statistically overwhelmingly more swine that group X) why is he sexist for wanting men to be more than pigs and to reach up to be the men that women keep complaining they can't find? The alternative is to keep shortchanging group X with the homeless/deadbeat/jobless/loser male group to choose from. If men never aspire to be more than pigs, what else will they be? The sad answer is that female pigs only produce happier male pigs. I know several non-pig men, and it's because they see the horrors of pig life and desire to be something better, to be the equal of their partner through upward movement, and not downward movement on their partner's part. I hope to find you, my dear reader, on that upward course.

Apparently, it may not be true.

2006-05-19T14:14:00.000-06:00

How could this even be true?

Again, responding to an EB comment

2006-05-18T10:23:00.000-06:00

"There is no hope of getting independents elected to most positions. There is far too much corruption in the way our system is run."

"And I have to say, I'm not really pleased with the tone of these last posts. I believe you're making my arguments into straw men to refute them, and that you're not exactly respecting opposing points of view. i.e. "this is a hard concept to convince anyone who doesn't get simple economics.""

hmm.

"Yeah, that must be it. Us silly liberals have no idea how the world works. And that's why Exxon's billions-quarterly profit is so good for me, and why Enron did what they did, because they thought they could get away with it. This is a great system you've got here. I can't afford to fill up my gas tank, but trickle down is sure helping me out."

Strangely enough, I am filling up my gas tank and driving 60 miles a day, at least 6 days a week. This is with my 0 degrees of education. I also don't see that many people foregoing gasoline. Is gasoline more expensive? Yes, but no more so than in more "progressive" countries such as our european friends. As far as why Exxon's "profits" are so good for you, I'm sure you realize that any oil company starts off with oil at a certain price, refines it and then sells it. As gas prices rise in response to the current price of oil, any oil at the previous lower price does indeed turn a huge profit at the pump. However, that profit then has to used for the newer price oil. Any business without profits doesn't hang around long. To repeat my argument, any profits they make, eye-popping as they may seem (did you know only 30% of those profits were made in the US, or was that missing from the headlines?) must be then partially reinvested into the next round of oil they refine. Rising oil prices eat into those "profits". Those profits are also used to fund the shareholder's retirement plans. This is my easy segue into Enron and other companies that lied about their profits. I'm not seeing the connection between Enron and Exxon, as Exxon apparently has made good for it's shareholders and not without bankrupted them like Enron did. I realize capitalism isn't the preferred method of many in the progressive movement. However, I'm sure that EB and others are aware of the growing demand for gasoline in countries such as China and India. This is the supply and demand part of simple economics that gets lost in the soundbytic complaints about higher gas prices. I am confident that EB understands supply and demand, can admit that more people are demanding more gas, and that the price will inevitably rise. I realize that this may seem overly simplistic, but it isn't as simplistic or erroneous as the "evil companies will take all my money that they can". In response to the rising gas prices, the democrat party which EB would prefer to be in power suggested a "windfall profit tax". How this would solve the higher gas prices has yet to be explained to me. My simple brain reasons that the oil companies would pass that tax onto the consumer, resulting in even higher gas prices.

Now, when I pointed out that the economy was doing well, my friend came back with retorts about Enron (which happened almost 5 years ago, I believe) and gas prices. To address the all his points, Enron's current effect on the current economy is questionable, as it doesn't seem to be holding it down any longer. I realize it fits his "evil companies" model that hurt alot of trusting investors. Perhaps he can point out it's relevance.

"I enjoy debating with you, but I'd appreciate it if you'd address my points, and not overly-simplistic versions of my points."

I would point out that I am not as well-educated as my learned friend, and over simplistic versions of his points may be all my brain is able to understand. However, I appreciate his continued thoughtful patronage of this site, due to the fact if he left, my readership would be cut in half.

Until then I remain (insert label here).

Ranting stream of consciousness madness

2006-05-17T15:57:00.000-06:00

First, humor.

Dance

Next, ramblings with a little sarcasm for good measure.

"70% of the American people don't want Abortion outlawed. So why do Democrats hesitate to use it? Is it because they're stupid, or because Republicans do a better job of controlling the terms of the debate?"

So.. either the democrats are stupid or the republicans are outwitting them at debates. Repetitive, anyone? As far as the 70%, apparently the percentage of the voting public is much smaller, seeing as how the last 4 elections came out roughly half and half on the issue. I'd guess it's about 50/50 right in the voting public right now.

"I will agree with you that the Democrats are a huge disappointment right now. But they didn't lie to lead us into a war, they're not the ones engaged in warrant-less wiretapping, they're not the ones who pushed through electronic voting machines with no paper trail, nor the ones who believe in corporate welfare and helping the rich at the expense of the rest of us."

And they are also not the ones the american public placed in power. Hmm.. so, the republicans lied to get into war. Heard that one before. The republicans are engaged in warrant-less wiretapping of domestic-international calls. Ditto. And yet the american public doesn't want the president impeached yet? What more can the man get away with before the idiotic american public dumps him? Is it possible that the american public has heard the president disparaged so much that they no longer listen or care? Have the wolf criers been caught by the wolf?

Is it possible that helping the "rich" helps us all? Granted, this is a hard concept to convince anyone of who doesn't get simple economics. Tax breaks on the rich means they have more money to spend, which trickles down to the rest of us. Hence the roaring economy. How can I tell it's roaring? The mainstream media has simply stopped disparaging it. As far as the democrats, when have they actually fixed a problem they ran on? Every election it's "education, social security, and medicare need salvation", and those problems never seem to get better.

Republicans pushed through paperless voting machines.. Damn. I guess democrats will never win again now that those pesky republicans control the voting system. I don't see any hope for the 06 elections now.

"I'm unhappy with the Democrats, and I myself am an independent, but I'll continue to argue that despite their flaws the Dems are at least a favorable alternative to a corrupt administration that tramples all over civil rights."

If the democrats won't stand against Bush now, what hope are you holding out for when they are in power? When will an independent run on a platform that will get her/him elected? Why won't they run on ending those programs that "trample civil rights"? Is it because they'll keep the same programs when they are in power? Anyone remember who wiretapped Martin Luther King Jr? Is it possible that politicians will, as littlehootowl suggests, simply be eternally corrupted by power? Is it that neither republicans or democrats on the national level listen to their base anymore? Is it that the american public after decades of being spoonfed the great progressive educational and news media systems only has time to listen to soundbytes before deciding who to vote for? If EB is right, the Democrats and Independents have a long, tough road to hoe. That, or they feel the progressive vote is guaranteed them. Marshwiggle sympathizes with this plight, as the pro-life vote has long been taken for granted by the slightly less pro-abortion republican party.

Thoughts after reading luaphacim

2006-05-17T12:00:00.000-06:00

To address luaphacim's blog points-

I would posit that the "doing something in the name of Christ" should be changed to "following Christ's teaching". As to the placing of their opponents in "opposition to Christ and then in alliance to the world, the flesh, and/or the Devil." Christians believe that God is either for or against you, without the muddy vague nuances that are used to as smoke screens to justify immoral behavior.

1.) While I agree the choice of words "to take back" is not the correct phrase, as American was not a christian nation, rather a nation who's laws were based on a judeo-christian morality, with a greco-roman political system, I would reiterate that this christian nationalism movement is a backlash to the progressive movement. Has it gone to extremes and not known where to stop? Perhaps it has. Any movement tends to go overboard in order to accomplish anything. The moral imperative is in the fact that left to the progressive movement, the USA becomes increasing unfriendly to the christian nationalists, and the government sponsors what CN's view as a humanist religion. Hence the accuracy of the view in their minds that "things will remain in a state of undesirable disarray, and right cannot possibly prevail."

2.) No argument that state sponsorship corrupts religion. However, would the world have turned out better without Constantine/Crusades? The question I have, is what would have filled the vacuum if those entities had been removed?

3.) Unfortunately, with christianity, as with any other religion, it truly is an "us vs. them". If your religion isn't exclusive, it isn't worth having, because it's equal to whatever else is out there for you to believe. As far as dragging Christ's name through the dirt, that's a sad reality that will happen regardless of what "christians" do. When your very belief system is different from other beliefs, alienation is unavoidable.

4.) Tongue in cheek, Marshwiggle would point out that hysterectomies do more to prevent children than clitorectomies. However, luaphacim seems to miss the point that individual morality is legislated. Whether christian nationalist morality or progressive morality, it is indeed written/interpreted into law. Thus the two sides war over not over morality, but over "which morality", as an absence of either is simply not going to happen. Christian nationalists would most likely view legislating adultery as the next step in winning back the culture wars.

5.) It will not be over one day, but the living of a christian life often means to stand for something. The call to be salt and light is to be a force that not everyone likes or agrees with. Salt is a preservative, and light removes darkness and shows life as it should be. Both can be quite irritating, although not as irritating as yours truly.

2006-05-17T07:56:00.000-06:00

"You might wish to consider the way issues are framed if you're really interested in why Democrats have trouble gaining ground. When you and every other Republican in the world calls them all unprincipled hypocrites who have none of their own issues, the prophesy becomes self-fullfilling.

That doesn't excuse Democratic cowardice, but does help to explain why Democrats are afraid to run on even the issues the majority of the public agrees upuon.

...oh, and as one who has two degrees and is currently unemployed and looking hard for work, I suggest that you might rethink your frame that work ethic is enough. I'm not pleased with the implication that "us lazy progressives" don't work hard simply because we don't share your belief in the perfection of corperate Capitalism." -Evil Bender

So... EB's position is that Republicans have enough sway with the american public that the Democrats can't speak for themselves and be believed. Wow.

Or in other words, if the Republicans say the Democrats will do X, then the Democrats will inevitably do X. Again, Wow.

Per EB, democrats are afraid to run on issues the majority of the public agrees on. What can they run on then? Seriously, how long can you support a party that won't really run on what you want? How can you support a party that you feel will generally speak one way but vote another out of fear?

And yet, EB's hopes hang on the same spineless democrats winning the house/senate back this election year. Marshwiggle is suggesting that current democratic leadership will not do what EB hopes. Marshwiggle hopes that EB will find the politicians that will do justice to EB's thoughtful requests and run in a way to make EB proud. Marshwiggle is seeking politicians that will do the same for him.

And.. as one who has no degrees and in his fourth year with the same employer, and has been willing to work fast food and grocery jobs in order to build a work history, I know the jobs are out there.. But they don't just fall in your lap. Marshwiggle knows how hard it can be to find a job that "fits" you. Best of luck to EB who Marshwiggle believes does have a great work ethic inherited from his parents. Marshwiggle remembers working alongside EB as a volunteer and has no questions about EB's work ethic. Marshwiggle fails to see why EB interpreted the admonition to the Christian nationalists as an insult against progressives. Does EB feel it is wrong for Christian nationalists to encourage a work ethic? This would simply provide less drainage on progressive programs like welfare, enabling those programs to do more for the truly impoverished. In addition, more workers = more tax dollars into those programs. Marshwiggle fails to understand why EB would oppose christian nationalists working hard and funding via tax dollars such programs that progressives have demonstrated the clear need for.

Of politics and religion, a bedtime story.

2006-05-16T10:30:00.000-06:00

Once upon a time, soldiers came out of a huge war, back to a country which decided to honor them with government programs that enabled many of them to go to college and buy housing, building a basis for unprecedented prosperity. These soldiers quickly had families to go with their new education and housing, creating a baby boom. Their children are where this story really begins. These soldiers and their families had had their fill of war, and the peace that their parents had bought was greatly prized. There was a two party system at this time, in a nation that was great but still had it's faults. The children grew up with the chance due to their parent's increased status to change the world that they knew, and they formed a political movement, which we will label as progressive. This sprang out of frustration of what they felt were the restrictive and hypocritical double standards of a moral society, one in which oppression could be tolerated and personal freedoms restricted on the basis of skin color or financial status. They wished for, and fought for progress (hence the label), for women's equality and the civil rights of all people regardless of skin color. This movement corrected serious wrongs within the society, through a checkered method of civil disobedience, riots, and political movements. They removed religion from the schools, and revised history books to separate the church from the state instead of simply keeping the state out of the church as intended. Their ideals were to create a tolerant, non judgmental society with open doors for everyone, and to do so, they had to remove anyone whose views were judgmental, especially views tied up in religion. Their most effective method of doing this was to point out any hypocrisy found in the practitioners of aforementioned religion, and they found many examples. The most effective platforms for denouncing this hypocrisy came via the classroom and the news media. Ironically, when they fought for equality for women and racial minorities, they shamed the religious communities which had hypocritically failed to adequately address these issues. Having largely won the battles over civil rights and women's equality at work and play, they picked up some new causes, namely rights based upon sexual identity and continued their fight to remove any religious mention from the public arena.

At this point in the story, we will examine the backlash to this movement, which came as a reaction to the progressive movement. We will for simplicity's sake, label it as the christian nationalist movement. These people were largely made up of the generation following the baby boomers. They disagreed with the evolutionary theories taught by the progressives, whether abortion should be legal, and whether any and every one who felt discriminated against based on his/her perceived identity should have rights beyond those allotted to every citizen.The irony of this movement is that it in fact copied many of the same tactics used by the progressives, with civil disobedience protests, and use of the educational system to indoctrinate their children. Since progressives controlled the school system, many of these parents pulled their children from public school and placed them in private, religious, or home schools. Obsessed with the idea that their country was founded upon a high moral ground, they looked for and found quotes by the founding fathers that supported this idea, and taught these ideals to their children. At the time of this story, the progressives and the christian nationalists are probably at about equal strength politically. However, the continuation of political view points means that each side must gain converts to consolidate political power. On the side of the progressives is the educational system. On the side of the christian nationalists is the sheer number of children they are willing to spawn and indoctrinate. Ironically, the very choice of personal freedom to abort a pregnancy that the progressives fought for has contributed to fewer of their own children to raise to their ideals. No such problem exists for the christian nationalists who tend to have large enough families that they can lose one or two children to the progressive movement in school, and still have 3 or 4 who turn out with their religious viewpoints. The christian nationalist movement has formed an uneasy alliance with the catholic church, figuring that any morality is better than no morality at all. The progressives have formed an uneasy alliance with anyone wiling to fight against the evil christian fundamentalists. Another irony noted is that the hispanic influx into the United States (being fought for by the progressives and rallied against by the christian nationalists) will bring with it a catholic morality that is against the very ideals of the progressives.

So, how can the progressives win? Keep teaching evolution, start having more of your own children, and quiet anyone you label religiously intolerant. If you allow them to continue talking, you will find there are enough simpletons in states like Kansas to reject your ideals. Mockery doesn't seem to stop them, because they seem unimpressed with the vast intellect you display in mocking them, and it seems to build their sense of religious duty. If you wish to stop them, indoctrinate their children into your fold. You have to, just to keep up, because laws change in this country based on majority votes. Come up with ideas that the public supports, and then run on them. If you can't win, then you don't have public support, and you need to make you ideas more palatable.

And how can the christian nationalists win? Live out your convictions, and vote accordingly. Raise your children to be hardworking, non welfare recipients who have a sense of personal responsibility and a sense of ownership. These children will have little time for the lofty failed theories of a human utopia and will simply try to live their lives as best they can. Secondly, pray. If you are truly on your God's side, then let Him show Himself powerful through you as you live as He wants you to. Ignore the negative clamoring from people who wish to dismiss you as a hypocrite, and if they are correct, admit your wrong and replace it with right. Then stand back up and keep up the fight.

And off this topic, Marshwiggle didn't even know worldnut daily existed, and has no support for the tasteless and off color comment regarding rounding up illegals.

Marshwiggle would also like to note that saying "democrats are dishonest too" does not make the republicans "right". However, has anyone else considered that perhaps the reason the democrats haven't gained any ground against what they consider to be the worst president in history might be the fact the american public views them as simply crying wolf? It appears to Marshwiggle that the democrats are dumbfounded as to why noone listens to them after 6 years of the "Bush is evil and dumb" mantra. My advice to the dems is to stand up and run on your own issues, but it appears they don't actually have the same convictions they pay lip service to. How can you convince the american people if you don't act on what you believe? So.. find someone who will run on what they say, and see if america buys it. Otherwise, those big bully republicans will keep you down with the same old playbook.

Marshwiggle still disagrees with domestic wiretapping and resents the apparent ignorance of those who assume that the government listens to every phone call. There are two separate programs here. One program requests phone records from telcoms (which Qwest denied) and the other listened in on international to domestic calls. Two programs.. Both of which were reported back in November. When will anti-Bushies realize that exaggerating and or misreporting what you think Bush did wrong on several instances leads people to not believing you at all? Note the apparent apathy of the american public, and compare it to the same apathy that was there when Clinton was in his scandals. Remember when your party used the same apathy? Why are you shocked it still exists?

And to finish, why vote for someone that without the courage to do what they think is right? Bush apparently has it, however wrong you think he is, and people seem to vote for it. Interesting concept.

Dishonest dealings across the board, eh?

2006-05-12T12:25:00.000-06:00

To touch upon the latest political scandal-

"Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts called the program "abusive" and said "Today's shocking disclosures make it more important than ever for the Republican Congress to end its complicity in the White House cover up of its massive domestic surveillance program. When three major telephone companies are supplying the administration with records of all Americans regardless of any hint of wrongdoing, Congress can't look the other way." Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat of Tennessee, went on Fox News Channel to call the news "disturbing." Senator Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disturbed."

Mrs. Clinton might want to have a talk with her husband. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible."

The above needs no commentary from me. However, the link is here.

I would challenge those who feel that Bush is the evil incarnate to find a democrat to run on a platform of abolishing those programs they find so offensive. Please let me know when you find one.

Bush will propose on monday to station the National Guard at the border. And here I was afraid the Democrats would actually run on border security this year. Damn that Bush for stealing another issue from them.

Look folks... I understand those who don't like Bush. I don't understand otherwise intelligent people who misrepresent themselves and everyone else while calling out "dishonesty". The charge that Bush lied in order to get us into war would be valid if G.W. had been sounding that call without assent from the entire US political system. Show me your leader who opposed the war from the beginning and didn't vote for it. They can make that charge. If the Bush you feel is an idiot mislead your representative, you need a new representative who isn't fooled by that brilliant moron in the white house. Face the facts, either our entire political system along with the accepted world intelligence lied to us, or everyone was fooled. It wasn't just Bush lying to you, although I'm sure that that is a nice soundbyte to vent anger into. Just be honest with yourself and look at the facts as they happened. I am old enough to have been alive and intelligent during the time those "facts" were presented to us, and when a congress made up of both parties voted to go to war. If your position is that the war is bad, I respect that. However, argue logically and truthfully.

Thank you, and now please point out my character flaws.
(insert label here)

Touching political news

2006-05-05T13:45:00.000-06:00

Marshwiggle muses over the differential treatment of Congressman Kennedy vs. McKinney, and comes to the conclusion that a factor in the treatment of Kennedy was the McKinney incident.

However, Marshwiggle applauds Congressman Patrick Kennedy for checking into rehab for a pain medication addiction. Best wishes are sent his way, and here's to the hope he can regain his normal life back. Marshwiggle also applauds Kennedy's statement that he will take responsibility for his actions.

Kansas has set the minimum marriage age at 15. Marshwiggle is still looking to meet a fifteen year old mature enough for marriage, let alone serious multi-year dating, although Marshwiggle knows several who consider themselves to be so.

As if a fake cloning fiasco was not enough, now Korea has EveR-1 to be proud of. Marshwiggle can guess what the next developments will be.

Marshwiggle hopes to have amused you with the above information. Time to turn your minds back on, folks.

Until later, I remain (insert label here)